ID: nht78-3.6

DATE: 09/07/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Motorcycle Trades Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the "edge treatment" requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, as they would apply to rigid or flexible plastics to be used for windshields on motorcycles. You asked for confirmation that one-piece plastics are required to meet the edge treatment requirements set forth in the standard for non-laminated glass.

The edge treatment requirements of Standard No. 205 are specified in paragraph S5.2, which incorporates by reference the SAE Recommended Practice J673a, "Automotive Glazing," August 1967. The SAE Practice specifies different requirements for "tempered" and "laminated" safety glass. The agency interprets the distinctions to apply equally to plastics. Therefore, one-piece plastic materials must meet the edge treatment requirements specified for "tempered" glazing, and laminated plastics must meet the requirements specified for "laminated" glazing.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Motorcycle Trades Association, Inc.

June 13, 1978

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS No. 205 Paragraph S 5.2

In the above-mentioned section, edges of glazing materials (except in school buses) that are exposed must meet the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J673a, August 1967.

The usual practice in the motorcycle industry is to use rigid or flexible plastics for windscreens and windshields for motorcycles. In most cases, these plastics meet the requirements of the ANSI Z26 standard in full; occasionally, these materials may use the (Illegible Word) from the chemical tests in Z26 when used in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

SAE J673a in virtually all of its wording speaks specifically of "Safety glass" and the edge treatment requirements differ for "tempered" and "laminated" materials. Please confirm for us that one-piece (that is, non-laminated) plastics materials are required to meet the edge treatment requirements set forth for non-laminated glass in the SAE standard.

Thank you for your assistance,

Bruce Henderson Vice-President, MTA

ID: nht78-3.7

DATE: 01/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 9, 1977, asking whether the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, permits the use of plastic glazing in school buses.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 205, as amended December 5, 1977 (42 FR 61465), allows the use of rigid plastic glazing in doors and windows of all buses, including school buses. Please note, however, that plastics cannot be used for bus windshields or in doors or windows to the immediate right or left of the driver.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

December 9, 1977

Hugh Oates -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oates:

RE: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 as amended by the Federal Register Docket #71-1, Notice #6, published 12-5-77

On December 5, 1977, a notice was published in the Federal Register amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205, glazing material, which added to the list specified in ANS Z26, items 4 and 5 allowing the use of plastics in the side windows of buses. My question is, does this also include the use of items 4 and 5 of the ANS Z26 Standard in school buses.

Sincerely,

Joe Wall, Asst. Director -- Vehicle Inspection Division

ID: nht78-3.8

DATE: 05/12/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Susan H. Soodek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safety Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.

The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.

Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federal safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.

I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition for rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.

I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safety standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & ACCESSORIES ASSOCIATION

March 30, 1978

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to request a formal interpretation of FMVSS #205, Glazing Materials, as to the permissibility of reflective material. In addition, we have posed specific questions under #205 regarding federal jurisdiction and applicability of the Standard. Our desire is to prevent the possible emergence of fifty varying state laws governing reflectance.

May we provide an explanation of our interest, and previous communication with the NHTSA on the subject.

APAA is a national trade association representing nearly 1400 manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors, and independent sales agents doing business in the volume aftermarket industry. Among our members are manufacturers of a variety of window covering materials, including screens, reflective materials, and tinted materials.

As a service to these manufacturers and our retailers, we attempt to keep abreast of state laws bearing upon the sale and use of various window covering materials. The following states have enacted regulations prohibiting nontransparent or reflective windows: Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia. The states of California and Pennsylvania are considering the same. Lesser restrictions exist in Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas. With only two exceptions, the terms "nontransparent" and "reflective" are undefined and enforcement is left to the judgement of police, the Highway Patrol, or an inspection official. (See enclosed APAA prepared summary bulletin). This lack of definition has resulted in violations for windows which actually complied with federal visibility requirements as defined by ANSI Z26.

Yet, some of the states have demanded recall of reflective windows, the related costs and logistical problems of which severely disrupt interstate commerce and can drive a small manufacturer out of business. Uniformity, through federal preemption, would allow our manufacturers to comply in "good faith" with reflectance requirements.

On March 13, Mr. Guy Hunter (engineer) and Mr. Hugh Oates (legal adviser) to FMVSS # 205 met with Mr. Russ Simmons of West Custom Windows, an APAA-member company, Mr. Julian C. Morris, APAA President, and myself to discuss the association's request for an amendment to the standard to address reflectance levels.

We were advised the NHTSA may be considering the reflectance issue in response to a petition filed last year by the California Highway Patrol. May we be furnished with a copy of the CHP's petition and be apprised of rulemaking status?

Presumably, the Administration has not previously addressed reflectivity in FMVSS #205 because reflective windows have not created an established safety hazard. However, could not an amendment be made on the basis of benefits in safety from filtering out glare or benefits in fuel economy from the insulation properties of reflective material? What type of data is acceptable to demonstrate that establishing an acceptable percentage reflectance level would result in safety and fuel economy benefits?

A legal opinion from your office would provide clarification that the federal standard does not prohibit reflective material. The crux of the problem, it would appear, lies in applicability of FMVSS #205. At the March 13 meeting at NHTSA headquarters, staff advised us that the standard applies to the vehicle manufacturer, not the motorist. Are the states then on sound legal ground to regulate the vehicle owner, even a state's interpretation of "nontransparency" is stricter than the visibility definition incorporated by #205?

Your response to these questions will, hopefully, provide reasonable guidelines for dealing with the existing ambiguities.

Susan H. Soodek Assistant Director, Government Affairs & Liaison

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: nht78-3.9

DATE: 03/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: O'Sullivan Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1978, to Mr. Guy Hunter of my staff, requesting assignment of a "DOT" code number for purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You state that you supply vinyl plastic sheeting to your customer who, in turn, laminates and polishes this sheeting for use as glazing in the rear window opening of convertibles.

Under paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 (a copy was previously mailed to you), the assignment of a code number is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers. Prime glazing material manufacturers are those who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. Since you merely supply the material to your customer who then laminates and polishes it for use as glazing, you are not considered the prime manufacturer and assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate. Your customer is the prime manufacturer in this case and it is his responsibility to certify that his glazing meets the requirements by the means specified in FMVSS No. 205.

If I can be of further help, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

O'Sullivan Corporation

February 3, 1978

Guy Hunter -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY & TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

We used to calender clear vinyl plastic sheeting which was subsequently laminated and polished and used in the automobile rear windows.

Our former customer recently ordered another quantity of this plastic. We understand that suppliers of this type of materials must obtain a D.O.T. number and we would appreciate having one assigned to us.

Yours very truly,

R. C. Evans, Vice President Director of Research & Development

cc: J. S. Campbell; C. R. Creamer; N. R. Hamblin

ID: nht78-4.1

DATE: 03/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: The Reynolds and Reynolds Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 3, 1978, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review your small Odometer Mileage Statement Form ODOM-1030N, your large Odometer Mileage Statement Form ODOM-105-N, and your Retail Buyers Order. It is our opinion that the forms which you submitted meet the Federal odometer requirements which became effective January 1, 1978. Thank you for your cooperation in preparing the forms.

ID: nht78-4.10

DATE: 09/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, whether turn signal systems installed on mopeds must meet the standard's requirements. One of NHTSA's engineers has informally advised you, in your words, "that because turn signal units on mopeds are not required devices. . . they are not required to meet the specific requirements in FMVSS 108 relative to motorcycles as long as they do not affect the operation of the other required equipment."

We are pleased that Vespa is considering installing turn signal lamps on motor vehicles that S4.1.1.26 excuses from having them. If you wish to install systems that you intend to comply with Standard No. 108 and which for one reason or another fail to do so, it is doubtful that NHTSA would take any action against Vespa since the equipment is clearly optional and added only at a manufacturer's discretion. We would also view as preempted under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act any State action either to require turn signal lamps on mopeds or to establish requirements for such were they added at the option of the manufacturer.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

SINCERELY,

vespa of america corporation

July 3, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

It is suggested, by Mr. George Shifflet, that an official comment should be solicited from your office to verify our interpretation regarding voluntary equipment of turn signal systems on mopeds (motorized bicycles).

It has been the understanding of Vespa of America Corporation that if a piece of equipment is offered on a moped which is exempted from its requirement (as turn signal systems are exempted as specified - FMVSS 108 Sec. S4.1.1.26) than that piece of equipment must meet all requirements set forth in the respective FMVS Standard.

During my phone conversation with Mr. Shifflet, he offered information to the contrary. He stated, that because turn signal units on mopeds are not required devices under FMVS Standards, they are not required to meet the specific requirements in FMVSS 108 relative to motorcycles as long as they do not affect the operation of the other required equipment.

If Mr. Shifflet's statement is true, then existing State requirements would apply to moped turn signal units.

I am anxiously awaiting your comments as they are the basis for our action. I remain,

Donald Beyer National Service Manager

ID: nht78-4.11

DATE: 10/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You referred to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J571d, referenced in Standard No. 108, which specifies dimensions for rectangular headlamp retaining rings in its Figure 8(B). The table of dimensions in Figure 8 specifies a maximum of 1.52 mm for the "N" dimension on the drawing, the distance of the forward portion of the retaining ring from the lens surface. You stated that Toyota plans to increase that dimension by an unspecified amount for ornamental purposes.

You further advised that the proposed design would not interfere with the ability of the headlamps to meet the performance requirements of SAE J580a and b and of the mechanical aiming requirements of SAE J602c.

Since Figure 8(B) of SAE J571d shows that the "K" dimension shall not exceed 1.52 mm, any greater dimension would not meet the specifications of the standard. However, you may petition for rulemaking to appropriately amend Standard No. 108. We cannot, however, offer any assurance that the standard would be changed in response to your petition.

SINCERELY,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

September 6, 1978

Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

RE: Interpretation Request of FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

This is to request your interpretation of SAE J 571d with regard to the retaining ring for 4 x 6 1/2 inch rectangular headlamps, as quoted in FMVSS 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment."

According to Fig. 8 (B) of SAE J 571d, the forward portion of the retaining ring from the lens surface is limited to 1.52mm ("K" MAX). However, we feel that as long as the performance requirements specified in SAE J 580 a and b, and the aiming requirements specified in SAE J 602c are conformed (Illegible Word), it is not necessary to restrict "K" MAX to 1.52mm.

We are planning to introduce some models with 4 x 6 1/2 inch rectangular headlamps in the near future. The retaining ring is extended ahead, and is formed into a part of the ornamental door or bezel. (See attached drawing.) This retaining ring, as illustrated, is designed so that the opening dimension "L" must comply with the dimension required by the applicable SAE J 571d, "Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit." The ring's frame portion "M," which is relatively wider in flatness, as indicated, is made to be securely fitted with an aimer specified in SAE J 602c, "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit," when the headlamps are mechanically aimed.

This headlamp housing can fully comply with the requirements of functional performance (such as headlamp aiming adjustment, vibration resistance, and so on) specified in the applicable SAE J 580 a and b, "Sealed Beam Headlamp assembly," as referred to in the current FMVSS No. 108.

We would appreciate your interpretation of this information at your earliest possible convenience.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

M. YANADA for J. Kawano Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

cc: M. V. ELLIOTT, OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA

Attached Drawing

4 x 6 1/2 in. Rectangular Headlamp Retaining Ring

(Dimension: mm)

Retaining ring extended to a part of ornamental bezel

Note: "L": 92.98 +/- 1.30X133.42 +/- 1.30 (SAE required dimension)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-4.12

DATE: 11/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard are enclosed.

In confirmation of your meeting with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, and Schwartz, you are correct in stating that vehicle description section (VDS) informational content can change from model year, to model year even though the actual characters in the VDS remain the same. All changes in the informational content of the VDS must, of course, be submitted to the NHTSA as required in S6 of the standard.

As you point out in your letter, "dividers" which would appear at the beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic nor numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

In your meeting with NHTSA staff, you requested clarification concerning which manufacturer identifier should be used when the vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another. In this instance, the manufacturer identifier of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle's compliance with safety standards should be used. You have also asked for a definition of the term "transfer document." A "transfer document" will vary in content from manufacturer to manufacturer, but means the document(s) given to the owner of the vehicle for use when the vehicle is being titled.

We would also call to your attention proposed changes to the standard contained in the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed changes are adopted, the check digit would be placed in the fourth position of the VIN, and the first and second characters of the VDS, which immediately follow the check digit, would be alphabetic.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

September 8, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: VW/NHTSA Meeting on Vehicle Identification Numbers

Dear Mr. Levin:

On September 8, 1978, representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss FMVSS 115, the Final Rule on Vehicle Identification Numbers as published in the Federal Register of August 17, 1978.

VW explained that the vehicle identification numbering system it adopts must be compatible with the new NHTSA VIN rule, various international regulations and its own internal purposes. VW indicated that the NHTSA Final Rule had furthered compatibility by changing the position of the VIN check digit from the third to the second section.

VW presented to the NHTSA representatives its proposed concept for fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS 115 including the reporting system (see attachment). NHTSA agreed that the same five digit code within the second section could be used, even if the characteristics of the specific attributes change, for example horsepower or displacement increases from one model year to a new model year. NHTSA also observed that the key used for reporting and deciphering the attributes will consist of the WMI, the five characters of the second section and the model year.

VW described the Common Market directive requiring the use of so-called "dividers" at the beginning and end of the vehicle identification number. These "dividers" are characters which are not part of the VIN and would be in the nature of a star, asterisk or company logo. NHTSA indicated that dividers can be used for vehicles sold in the U.S. provided the VIN is distinct and the divider could not be confused as part of the VIN.

VW requested a clarification as to the meaning of "transfer documents." NHTSA informed VW that "transfer documents" were the official documents needed for titling a vehicle in accordance with state requirements.

VW described the manufacturing process involved in production of its Type 2 Camper vehicle and Scirocco. The Camper's final stage and the Scirocco are assembled by other companies. VW assumes full responsibility for both of these finished vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA agreed that VW's WMI should be used for these vehicles.

We appreciate the willingness of NHTSA to meet with us in order to clarify several aspects of the final VIN rule. It is our intent to institute VIN and reporting systems in accordance with these interpretations by NHTSA.

Sincerely,

Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. Washington Representative

[Attachment Omitted]

ID: nht78-4.13

DATE: 11/28/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR V. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safet related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

ID: nht79-3.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. T. F. Eagleton - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 23, 1979, letter asking whether brakes installed in vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be modified or disconnected.

Your question asks whether these brake systems can be rendered inoperative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Whether a portion of the air brake system can be rendered inoperative depends, therefore, upon whether that part of the brake system was installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded that portions of the braking systems installed in compliance with the sections of Standard No. 121 that were invalidated by the court were not installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Accordingly, these devices can be disconnected by a commercial facility. In general, this means that the antilock devices installed on trucks and trailers may be disconnected or removed. However, other components of the braking system that were installed in compliance with the remaining applicable sections of the standard may not be rendered inoperative by a commercial facility. Therefore, entire braking systems cannot be removed from trucks and trailers. The NHTSA recommends that any modification of the braking systems be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

In a related question, you ask who will bear the cost of disconnecting the braking systems, the manufacturer or the purchaser. We believe that the cost of modifying the braking system, depending on the circumstances, is a matter that may be negotiated between the parties.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

August 23, 1979.

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: A constituent of mine has written inquiring as to the guidelines for dealing with operative 121 brake systems in view of the recission of the regulation. He is concerned that continued operation of the brakes could be hazardous, but understandably he is reluctant to disconnect the brakes without some assurance he would not be libel.

A related question has to do with the cost of disconnecting and modifying 121 brakes. Does the manufacturer bear this responsibility or is it left to the purchaser of the vehicle?

I'd appreciate having your comments on these questions at the earliest time.

Thomas F. Eagleton United States Senator