Interpretation ID: nht79-1.5

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable S. I. Hayakawa United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Hayakawa:

This responds to your October 25, 1979, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr. Morrill N. Farr asking about the agency's air brake standard. Mr. Farr also asked about the highway use tax. We understand that the Federal Highway Administration will respond to you directly with an answer to that question.

With respect to the air brake standard, Mr. Farr asked whether the Government would reimburse him for a portion of the costs of installing the no lockup portion of his air brake system. Mr. Farr stated that a court has held the no lockup requirement of the air brake standard invalid, and accordingly, the Government should reimburse vehicle owners for the installation of no lockup systems that have been proven to be faulty.

The court in PACCAR v. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978) cert. den'd 439 U.S. 862 (October 2, 1978), stated that the no lockup portions of the standard were invalid because some of the systems constructed in accordance with the requirements were unreliable. The court also indicated that a proper no lockup device could substantially improve the safety of vehicles. Our air brake standard does not specify a particular design or construction of brake system. It is a performance standard, and manufacturers are free to choose any design or construction that complies with the performance requirements. The fact that some manufacturers chose faulty systems is unfortunate. If the system on Mr. Farr's truck is faulty, his remedy lies with the manufacturers of the truck and the system, not with the Government.

This agency has attempted over the past several years to address the problem of faulty systems by initiating several investigations under the statutory provisions requiring manufacturers to recall and remedy defective vehicles and equipment. Those investigations contributed to the decisions of a number of manufacturers to conduct recalls.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

October 25, 1979

Department of Transportation Congressional-Liaison 400 Seventh St. SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence I received from Mr. Morrill Farr. I would appreciate any information you could provide regarding this matter.

Please forward your reply, in duplicate, to the attention of my staff assistant, Samuel R. Buck, Room 6217, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.

Sincerely,

S. I. Hayakawa

SIH/pw Enclosure