A product depicted in Trailer/Body Builders' report on the Mid-America Trucking Show (May, Page 33) has triggered a fax from a reader disputing the headline “Non-Electronic ABS Needs No Dash Light.”
According to a letter from the legal office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the ABS malfunction lamp is still required in the tractor cab, even if the antilock brake system is not electronically operated.
The letter from NHTSA, written in response to an earlier request for clarification by a trailer manufacturer, points out that FMVSS 121 says that a truck, truck tractor, or trailer must have an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a malfunction of the vehicle's antilock brake system. The MSQR-5000 system uses a differential pressure regulator and quick release valve instead of electronic sensors.
“Materials distributed by ABS Inc (the manufacturer of the non-electronic system), including the ‘Certification of Compliance,’ indicate that the company believes that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS 121 are excluded by virtue of a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in the case of Washington v Department of Transportation,” wrote John Womack, acting chief counsel for NHTSA. “The Washington case involved a challenge to the validity of FMVSS 121 on two grounds — that the requirements conflicted with existing Federal Highway Administration regulations and that NHTSA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule by establishing that an ABS must have certain characteristics. Mr Washington argued that the requirement that an ABS have certain minimum characteristics unduly restrained design choices. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NHTSA in regard to both of these claims. Moreover, while the Court's decision discussed the fact that manufacturers may apply for an exemption from an existing standard or petition the agency to modify an existing standard, the decision did not provide for any such exemption or ‘exclusion’ for ABS Inc or any other manufacturer. The claims now made by ABS Inc, that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS 121 were ‘excluded’ or that ABS Inc is exempt from meeting this requirement, are incorrect.”
Womack also cited a document from ABS in which the company states that it “hereby certifies that the MSQR-5000 antilock brake system fully satisfies the definition of antilock brakes as required by 49 CFR §571.121 and exceeds the performance requirements of 49 CFR §301113(b)(3)(ii).”
Womack warned that trailer manufacturers cannot base their certification of their products strictly on the word of their suppliers.
“As an equipment manufacturer, ABS Inc is not required to certify compliance of its product to FMVSS 121, but any vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that its vehicle complies with all the requirements of FMVSS 121,” Womack said. “It is our opinion that reliance by a vehicle manufacturer solely on ‘certification of compliance’ provided by an equipment manufacturer, without more, is not legally sufficient. Moreover, should it be determined that a vehicle does not comply with a federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect, the recall and remedy obligations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would fall upon the vehicle manufacturer and not the equipment manufacturer which supplied the particular equipment.”