NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam5592OpenMr. D. L. O'Connor Manager Government & Customer Compliance The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, OH 44316-0001; Mr. D. L. O'Connor Manager Government & Customer Compliance The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron OH 44316-0001; "Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your telephone conversation wit Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995. You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government. As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government. Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility. I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4229OpenMr. Scott Muirhead, Cal-Formed Plastics Co., 2050 E. 48th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90058; Mr. Scott Muirhead Cal-Formed Plastics Co. 2050 E. 48th Street Los Angeles CA 90058; Dear Mr. Muirhead: Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1986 to William Smith of thi agency, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering as an item of original and aftermarket equipment. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and supported by a fabricated metal frame and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. According to your description, the seat would have safety belts. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.; Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Crash Protection*, Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.; If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to b installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standard Nos. 207, 208, and 210. However, the safety belts provided with the seat would have to comply with Standard No. 209.; Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, yo have a responsibility under section 15 *et seq*. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing those responsibilities is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3016OpenMr. Jim Buck, National Service Manager, Yokohama Tire Corporation, 1530 Church Road, Montebello, CA 90640; Mr. Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello CA 90640; Dear Mr. Buck: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whethe Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of- sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1181OpenMr. Philip H. Taft, Director, Tire Retreading Institute, 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip H. Taft Director Tire Retreading Institute 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Taft: This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1973, to Dr. Ed Wallace concerning Standard No. 117. Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. In your letter you suggest the following: that the standard be amended to prohibit the retreading of casings having 'damaged bead wire', that labels be allowed to be placed on any portion of the completed tire, and that the required labeling, 'bias/belted', be changed to allow the labeling of the word 'belted'.; With respect to your request to prohibit the retreading of casing having damaged bead wire, you state that the standard contains a 'loophole' because it prohibits the retreading of casings having 'exposed' bead, but it does not prohibit the retreading of casings having 'damaged' bead. We do not agree that this is a loophole, even though the standard has no explicit prohibition along those lines. The retreading of a casing that is damaged in any significant way would constitute the manufacturing of a defective tire, and the manufacturing retreader would be subject to the defect notification provisions (Section 113, 15 U.S.C. S1402) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It is true that the explicit prohibitions of the standard offer clearer guidance than the defect provisions. The problem is that 'damage' is too vague a concept to define a tire condition -- in fact, it really is little more than a synonym for defective. We would give serious consideration, however, to a petition listing specific bead conditions which you believe should be the subject of new requirements in the standard. You should also note that damages caused by a defective tire, although it conforms to Standard No. 117, could still subject its manufacturer to civil liability in a private action (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)).; You further request that we allow the label (presumably the labe containing the items of consumer information required pursuant to S6.3.1) to be placed on the tread area of the tire. The NHTSA responds to this request in the notice responding to petitions for reconsideration published July 15, 1972. In that issuance we stated our position that affixing the label to the sidewall would more likely ensure that the label would be retained on the tire until its installation on a vehicle. We also indicated that the standard did not prohibit the placing of an additional label on the tread, which location, it was argued, facilitated storage.; Your final request is that the requirement that the words 'bias/belted be labeled onto that type of tires be amended to require only the word 'belted'. You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word 'belted'. You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word 'belted'. The NHTSA does not believe the word 'belted' to be sufficiently explicit, as radial tires are also 'belted' and the possibility of confusion is quite obvious. However, we are aware that Standard No. 109 does not require the labeling of the words 'bias/belted', and we plan to take steps with respect to Standard No. 117 so that no additional labeling will be required for a retreaded tire that retains its original casing labeling.; Sincerely, Robert. L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4679OpenMr. Howard Kossover CMI Trailer Division P.O. Box 1985 Oklahoma City, Ok 73107; Mr. Howard Kossover CMI Trailer Division P.O. Box 1985 Oklahoma City Ok 73107; Dear Mr. Kossover: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, l989 to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have enclosed photographs of a semi-trailer that you are constructing, and wish to know whether the location of the rear turn signal, stop, and taillamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. l08 requires each of these lamps to be 'on the rear'. In addition, the SAE requirements for each of these lamps that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08 require that visibility of each lamp shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all photometric and visibility requirements with these obstructions considered. In addition, signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The lamps on your semi-trailer are mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle. In that position the lamps are not mounted 'on the rear'. Further, we question whether the 45 degree visibility requirements would be met, especially for the inboard lamps. We do not know whether the extended portion of the vehicle between the lamps is a sufficient obstruction to affect compliance with the photometric requirements. Overall, it does not appear that this design complies with Standard No. l08. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /; |
|
ID: aiam4383OpenMr. Y. Osaki, Manager, Truck Engineering, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 501, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Y. Osaki Manager Truck Engineering MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 501 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Osaki: This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between th maximum load ratings for the tires on a medium duty truck and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified for that truck pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*. Specifically, you asked if the GVWR specified for a truck could slightly exceed the sum of the gross axle weight ratings specified for the truck. While none of our regulations prohibit your company from assigning a GVWR that exceeds the sum of the gross axle weight ratings for this medium duty truck, we recommend that you not do so, for the reasons explained below.; Your letter correctly notes that paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120) requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each truck axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for the axle system, as specified on the vehicle certification label required by Part 567. However, Part 567 does not limit the GVWR that can be assigned to the sum of the GAWR's specified for a vehicle. Instead, S567.4(g)(3) requires that the vehicle certification label specify the GVWR of the truck and requires only that the specified GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.'; Although Part 567 does not prohibit such a practice, we note tha assigning a GVWR to a vehicle that exceeds the sum of the GAWR's assigned to the vehicle (other than a semitrailer) would be encouraging the user of that vehicle to overload it. If the axles of a medium duty truck cannot safety bear the load specified in the GVWR, the vehicle will be overloaded whenever it is loaded to the specified GVWR. Such overloading poses a serious safety hazard for the affected vehicle in particular and for the motoring public in general. Several past interpretations on this subject have stated if a vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction while in use that can be traced to the overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and under common law product liability doctrines. To avoid giving rise to a potential safety hazard and the accompanying liability, we recommend that you specify a GVWR not greater than 17,196 pounds for the medium duty truck in question.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3446OpenMr. Antonia Cano, Sales Representative, P.O. Box 904, Buckingham, PA 18912; Mr. Antonia Cano Sales Representative P.O. Box 904 Buckingham PA 18912; Dear Mr. Cano: This responds to your question raised during a meeting with Carl Clark Vernon Bloom, Harry Thompson and Edward Glancy, whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device called 'Hyperblock.' The device works by preventing release of the brakes. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicles braking system.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft device that work by preventing release of the brakes.; However, since installation of Hyperblock requires cutting into vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of Hyperblock, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems* (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai 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. . .<<<; You indicated at the aforementioned meeting that installation o Hyperblock does not affect a vehicle's braking performance. You also indicated that Hyperblock maintains the integrity of a vehicle's split system. In addition to requirements in those areas, Standard No. 105 establishes brake system integrity requirements, requiring that a braking system be able to withstand a series of spike stops. You may wish to consider testing Hyperblock as to whether it affects a vehicle's compliance with the spike stop test requirements, if you have not done so already. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard.; While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particula device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.; Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether b the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections (sic) 151 *et seq*. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3153OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your October 3, 1979, letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration to permit the production of a limited number of school buses that do not comply with Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. The buses would be designed to transport severly handicapped students.; As you know, Standard No. 222 permits side-facing seats for handicappe students. However, the standard does not permit other variations of seating for the transportation of the handicapped. The agency's notice of July 12, 1976 (41 FR 28506) specifically limited its action with respect to handicapped student transportation to the provision of side-facing seats.; In your letter, you state that you intend to have forward and rearwar facing seats surrounded by a cubicle to restrain children that are severely handicapped. Since only side-facing seats are acceptable as a variation from the standard's required seating, the standard cannot be interpreted in such manner that would permit the type of seats that you propose to install in your bus. Further, according to our regulation governing exemptions from the safety standards, it would appear that you would not qualify under any of the criteria that have been established. Therefore, it would not be useful to seek an exemption or waiver from the standards.; The agency has been confronted with the special problems for th handicapped many times and in a variety of vehicles. The NHTSA realizes the special needs of these individuals and further understands that these needs require the agency to be flexible in the enforcement of standards applicable to vehicles used by the handicapped. As a result the agency has stated in the past, that it will overlook some noncompliances in vehicles that are serving the special needs of the handicapped. The agency concludes that compliance with Standard No. 222 will not be enforced in certain circumstances for buses designed to transport the handicapped.; The above exemption from enforcement of compliance with Standard No 222 is limited. The seating in such special buses must be distinctly different from that of typical school buses. For example, your placement of the seats in cubicles would provide such a distinction from normal school bus seats. The mere increase of seat spacing with the use of the traditional school seats, on the other hand, would not qualify for freedom from compliance with the standard. With respect to your bus, the agency concludes that all other passenger seats beyond these constructed in the cubicles must comply with the standard. The agency further notes that the use of this type of bus is appropriate only for the most extreme cases of handicapped transportation and is not necessary for the transportation of all handicapped.; Although it would not be required by regulation, manufacturers shoul label these unique buses for the handicapped in some manner that will identify them as appropriate only for the transportation of handicapped students and not as a regular school bus. Such a label would be important in alerting both the Federal and State government officials to the fact that this is not a regular school bus and thus might be subject to different considerations with respect to the enforcement of compliance with safety standards. You should also check with State officials to ensure that they will permit the use of such buses.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4696OpenMs. Mary Rees D.C. (USA) Inc. 1249 Route 22 East Mountainside, NJ 07092; Ms. Mary Rees D.C. (USA) Inc. 1249 Route 22 East Mountainside NJ 07092; "Dear Ms. Rees: This responds to your letter of October 9, 1990. I your letter you ask the following questions concerning testing and certification. (1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed? First, please be aware that the United States does not have an approval process. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must certify that its products will comply with all applicable safety standards. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567. If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. While an element of 'due care' could be the use of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. In addition, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utilized. Finally, manufacturers are not required to file any forms beyond the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. This regulation requires a manufacturer to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures, there is no requirement to submit test data or any other forms to support certification. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the safety standards. (2) We propose to manufacture an automobile seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing? As explained previously, neither you nor the firm who puts together the finished seat has to apply for approval and testing. However, your question indicates some confusion regarding the party who is responsible for certifying that the seat complies with federal standards. The answer will vary depending upon the situation in which the seat is installed in a vehicle. Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, is considered a vehicle standard, because it applies only to new vehicles. Therefore, if a seat which incorporates your seat frame is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 207. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part: 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... Therefore, none of these entities could install a seat containing your seat frame if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 207 or any other standard. In all of these situations, you, as the manufacturer of the seat frame, have no certification requirements. However, the manufacturer of the seat or the vehicle it is to be installed in will probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1494OpenMr. J. B. Dyer, Vice President - Marketing, The Flxible Company, 323 N. Water Street, Loudonville, OH 44842; Mr. J. B. Dyer Vice President - Marketing The Flxible Company 323 N. Water Street Loudonville OH 44842; Dear Mr. Dyer: This responds to your April 23, 1974, questions whether Standard No 121, *Air brake systems; , is a proposal, whether buses manufactured after January 1, 1975, mus conform to Standard No. 121 under all circumstances, what 'cut- off date' exists for determination of brake equipment suppliers' ability to provide 121 components on time, and to what extent a bus must be completed to be certified as in compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards.; Standard No. 121 has been a final rule since February 27, 1972, and ha an effective date of January 1, 1973. In 1972 the effective date was postponed until September 1, 1974. Recently the NHTSA further delayed the effective date for trucks and buses until March 1, 1975, having concluded that suppliers will be able to supply all necessary components by that date.; All buses manufactured after the effective date of an applicabl standard must comply with its requirements, under S 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S 1392(a)(1)), which states 'No person shall. . .manufacture for sale. . .any motor vehicle. . .on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect. . .unless it is in conformity with such standard. . . .'; You asked whether a trailer which is substantially complete before th effective date but lacks one or more parts due to parts shortages can be certified as conforming although it is equipped with a pre-121 brake system. By analogy with the rules allowing manufacturers to omit 'readily attachable' items to be added later in the chain of distribution (Import regulations S 12.80, Parts 567, 568), the NHTSA will accept a good-faith determination that a vehicle is substantially completed, where only a few parts subject to shortages are missing.; I would also like to answer a technical question raised by R. E. House of your engineering staff. In an April 23, 1974, letter he asked for an interpretation of the S5.6.4 language 'The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control.' as it applies to the DD-3 two-step brake release. The S5.6.4 requirement for a separate parking brake control is intended to address the actuation of the brake. We interpret this language not to prohibit the use of a two-step release involving a manual and a foot control.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.