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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam3921OpenMr. D. W. A. Bennett, Managing Director, Pacific Helmets (N.Z.) Ltd., P.O. Box 866, Wanganui, New Zealand; Mr. D. W. A. Bennett Managing Director Pacific Helmets (N.Z.) Ltd. P.O. Box 866 Wanganui New Zealand; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your inquiry about ventilation holes in the front o motorcycle helmets currently being manufactured by other companies. You give the location of these ventilation holes as being between the reference plane and the test line, one inch above that plane, and ask whether these holes are permitted under Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; Standard No. 218 requires, in paragraph S5.4, that: 'Each helmet shal have a protective surface of continuous contour at all points on or above the test line described in S6.1.3.' In paragraph S6.1.3, this test line is required to be drawn one inch above the reference plane in the frontal portion of the helmet. The continuous contour requirement is important because both the impact attenuation and penetration tests in the standard are performed on the helmet area above the test line. This helmet test area is the shaded area illustrated in Figure 2 of Standard No. 218. Therefore, any ventilation holes located between the reference plane and the test line in the front portion of a helmet would be permitted under the standard, as long as they are not located on or above the test line.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3472OpenMr. Jerome N. Sonosky, Mr. Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson, 815 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Jerome N. Sonosky Mr. Mark S. McConnell Hogan & Hartson 815 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which yo petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of 'moped' and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a 'moped' uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommende definition of 'moped', which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.; The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.; Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to th public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.; >>>'Moped' means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mil is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.<<<; Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definition of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).; We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the variou definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of 'moped' stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term 'moped' for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF (sic) 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term 'moped' in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.; Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of question relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act,; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Question 1: The present definition of 'motor-driven cycle' is 'motorcycle' with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR S571.3(1979). Does this mean that a 'motor-driven cycle' must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?; Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that appl to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.; Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('FMVSS') 123, 49 CF 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?; Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when th moped is being propelled by the engine.; Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems b operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?; Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they woul comply with the requirement.; Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR S571.127 at S.3 (1979) exclude motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR S571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motor- driven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?; Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.; |
|
ID: aiam3188OpenR. H. Brushwood, The Hartford, Hartford Plaza, Hartford, CT 06115; R. H. Brushwood The Hartford Hartford Plaza Hartford CT 06115; Dear Mr. Brushwood: This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1979, wherein yo asked whether the Hawaii Interim Certificate of Accurace complies with the Federal odometer disclosure regulations. You are correct in believing that it does not. In order to comply it must include a statement that the odometer reading contained therein reflects the actual mileage, the mileage over 100,000, or does not reflect the actual mileage. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3022OpenMr. Kenneth E. Tobin, Jr., Executive Secretary, Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau, 900 Spring Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Mr. Kenneth E. Tobin Jr. Executive Secretary Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau 900 Spring Street Silver Spring MD 20910; Dear Mr. Tobin: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1969, in which you submi information and photographs of mobile concrete plants, and ask whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with a view to determining whether comments should be submitted to Docket 1-11, Rear Underride Protection.; The matter of whether pieces such as the subject concrete plants ar motor vehicles within the meaning of section 203(3) of the Act, and also 'trailers' within the meaning of the proposed underride standard, is presently under consideration by this Agency.; We encourage your organization and its members to submit to the docke any materials that they consider relevant to the subject.; Sincerely, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4708OpenMr. Lowell W. Sundstrom, Jr. P.O. Box 2427 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110; Mr. Lowell W. Sundstrom Jr. P.O. Box 2427 Salt Lake City Utah 84110; "Dear Mr. Sundstrom: This is in response to your letter of December 9 1989 to this office, asking us to confirm your opinion that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302) does not apply to the 'HOOD LOCKER' product you describe in your letter. You state that this product will be a plastic box to hold tissues which consumers may use to wipe off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil. According to your letter, the product can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender well, on the under side of the hood, on the side or top of the air cleaner, or in another location near the dipstick. You believe that Standard No. 302 does not refer to the product because it will not be placed within the occupant compartment of motor vehicles and will not be placed within one-half inch of any occupant's air space. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability resistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle manufacturer that installs your 'HOOD LOCKER' as original equipment in its vehicles must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 302, with the 'HOOD LOCKER' installed. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, as your 'HOOD LOCKER' appears to be. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 302 before offering it for sale. Parenthetically, I note that your observation is correct that Standard No. 302 applies only to materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, and not to materials used in an engine compartment that is separated from the occupant compartment. However, there are other statutory requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as this 'HOOD LOCKER' are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that the 'HOOD LOCKER' contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers. Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the 'HOOD LOCKER' and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the 'HOOD LOCKER' in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standards would seem to be Standards No. 113, Hood Latch System, and 302. If the installation of the 'HOOD LOCKER' would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the 'HOOD LOCKER' can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. I trust that we have been responsive to your questions. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3537OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept., Michelin Tire Corporation, One Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, NY 11042; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success NY 11042; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. Specifically, you asked whether Michelin could use two different size codes in the tire identification number to identify tires of the same size. You asserted that this assignment of differing size codes would not impair Michelin's ability to conduct a recall of tires of that size, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.; At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tir identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.; For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that eac tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacturer (the symbol is assigned by this agency), the second grouping is a symbol identifying the tire size, the third grouping is an optional symbol containing further information on the specific characteristics of the tire, and the fourth grouping is a symbol identifying the week the tire was manufactured.; There is no requirement in Part 574 which prohibits more than one tir size code from being assigned to each tire size. Additionally, the purpose of tire identification number requirements in Part 574 is to facilitate effective recalls of the tires from the public if those tires are found not to comply with an applicable safety standard or if the tires contain a safety-related defect. For tire manufacturers such as Michelin, this purpose is served by the requirement that the manufacturer keep records of the names and addresses of the initial purchaser of each of its tires for at least three years, as specified in paragraph S574.7. As you noted in your letter, this purpose would not be defeated if a manufacturer assigns more than one size code to a given tire size. Accordingly, a manufacturer may assign more than one size code in the tire identification number for a given tire size, since this is not specifically prohibited by Part 574 and does not conflict with the purpose of that Part.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4358OpenMr. Allan Fogel, New York City Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Management Audit, 161 William Street, New York, NY 10038; Mr. Allan Fogel New York City Office of the Comptroller Bureau of Management Audit 161 William Street New York NY 10038; Dear Mr. Fogel: This responds to your March 6, 1987 letter to my office asking whethe we consider a 'Mobile Instructional Unit' (MIU) to be a 'school bus.' You wish to know whether Federal school bus safety standards apply to such a vehicle. You have asked, in addition, whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on hydraulic brakes applies to an MIU. It is my opinion that the MIU is not a school bus under the applicable Federal law and regulations and is thus not required to meet the school bus standards. If the MIU is equipped with air brakes, it is not subject to the hydraulic brake standard.; The background information you provide explains that the MIU is self-propelled unit built on a new or used school bus chassis. MIU's are 'completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils).' When an MIU is built with a used chassis, the Board of Educator's contractor guts the interior of the bus and constructs a classroom facility within the shell. According to your letter, the MIU's are never used to transport pupils: 'The empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contractor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after instruction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor.'; Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381- 1431) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued several standards which apply to school buses, a class of vehicle defined by the Act as 'likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) The bus from which an MIU is built would have had to comply with the school bus standards at the time of its original manufacture. As long as a bus continues to be used as a school bus, the law does not allow a contractor to modify it in a way that takes it out of compliance with the school bus standards. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) However, if the bus is modified so that it will no longer be used to transport students, it ceases to be a school bus and does not have to continue to meet the standards applicable exclusively to school buses. In the case of the MIU, it seems clear that the vehicle would no longer be suitable for transporting students to or from school. The MIU would thus not have to meet the school bus standards.; Although the school bus standards would not apply, the MIU woul continue to be a motor vehicle and would continue to be subject to other standards under the Act. You have asked about the applicability of Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brakes*. Since the buses from which the MIU's are built were originally equipped with air brakes, the hydraulic brake standards would not apply to them. However, these is a separate standard for air braked vehicles, Standard No. 121, a copy of which I have enclosed. If the contractor built an MIU in a way that impaired the air brake system, he or she might be in violation of the Act. The contractor would also have to ensure that several other regulated safety systems -- the windshield wipers, the driver's safety belt, etc. -- remained operative.; MIU's built with new chassis also fall outside the ambit of the Safet Act's school bus definition. Since they are not school buses under Federal law, the MIU's are not subject to our school bus safety standards. However, the MIU's would be subject to other standards, including Standard No. 121 for air braked vehicles. The contractor should be able to inform you of the compliance of the vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards.; Since you may be interested in reviewing the standards which apply t vehicles such as the MIU, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3167OpenMr. John F. Croonquist, President, Alternative Automotive, Inc., 999 N. Pacific Street, 33-D, Oceanside, CA 92054; Mr. John F. Croonquist President Alternative Automotive Inc. 999 N. Pacific Street 33-D Oceanside CA 92054; Dear Mr. Croonquist: This responds to your November 9, 1979, letter asking whether a vehicl that you plan to produce would be classified as a truck for purposes of applying the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; In your letter, you state that your vehicle looks somewhat like a Jeep You state further that it is constructed on a Volkswagen truck chassis, carries two passengers, and is designed to transport property. As you know, the agency defines truck to be a vehicle that is designed primarily to transport property or speciality (sic) equipment. Since the vehicle that you plan to manufacture appears to be designed for the transportation of property and since it is constructed on a truck chassis, the agency concludes that it would be a truck for the purposes of applying the safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5119OpenMr. Bill Dobberteen Product Launch Engineer Prince Corporation 35 Madison - Beechwood Holland, MI 49423; Mr. Bill Dobberteen Product Launch Engineer Prince Corporation 35 Madison - Beechwood Holland MI 49423; "Dear Mr. Dobberteen: This responds to your letter that requeste information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. Thus, if your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards. We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge. In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2326OpenMr. Leroy E. Mueller, President, Wisconsin Trailer Company, Inc., Manufacturers Machinery Hauling Trailers, Richfield, WI 53076; Mr. Leroy E. Mueller President Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc. Manufacturers Machinery Hauling Trailers Richfield WI 53076; Dear Mr. Mueller: This responds to your June 2, 1976, request for written notificatio that the 'heavy hauler trailer' exclusion of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, has been extended to September 1, 1977. You also request confirmation that manufacturers may assign multiple gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) in fulfilling their responsibilities under Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567) of our regulations, but that only ratings unqualified by speed restrictions will be permitted after September or October 1976.; I have enclosed a copy of the amendment that extends the 'heavy hauler exclusion of Standard No. 121 from September 1, 1976, to September 1, 1977. The date change in that amendment has been circled.; The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certificatio plate in accordance with Part 567 be unqualified by speed restriction and be based on the 60- mph capabilities assigned to the tire and rims by the United States Tire and Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the Part 567 certification plate, and they do not form the basis of a vehicle's compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121.; In our November 20, 1975, letter to you on the same subject, we note that we were considering a revision of the definition of GVWR and GAWR to conform to this interpretation. That proposal has been issued and a copy is enclosed for your information.; The proposal has not been made final as of the date of this letter Please note that multiple ratings would continue to be permitted under the proposal, so long as the restricted rating appears first on the certification plate.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant 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.