Interpretation ID: aiam1877
Hall & Myers
Suite 200
Free State Bank Building
10
000 Falls Road
Potomac
MD 20854;
Dear Mr Myers: This is in response to your submission of March 25, 1975, whic consisted of a request to reconsider the decision on your petition of February 6, 1975, along with several interpretive questions concerning the NHTSA's position on what courses of action small intermediate and final-stage manufacturers might take to certify vehicles they modify to Standard 121.; I. The main reason advanced for the request to reconsider the decisio was that the concept of due care on the part of these modifiers is 'subjective and esoteric,' and does not constitute an objective criterion. The due care requirements for these modifiers were discussed extensively in a meeting between you and your clients and DOT representatives on March 18. We do not agree that the NHTSA requirements are not objective. The requirements of the standards are phrased in precise, quantitative terms, as far as possible. In contrast, the steps that private party must take to conform to the requirements are left to him, as is the case with most of our nation's laws. The fact that we have taken the time to discuss with you the steps that an individual company might take in obeying the law, and that these steps might vary depending on the situation and the resources of that company, do not alter in any way the objectivity of the requirements of the standard.; It is the standard that is required to be phrased in objective terms not the public's response to it.; The other arguments raised in your submission are either repetitive o those raised in the previous petition, or arguments against the standard itself that have been considered in the course of the rulemaking. Your request for reconsideration of the petition is therefore denied.; II. Our answers to the questions you have raised are as follows: 1., 2., and 3. If testing facilities are not available to a intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or the cost of his testing a vehicle directly to the requirements of Standard 121 is prohibitive, such a company should develop an alternative method of determining that his alterations do not take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. These methods could include testing of typical installations by independent contractors working with associations of companies such as TEBDA, testing of typical installations by suppliers of the axles or other components sought to be installed, engineering calculations by the alterer, the alterer's supplier, or by independent contractors, or copying of installations that have been approved by chassis manufacturers. Component (e.g., axle) suppliers would appear to be a prime source of the type of assistance needed by intermediate and final-stage manufacturers, since they are most familiar with the main components of the installation and have the greatest economic interest in seeing this segment of the industry maintained.; 4. The above answer applies to the requirements for brake actuation an release times just as to other requirements of the standards. If a company wishes to perform completion work outside the limits of the chassis manufacturer's specifications, it should take the steps reasonably available to it to ascertain that the vehicle will remain in conformity. In the example given, the axle suspension supplier would be the logical best source of conformity information.; 5. and 6. The NHTSA does not consider it necessary or appropriate t develop alternative 'objective procedures' for testing to the requirements of its standards. The objective requirements are set forth in the standard. The agency continues as it has in the past to consider the development of actual test protocols, to determine that products conform to those requirements, as the responsibility of the regulated industries and the associated industries that service them. We have found no reason to believe that there is a lack of available engineering expertise, or of sources of supply of suitable test equipment, to perform this function in and for the private sector.; 7. The NHTSA does not at this time have facilities 'of its own' to tes to Standard 121. It uses contractors to perform this function.; You should note that our discussion of due care does not deal with th question of what action must be taken by a manufacturer by way of remedy, if a nonconformity is discovered in his vehicles that is not 'inconsequential' within the meaning of section 157 of the Act (1974 Amendments). Except for the case of an inconsequentiality finding, the duty to remedy a nonconformity exists regardless of prior testing or any other measures taken by the manufacturer.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator