Interpretation ID: nht76-4.6

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Hal H. Newell -- Eaton Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Eaton Corporation's January 21, 1976, questions whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stay of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, eliminated all requirements of the standard for the period of the stay, whether complying vehicles built prior to the stay may be modified so they do not comply, and whether non-complying vehicles built during the stay would have to be retrofitted upon reinstatement of the standard. Your other questions are no longer relevant in view of the recent reinstatement of the standard by the Supreme Court.

The NHTSA has interpreted the stay to have had the effect, nationwide, of voiding the standard's force and effect as a whole during the period of January 16 through January 29, 1976.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale of a vehicle unless it is in conformity with applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. Therefore, a vehicle manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121 prior to January 16, 1976, would have to conform to the standard when sold. Non-complying vehicles built during the stay would not be required to be retrofitted under this provision, because the standard was not in effect on the date of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

Eaton Corporation Government Relations Office

January 21, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Eaton Corporation desires clarification as to the effect the order, issued on January 16 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in PACCAR Inc., vs. NHTSA and DOT, has on the current status of FMVSS 121 and the proposed changes thereto. Are the requirements mandated under Standard 121 totally eliminated during the duration of the order? Does the Government plan to appeal the order or seek to have it reconsidered by the Court? Can equipment installed on vehicles prior to January 16 in order to meet the requirements of the Standard now be removed? If a vehicle is produced while the Court order is in effect which cannot meet the requirements under the Standard, should the Standard ultimately be sustained, would the purchaser be required to refit the vehicle to meet the Standard's requirements? In the event the stay order is lifted will NHTSA permit a delay in requirements under the Standard until supply lines have been re-established.

As a brake system supplier to the truck industry, there is considerable uncertainty at Eaton as to what type of equipment should be manufactured during this interim period. We would appreciate receiving your thoughts on the problems described above as early as convenient.

Hal H. Newell