NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 3591 - 3600 of 16518

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1101 Open Louis A. Sisler, Esq., General Counsel, ADC Marketing, Inc., 4410 Executive West, Fort Wayne, IN 46808; Louis A. Sisler Esq. General Counsel ADC Marketing Inc. 4410 Executive West Fort Wayne IN 46808; Dear Mr. Sisler: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1973, to Mr. Schneide asking for a clarification that the Front Brake Light Adapter you describe 'does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.' The adapter, as we understand it, connects the stop lamps with the front turn signal lamps so that when the brakes are applied, the front turn signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, indicating that the vehicle is decelerating or has come to a halt.; In our opinion, use of the adapter as original equipment on a vehicl might be precluded by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibiting devices that impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. The front turn signal lamp is a lamp that flashes in operation to indicate to oncoming drivers, or pedestrians, that the vehicle is preparing to turn, or that a potential hazard exists ahead (when the system is activated as a hazard warning system). Accordingly, when the brake pedal is applied, if the adapter overrides the flashing effect of the front signal lamps it would impair their effectiveness, and be prohibited by Standard No. 108.; The adapter would be permissible as original equipment, however provided that the signals still flash when the brakes are applied, but a State would not be preempted from regulating it. Nothing in the standard precludes aftermarket sale of the adapter, but its use also would be subject to regulation by the individual States.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5142 Open Mr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren, MI 48090-9055; Mr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren MI 48090-9055; "Dear Mr. Bennett: We have received the petition by General Motors (GM for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures. First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until 'resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . .' We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV. We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be 'slightly below' the minimum requirements 'at a few test points'. Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points? Similarly, GM has argued that 'preliminary testing has indicated that' the GMEV will 'substantially comply' with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide '. . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . .' Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition. Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that 'the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles.' The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above. When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2687 Open Ms. Martha Storts Amster, 5301 East Osborn Road, Phoenix, AZ 85018; Ms. Martha Storts Amster 5301 East Osborn Road Phoenix AZ 85018; Dear Ms. Amster: This responds to your June 20, 1977, letter concerning Federal schoo bus safety standards. Your letter was forwarded to us by Ms. Margaret Costanza, Assistant to the President, since these standards are promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; As you may know, several new school bus safety standards are applicabl to school buses built after April 1, 1977. These standards were established in accordance with a directive from Congress in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress enacted that directive after determining that school buses deserved additional safety protection to prevent deaths and reduce injuries.; In your letter, you contend that our standard pertaining to school bu seating (Standard No. 222) requires seat spacing that is too small for older school children. It is our understanding after extensive consultations with bus manufacturers that the new school bus seat spacing requirements result in seat spacing that is essentially equivalent to seat spacing in buses manufactured prior to April 1. Therefore, most new school buses should be manufactured similar to older buses as far as seat spacing is concerned. Some school buses, however, may have slightly reduced seat spacing. We are aware of concerns expressed about reduced seat spacing in some new buses. We are not convinced that the problem originates from the requirements of Standard No. 222, however. Currently, we are examining buses manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the standard to determine whether a modification of the standard is necessary.; Maximum seat spacing has been controlled in buses to provide for th passive restraint of school bus occupants. The seat backs in the new buses are designed to absorb the force of children colliding with them during a crash. If seat spacing were increased, the seats in these buses would not be capable of absorbing sufficient impact force to protect children in accidents. The NHTSA adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus safety in response to public comments claiming that to require only seat belts in school buses would not be sufficient since the belts might not be used by many children. Accordingly, to provide a significant increase in occupant protection, the agency adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus seat safety.; In a final question in your letter, you ask about the costs an benefits of the new school bus safety standards' requirements. The agency has estimated that the total industry cost of compliance with those standards is approximately $40 million annually. The benefits should include a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries resulting from school bus accidents.; If I can be of further assistance to you, do not hesitate to contac me.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook
ID: aiam3995 Open Mr. Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division, Amco Manufacturing Corporation, 7425 Fulton Avenue, North Hollywood, CA 91605; Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood CA 91605; Dear Mr. Kagan: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The answer is no. Compliance with Standard No. 108 is determine independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place.; The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0340 Open Andrew R. Hricko, Esq., General Counsel, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Watergate Six Hundred, Washington, DC 20037; Andrew R. Hricko Esq. General Counsel Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Watergate Six Hundred Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Hricko: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1971, requesting a interpretation of the terms 'cooling system' and 'fuel system' as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215.; You first ask whether 'cooling system' includes the various component of the vehicle's air conditioning system. The term is not intended to include the air conditioning system.; Your second question is whether 'fuel systems' would include pollutio control vapor cannisters (sic) and other components used to reduce fuel emissions. If such components contain fuel or fuel vapor they are considered to be a part of the fuel system.; Please advise us if further clarification is needed. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5512 Open Mr. Marshall S. Reagle Sate-Lite Mfg. Co. 6230 Gross Point Road Niles, IL 60714; Mr. Marshall S. Reagle Sate-Lite Mfg. Co. 6230 Gross Point Road Niles IL 60714; "Dear Mr. Reagle: This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd o this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel. You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that 'any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches' with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you that, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments. This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed 'with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector.' As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in 'segments' of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4-inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively 'at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees,' as well as 'any light entrance angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right.' Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam0710 Open Mr. Edwin P. Palumbo, Executive Director, Rhode Island Consumers' Council, 365 Broadway, Providence, Rhode Island 02909; Mr. Edwin P. Palumbo Executive Director Rhode Island Consumers' Council 365 Broadway Providence Rhode Island 02909; Dear Mr. Palumbo: We have received your letter of March 15, 1972, which was forwarded t us by the Federal Trade Commission, concerning problems experienced by Mr. Ronald Dandeneau regarding a repossessed vehicle he purchased which was equipped with tires marked 'NA.' Mr Dandeneau claims he was told by a tire dealer that such tires are considered unserviceable, cannot be repaired, and are unsafe.; The sale of these tires by the tire manufacturer (we understand tha the practice is not limited to Uniroyal) is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Federal standard applicable to passenger car tires. The Federal standard applies only to tires before their first sale to a consumer, and does not apply to used tires such as these.; We understand that tires marked 'NA' are tires that have been adjuste previously, but for reasons that are not considered to affect the safety of the tire. Examples of such reasons are a lack of roundness and uniformity. While these conditions may produce riding qualities which some people find unsatisfactory, we presently have no evidence that such tires cannot be repaired or that they are unsafe.; Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1802 Open Mr. Fred W. Cords, Minnesota Automotive, Inc., Box 2074, North Mankato, MN 56001; Mr. Fred W. Cords Minnesota Automotive Inc. Box 2074 North Mankato MN 56001; Dear Mr. Cords: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting a opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR SS 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.; The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on th part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.; If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will b required.; Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2042 Open Mr. Kenneth J. Mason, 1314 Spruce Street, Wausau, WI 54401; Mr. Kenneth J. Mason 1314 Spruce Street Wausau WI 54401; Dear Mr. Mason: We have received your letter of August 7, 1975, concerning the Unifor Tire Quality Grading Standards established by this agency. Although the formal comment period for the proposals on which this regulation is based ended April 23, 1975, we appreciate your support for the regulation as issued. A copy of your letter has been placed in our public files.; Thank you for expressing your interest. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4895 Open Mr. Ken Hanna Lectric Limited, Inc. 7322 S. Archer Road Justice, Illinois 60458; Mr. Ken Hanna Lectric Limited Inc. 7322 S. Archer Road Justice Illinois 60458; Dear Mr. Hanna: This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations. You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on 'antique cars.' Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are 'for display purposes only and not approved for highway use.' Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for 'display purposes only.' The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;