NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 5891 - 5900 of 16518

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam0895 Open Mr. Edward F. Kearney, Executive Director, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 430, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Edward F. Kearney Executive Director National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances 1776 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Suite 430 Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Kearney: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1972, asking, amon other things, whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts the recent California law requiring motorcycles made on or after January 1, 1975, to be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever the engines are running. In light of the answer to this question, it is not necessary to deal with the other ones.; It is the opinion of this agency that the California law in question i preempted in accordance with section 103(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and is therefore void. Standard No. 108, 49 CFR S 571.108, establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles. It is our position, therefore, that the California requirement is within the scope of the aspects of performance covered by Standard No. 108. Since it is not identical to a Federal requirement, it is rendered void by operation of the Act.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator
ID: aiam2001 Open Mr. David E. Hatch, Development Project Director, Product Development Division, Reynolds Metals Company, 5th and Cary Streets, Richmond, VA 23261; Mr. David E. Hatch Development Project Director Product Development Division Reynolds Metals Company 5th and Cary Streets Richmond VA 23261; Dear Mr. Hatch: This is in response to your letter of July 14, 1975, asking whethe recycled replacement bumpers must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, and which States have bumper requirements that exceed the level of performance mandated by the Federal standard.; Standard No. 215 is a motor vehicle safety standard that applies to th performance of bumper systems on cars manufactured after certain dates. The requirements of the standard are not imposed on the manufacturers of the bumper as an item of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer of the car who must certify the compliance of the bumper system with the provisions of Standard 215. Therefore, the sale of a bumper, as an item of replacement equipment, does not fall within the application of the standard.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, even though a recycled bumper is not required to meet the requirements of Standard 215 when it is produced or sold, its installation on a car by one of the above-named persons would invoke the application of section 108 of the Act. As long as a vehicle complies either with the particular safety standard in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standard in effect at the time the system in question is replaced or altered, no violation of section 108 would have occurred.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L 92-513) directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to promulgate a Federal bumper standard that will achieve the maximum feasible reduction in costs to consumers who are involved in low speed collisions. Currently, several States have bumper standards that are geared toward the same type of cost reduction. According to section 110 of the Cost Savings Act, States with cost-reduction standards (applying to non-safety-related damage) that were in effect or promulgated by the date of the Act's issuance (October 20, 1972) can retain those standards, to the extent they do not conflict with Standard No. 215, until a Federal cost-reduction bumper standard takes effect. Once the NHTSA enacts such a Federal bumper standard, those bumper standards which are not identical will be preempted.; As far as we know, the only States which currently have bumpe standards imposing requirements different from those contained in Standard 215 are California, Florida, and Georgia.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5394 Open Mr. Jerry Steffy Triumph Designs Ltd. Jacknell Road Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS England; Mr. Jerry Steffy Triumph Designs Ltd. Jacknell Road Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate Hinckley Leicestershire LE10 3BS England; "Dear Mr. Steffy: This responds to your request to Mr. David Elias formerly of this office, for an interpretation concerning whether a motorcycle certification label may be placed in a location other than that specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. As explained below, the answer is yes, the agency has permitted an alternative location in certain circumstances. 49 CFR 567.4(e) states that motorcycle certification labels 'shall be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system.' In your letter, you seem to refer to this intersection as the 'headstock area,' and ask whether the certification label can be placed elsewhere. In an interpretation letter of November 23, 1982, to Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., (copy enclosed) NHTSA permitted the motorcycle certification label to be placed 'on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side.' The agency permitted the alternate location because some Suzuki motorcycles were equipped with fairings, obscuring labels placed in the specified location. Your inquiry seems to imply that Triumph's design would cause a certification label placed in the location specified in 567.4(e) to be obscured. If that is the case, please contact Mr. George Shifflett of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5307. NHTSA would be happy to work with you on finding an alternative location for your certification label. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam2451 Open Mr. Donald I. Reed, Director of Engineering, Trailer Manufacturers Association, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60611; Mr. Donald I. Reed Director of Engineering Trailer Manufacturers Association 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Reed: This is in reply to your letter of October 29, 1976, asking whether th '47 Series Tite-Lite,' in our opinion, has an ''optically combined' clearance lamp function.' The lamp in question is represented as having 'two lights [that] provide 15 functions' and you have advised us that 'there are no partitions inside the multi-function lens of this lamp.'; Paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits th optical combination of clearance lamps with tail lamps and identification lamps. This means that a single bulb in the 47 Series Tite-Lite may not provide both tail lamp and clearance lamp functions. It also means that the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function. You have neither identified the function performed by both bulbs nor provided us with their candle-power output and we are unable to determine whether the lamp complies with Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0196 Open Mr. H. Kirstein, Volkswagen of America, Incorporated, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. H. Kirstein Volkswagen of America Incorporated Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Kirstein: This will acknowledge your letter of November 25, 1969, to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of the 4-J and 4 1/2-J rims for use with the 5.60x15 tire size designation and the 4 1/2-J rim use with the 6.00x15 tire size designation to Table I, Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; The addition of these rims to Standard No. 110 is not necessary, a these combinations are listed within the references cited in S.3 of Standard No. 109. The fact that you have changed the hump configuration on these rims requires no action on our part as we do not list variations from the basic Tire and Rim Association's contours. We consider only the rim width and flange contour designation at this time when listing rims in the standard.; Manufacturers who modify rims are, of course, responsible to see tha their product will perform satisfactorily to the requirements of Standard No. 109 and No. 110.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;
ID: aiam0482 Open Mr. F. R. Hoffman, Assistant Traffic Manager, Barber-Greene Company, Aurora, IL, 60507; Mr. F. R. Hoffman Assistant Traffic Manager Barber-Greene Company Aurora IL 60507; Dear Mr. Hoffman: Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of August 27 1971, asking if Department of Transportation safety equipment applicable to trailers is required for portable asphalt mixing machinery.; It is our current position that portable asphalt mixing machinery is 'trailer' and must be equipped with the lamps and reflectors required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am enclosing a copy for your information. A temporary lighting harness is an acceptable means of conformance. Mud flaps, incidentally, are not required under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0178 Open Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P. O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P. O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Thank you for your letter of August 29, 1969, to Dr. Robert Brenner Acting Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the flashing of sidemarker lamps when the turn signal switch is activated.; Paragraph S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permit the flashing of sidemarker lamps simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on the side to which a turn is contemplated.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;
ID: aiam2145 Open Mr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, D.C. 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington D.C. 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: In response to your November 24, letter concerning the relationshi between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and 119, I am enclosing a copy of a prior interpretation letter on the same subject, which was sent to Mr. C.D. McCarty of the B.F. Goodrich Company on October 15, 1975.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4992 Open L. Louis Raring, Esquire Raring & Lipoff 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660; L. Louis Raring Esquire Raring & Lipoff 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92660; "Dear Mr. Raring: This responds to your request for information o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency 'approves' motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries. When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403). This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code. The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4838 Open Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki Executive Vice President Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki Executive Vice President Mazda Research & Development of North America Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor Michigan 48105; Dear Mr. Ozeki: This responds to your letter of August 8, 199 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that one of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 millimeters. You asked whether, for purposes of positioning the loading device used in the quasi-static test of side door strength, the 'lowest point of the door' referred to in S4(c)(2) of the standard would be the bottom of the door moulding or the bottom of the door itself when the moulding extends lower than the door itself. For the quasi-static test of side door strength under Standard No. 214, S4(c)(2) currently provides that the loading device must be positioned so that '. . . (2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door.' Under the current standard, we believe that door moulding should be considered part of the door. Therefore, the 'lowest part of the door' would be the lowest part of an attached door moulding. Under the current standard, that would be the reference point to be used in making the five-inch measurement. For your further information, the agency is considering proposing for public comment a possible amendment to the standard concerning the positioning of the test device. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;