NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 6141 - 6150 of 16518

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam4793 Open Mr. Hiroshi Kato Vice President Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Mr. Hiroshi Kato Vice President Mitsubishi Motors America Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of September 4, l990 asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 with respect to two of Mitsubishi's contemplated rear lighting plans. In the first plan, the rear garnish panel located between the lamps that are mounted at the right and left extremities of the car would be dark but the word 'Mitsubishi' in the center would be illuminated. In the second plan, the panel would be illuminated as a supplemental taillamp, and the word would not. You ask if either plan would create an 'impairment' of the required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S5.1.3. Judging by the photograph of the Pontiac Fiero that you enclosed, which featured a design similar to your first plan, it does not appear that this plan would create an impairment. We note that the backup lamp is located in the garnish panel, approximately l5 mm from the word 'Mitsubishi', and this raises a question with respect to the second plan. When the taillamps are illuminated, so that there is a broad sweep of red light across the rear of the car, we would be concerned that the backup lamps in the garnish panel might not be readily perceived when activated. We would also be concerned that the illuminated panel might detract from the effectiveness of the stop lamps when they are activated. To ensure that the lighted panel creates no impairment of either the stop lamps or the backup lamps, it might be advisable to design it with an intensity that is lower than that of the adjacent taillamps. The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer in its certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam3056 Open Michael J. Schmitt, Esq., Legal Counsel, Engineering Division, Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A., P.O. Box 6555, Cypress, CA 90630; Michael J. Schmitt Esq. Legal Counsel Engineering Division Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A. P.O. Box 6555 Cypress CA 90630; Dear Mr. Schmitt: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1979, to our former Chie Counsel, Joseph Levin asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have quoted Column 3 of Table IV with respect to motor cycl headlamps and the specification that the one headlamp the standard requires be located 'on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline'. Yamaha would like to equip certain motor cycles with two headlamps, one to be mounted above the other on the vertical centerline with the hope that 'this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety'. You have asked whether this mounting arrangement conforms with Standard No. 108.; The arrangement you have in mind is not permitted by the Federa lighting standard. 'Symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline' means that each headlamp is an equal distance from the vertical centerline at the same horizontal location. We believe that this provides better and more evenly distributed forward illumination than the system Yamaha proposes, while being the equivalent in conspicuity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4639 Open Mr. Russell Storms Luke Grimm 2140 SW Pallatwe Street Portland, Oregon 97219; Mr. Russell Storms Luke Grimm 2140 SW Pallatwe Street Portland Oregon 97219; "Dear Mr. Storms: This responds to your letter asking that thi Department 'approve' or otherwise 'recognize' your newly invented warning device. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you described your invention as a seven inch high, tetrahedral reflective traffic marker that is non-flammable and easily stored. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) gives this agency the 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. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed). This standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures for warning devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle. Based on the description in your letter, your newly invented product appears to be a warning device subject to Standard No. 125. When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, 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 new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 125, it must conform to all the requirements of that standard. You are not required to get some 'approval' or 'recognition' from this agency before selling this product. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, the manufacturer of this new product must certify that it conforms to all applicable standards. Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of this new warning device to exercise 'due care' in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if this new product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability. In particular, you should be aware that section S5.2.2 of the standard requires that: each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall not be less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 inches and not more than 3 inches wide. Your letter states that your new warning device is seven inches in height. If that is the case, the new warning device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 125. You should further compare your proposed design with the other requirements in Standard No. 125 to determine if your new warning device complies with all of the other provisions. You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam3406 Open Mr. H. Hayashi, Manager for Safety Standards, Tire Quality Assurance Dept., Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd., 2800-1, Ogawa, Higashi-Cho, Kodairai-Shi, Tokyo, JAPAN; Mr. H. Hayashi Manager for Safety Standards Tire Quality Assurance Dept. Bridgestone Tire Co. Ltd. 2800-1 Ogawa Higashi-Cho Kodairai-Shi Tokyo JAPAN; Dear Mr. Hayashi: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1981, requesting, (sic an interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S575.104). You ask whether a tire designed for service as a temporary use spare tire, and labeled on its sidewall with the inscription: TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE, INFLATE TO 40 PSI, MAX. SPEED 50 MPH, is exempt from the requirements of the UTQG Standards.; As you note, the 'Application' section of the UTQG regulation does no apply to space-saver or temporary use spare tires. Thus, the UTQG Standards would not apply to the tire you describe, which is designed as a temporary use spare tire and is so labeled.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3113 Open Ms. Mary Ann McClure, Bob Maxant's Illinois Harley-Davidson Sales, Inc., 6510 Roosevelt Road, Oak Park, IL 60304; Ms. Mary Ann McClure Bob Maxant's Illinois Harley-Davidson Sales Inc. 6510 Roosevelt Road Oak Park IL 60304; Dear Ms. McClure: This responds to your letter asking how long you should retain certai records relating to the sale of motorcycles and motorcycle parts.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has som record retention requirements that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Dealers are required to aid manufacturers in the maintenance of their records. For example, you must supply manufacturers with information relating to the purchasers of motor vehicles that you sell so that the manufacturer can maintain a list of purchasers.; Dealers are not required by the NHTSA to maintain records on vehicle or equipment they sell. Accordingly, with respect to the records indicated in your letter, you may use your own business judgment as to when to dispose of them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3543 Open Mr. H. Nakaya, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter asking a number of questions concernin the definition of Seating Reference Point (49 CFR 571.3). Your letter indicates that the questions arise from a concern that the definition may limit rearward seat track travel.; The agency recently published, in response to petitions for rulemaking an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the definition of Seating Reference Point. Among other things, the preamble to the notice explains that while the definition of Seating Reference Point establishes limitations on where manufacturers must locate that point, it does not prevent manufacturers from extending seat track travel behind the point. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.; Your first question asks for an interpretation of the definition o Seating Reference Point. Among the interpretations you suggest, the one which is most nearly correct is the one which says the Seating Reference Point is the single self-determining point (no choice for the manufacturer) where the 90th percentile two- dimensional manikin should be positioned according to the SAE J826.; The enclosed notice explains that section (d) of the definition o Seating Reference Point requires manufacturers to use the 90th percentile template described in SAE Recommended Practice J826 in locating the Seating Reference Point. While manufacturers must use that template in locating the Seating Reference Point, there is some small leeway (using that device) as to where the point may actually be located. Thus, while your interpretation is partially correct, it is not correct to the extent that it suggests that there is no choice (as opposed to a limited choice) for the manufacturer.; The rest of your questions appear to involve the same issue, i.e. which version of an SAE Recommended Practice to use when a safety standard incorporates by reference an SAE Recommended Practice that has later been updated by SAE. The version which must be used is the one actually referenced by the standard. The fact that SAE updates one of its Recommended Practices does not change a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that incorporates an earlier version. Such a change would require the same type of rulemaking as any other amendment.; We believe that you will be able to answer your questions based on th foregoing discussion and the enclosed notice.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4286 Open Mr. Tony U. Otani, Adyna Corporation, 6124 Candor Street, Lakewood, CA 90713; Mr. Tony U. Otani Adyna Corporation 6124 Candor Street Lakewood CA 90713; Dear Mr. Otani: This letter responds to your letter asking whether there are an regulations with which you must comply in producing an invention you call an Automotive Steering Wheel Stabilizing Aid. I regret the delay in this response.; You describe your product and include a picture. The article yo describe is a thick urethan rubber pad that a motor vehicle driver can fasten to the thigh with a band or buckle. The top part of this pad is contoured to fit under the steering wheel. You state that a driver can use this pad to apply pressure to the steering wheel, holding the wheel steady so that he may drive on a long distance highway when the course is straight. The driver then has his hands free.; Your product falls within the jurisdiction of the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in S102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' in relevant part as follows:; >>>...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originall manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...(Emphasis added.)<<<; In determining whether an item of equipment is an 'accessory,' th agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Under this framework, your invention is a motor vehicle accessory.; While NHTSA currently has no standard applicable to the kind o accessory you describe, the agency does not have authority to regulate your invention. Even in the absence of a standard, please note that if you decide to market this product, then under our regulations and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you have the responsibility to conduct notice and remedy campaigns if you or the agency later find that your product has a safety-related defect.; We are concerned with the safety consequences of your product. Thi kind of product may encourage a driver to take his hands from the steering wheel while he is operating a motor vehicle, and therefore may increase the risk of accident involving a motor vehicle. For example, removing one's hands from the steering wheel makes a driver less efficient in responding to any unanticipated road event that may require a quick change in vehicle direction. Further, a driver who feels free to do something with his hands other than steer the vehicle may not be devoting full time and attention to his driving.; I ask you to give these implications your fullest consideration, an hope you find this information helpful in making your decision.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1084 Open Mr. Eric Feldmann, 113 West Broadway, Gettysburg, PA 17325; Mr. Eric Feldmann 113 West Broadway Gettysburg PA 17325; Dear Mr. Feldmann: Thank you for your letter of March 23, 1973, concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection.; Your first concern is the fact that bumpers which comply with Standar No. 215 still permit damage to occur to the vehicle during low- speed impacts. This situation occurs because Standard No. 215, which initially became effective on September 1, 1972, was developed in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This Act provided the authority to develop standards to improve vehicle safety during collisions, not solely to reduce property damage. The authority to develop bumper standards primarily to reduce property damage, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, became law on October 20, 1972. As the result of this new Act, we are in the process of developing standards which limit automobile damage in low-speed bumper impacts.; Secondly, you cite the mismatch problems that continue to exist amon passenger car bumpers. Commencing with 1974 model cars, Standard No. 215 specifies requirements directed at correcting the mismatch problems that cause damage to safety-related components during low-speed, car-to-car collisions. It establishes a uniform interfacing surface among all cars that reduces the likelihood of override, underride, and interlock, all of which are quite prevalent with existing bumper designs.; Thirdly, you express concern over the numerous collisions involvin damage to corners of vehicles. Standard No. 215 also specifies requirements for 1974 model cars that will provide improved corner protection. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your use.; Lastly, you indicate the availability of inexpensive energy absorbin devices that could be used to manage the low-speed crash forces. We are aware of these and other devices of this type, however, as you will note, Standard No. 215 specifies minimum performance only without specifying the equipment or configuration to be used. We feel that this approach encourages competitive innovation and promotes technological progress to achieve the desired performance at minimum cost to the consumer.; We appreciate receiving your comments and your interest in improvin motor vehicle safety.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam1693 Open Mr. W.A. Hertel,Corporate Staff Engineer,Parker-Hannifin Corporation,17325 Euclid Avenue,Cleveland, Ohio 44112; Mr. W.A. Hertel Corporate Staff Engineer Parker-Hannifin Corporation 17325 Euclid Avenue Cleveland Ohio 44112; Dear Mr. Hertel:#Please forgive the delay in responding to your lette of October 28, 1974, enclosing a sample air brake hose assembly and requesting approval of Parker-Hannifin's banding technique to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.#The NHTSA interprets a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that i cannot easily be removed.From this discussion, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of specific design.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam0981 Open Mr. Carl Monk, 428 Southland Boulevard, Louisville, Kentucky 40214; Mr. Carl Monk 428 Southland Boulevard Louisville Kentucky 40214; Dear Mr. Monk: This is in further response to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Mrs Virginia Knauer, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, Warning Devices.; As you already know from Mr. E.T. Driver's letter of January 24, 1973 and previous correspondence from my office and the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued the standard as an equipment item that would be suitable for use in all types of vehicles, from trucks to passenger cars.; In issuing the standard, we were concerned with the great variety o devices presently available, which can create confusion and misunderstanding to the motoring public. We were also concerned with wind stability, and your comments were most useful in our consideration of this aspect of the requirements. FMVSS No. 125 is an attempt to achieve a standardized device having a proper balance of the factors affecting shape, size, cost, visibility, wind stability and weight. These are minimum standards and the manufacture and sale of devices that exceed these requirements is not prohibited.; Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;