ID: nht94-1.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/94 from James M. Keitges to John Womack (OCC-9089)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1994, in which you ask to be provided the statement "that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations, and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Loca l requirements as applicable to NHTSA."

It is not possible to provide you with a statement in this form. We are unaware of any State and local requirements that are literally "applicable to NHTSA." However, there may be state and local laws that require compliance with the Federal motor vehi cle safety standards, issued by NHTSA, in order for vehicles to be sold or registered for use on state and local roads. We believe it likely that this is your concern, and we will take this opportunity to explain the relationship between Federal and Sta te or local requirements.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), in effect, allows a State or a political subdivision of a State to enact a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a NHTSA Federal motor vehicle s afety standard if it is identical to the NHTSA standard. A State or local standard cannot impose a higher level of performance than a NHTSA standard, except for vehicles procured for use by the State or the political subdivision. Further, a State or a subdivision is specifically permitted to enforce its own identical safety standard. Finally, State or local standards are permitted in areas of performance where there is no NHTSA standard, such as horns and fog lamps.

Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each motor vehicle to bear its manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification raises the presumption that the vehicle, in fact, conforms with those standards. If a State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a condition of vehicle sale or registration, then the manufacturer's certification should be accepted as fulfilling this State or local requirement. We believe, however, that in spite of the certification, a vehicle could be rejected as not in conformance with Federal requirements within the meaning of State or local law if the nonconformanc e was manifest on its face (e.g., failure of a new passenger car to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp) in spite of the facts that a State cannot enforce a Federal standard, and that neither the manufacturer nor NHTSA may have made a formal determination of noncompliance.

If the State or local law is worded so as to require compliance with all

State or local requirements as a condition of sale or registration, the manufacturer's certification may be accepted as indicating compliance with all identical State or local requirements if the governing authority so chooses, but obviously the certific ation could not cover compliance with State or local requirements in areas not covered by the Federal safety standards.

We hope that this explanation is useful to you, and will be glad to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht94-1.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maine E. Peace -- Supervising Revenue Officer, State of Washington, Department of Revenue

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 8/3/93 from Maine E. Peace to Robert Hellmuth (OCC-8957)

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we "provide authority for the department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada , providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety."

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety s tandards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non-resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible.

However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non-conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would b e inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards.

Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to e xport them back to Canada.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

ID: nht94-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Luis Carricaburu -- South Steering Specialists

TO: Mary L. Versailles -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/5/94 From John Womack To Luis Carricaburu (A42; Std. 208; VSA S108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I WISH TO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ADRESS MY QUESTION.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO BUY OR SELL A SALVAGED AIR BAG FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIRING A OTHER PERSONS AUTOMOVILE?

DEFINITION OF SALVAGED AIR BAG AS IT IS INTENDED IN ABOVE QUESTION.

A AIR BAG FROM A VEHICLE THAT HAS FOR ONE REASON OR A OTHER MADE. ITS WAY TO A AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLING YARD BUTT IS STILL INTACT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

ID: nht95-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM RANDAL K. BUSICK TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, providing further information in response to concerns raised in a January 5, 1995, letter from our office. Our January 5 letter raised concerns about a device labeled "Slider Bar" in the drawing enclosed with a previous letter from your company. As described in your letter, the "Slider Bar" is a bar near the floor of the vehicle that allows the seat belt to be moved to facilitate ingress and egress from the rear seats. "The forward (hooked) end of the s lider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled)." Your February 2 letter provides further information about and pictures depicting the "Slider Bar." You asked if this information resolved the concerns raised by agency staff.

The drawing provided with your original letter shows the "Slider Bar" adjacent to the seat. Agency staff were concerned that this design would result in the pelvic portion of the belt lying across a person's thighs, rather than on the pelvis. The pictu res accompanying your February 2 letter show that the "Slider Bar" is actually rearward of the seat and that this concern is not warranted. Therefore, we agree that, if all requirements of Standards Nos. 208, 209, and 210 are met, this design would not b e a problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 5, 1995

FROM: Richard Mark Gergel -- Gergel, Burnette, Nickles, Grant And Leclair, P. A.

TO: Stephen P. Wood, Esquire -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/23/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RICHARD MARK GERGEL (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

I am writing as a follow-up to our recent telephone conversation concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to transactions between a local car dealer and purchasers within the same state. As I explained to you, the litigation in which I am involved concerns the sale of a motor vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 passengers to a school to transport students which did not meet the safety standards for a "school bus" under the Act. The defendant car dealer has asserted that a trans action between a car dealer and purchaser within the same state is beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act since such a transaction allegedly is not within interstate commerce.

We have diligently searched the case law for authorities which might address this issue. The only case we have found on point is National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 948, 950 (1974). I was hoping that your office might be aware of other case authorities or interpretations by the Secretary of Transportation which might provide further legal authorities on this point.

Since the judge now has this matter under advisement, I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you need any further information from me, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

ID: nht95-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 23, 1995

FROM: Mary J. Gazich -- Owner - Clever Kids, inc.

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MARY J. GAZICH (A43; REDBOOK 2; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

My company will be marketing a new automobile accessory for children.

The "Smart Rider" is a seat back protector that is made of vinyl with two 3/4" elastic bands attached. There is a design screenprinted on the vinyl as well. This product slips over either, or both of the front seats, protects the seat back interior from kid's feet, and entertains children riding in the back seat.

Please inform me if this product meets the standards for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If so, do we need to make a statement regarding this on our packaging?

Thank you.

ID: nht95-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 27, 1995

FROM: Yvonne Roppel -- Liaison Officer, Title and Registration Services, State of Washington, Department of Licensing

TO: Phillip Reckt -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YVONNE ROPPEL (A43; REDBOOK 2; Part 580)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reckt:

I recently conferred with Dick Morse of NHTSA who asked me to request of you a written reply to my question.

I had asked Mr. Morse as to who should sign an original title application for a leased vehicle, the lessee or the lessor.

As background, I advised Mr. Morse that in Washington State the lessee is shown on the title as a registered owner and is required to sign the original application at the dealership. (This is only concerning a vehicle still under the Manufacturer's Cert ificate of Origin.) Normally the lessee is choosing the vehicle from the dealer inventory. The yearly license renewal notice is mailed to the lessee in most cases. The registered owner or lessee is liable if any legal action is filed against the vehicl e.

Mr. Morse has indicated that when the lessee is shown on the title, they would be considered a registered owner and would therefore acknowledge the odometer disclosure made bythe selling dealer. I asked if he would put this in writing at which time he i ndicated that I would have to write to your office. Therefore, I am asking if I could have a letter sent to me verifying in writing his reply.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht95-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 27, 1995

FROM: Ken Calvert -- Member of Congress

TO: Edward D. Harrill

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KEN CALVERT (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: LETTER 1:

Dear Mr. Harrill:

My office has received an authorization for a Congressional Inquiry on behalf of my constituent Mr. Alexander Patnode, SSN 043-07-7207. We are enclosing a copy for your review along with paperwork Mr. Patnode feels will be pertinent to his request.

Mr. Patnode is requesting our assistance in obtaining information regarding the purchase of an engine stand from Pep Boys Auto parts. This stand is made in China for Rally Accessory Inc. located in Miami, Florida. Failure of the stand caused an engine to fail, injuring his ankle. Mr. Patnode states he can't find an agency in the state that will accept or act on his complaint. After a review of Mr. Patnode's paperwork my office would appreciate a written response to his request.

Thank you for your interest in Mr. Patnode. If we may be of further assistance in this matter you may contact Genelle Stephens of my Riverside District Office. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Ken Calvert

LETTER 2:

03/21/95

Ken Calvert 3400 Central Ave. Suite 200 Riverside, Ca. 925

Your Honor,

I need your assistance. I purchased an engine stand from Pep Boy's auto parts, in Temecula, Ca., Failure of the stand caused an engine to fall, injuring my ankle. The stand is made in China, for Rally accessory Inc. located in Miami, Florida. The s tands are obviously made without quality control. I purchased a second stand to use as evidence in my lawsuit. It did not have the same welds, which failed on the first stand. A third stand, on display at Pep Boy's, is made different from either of th e other two. It has an additional brace, welded on the lower portion, in the same area where the first stand failed. None of the stands are equipped with the large brace that appears in the assembly manual.

Home mechanics often leave engines mounted on these stands for extended periods of time. There is potential for serious injury or death to occur, should a stand fail, especially if there are children in the area. Neither Pep Boy's nor Rally seem to be taking this condition seriously.

I called the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission hot line. It took until the next day for them to respond, when they told me that they do not handle this. I find it hard to believe that this type of problem doesn't come under their jurisdiction. I haven't been able to find an agency in the state that can accept or act on my complaint. I also contacted the Consumer Affairs in the Attorney General's office, but they couldn't help me. I am enclosing pictures that I hope will illustrate my problem . Any help that you can give will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerly,

Alexander H. Patno

32840 SHEILA LANE

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530

(Brochure omitted.)

LETTER 3:

April 27, 1995

John Womack, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Womack:

As we discussed by telephone, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") received an inquiry from Rep. Ken Calvert concerning what agency would have jurisdiction over an engine stand purchased by Mr. Alexander H. Patnode. The stand broke, causin g an injury to Mr. Patnode's ankle.

The Consumer Product Safety Act excludes "motor vehicle equipment," as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, from the CPSC's jurisdiction. As we discussed by phone, it appears that this engine stand is motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, I have enclosed the material we received on this incident.

Please contact me if you need anything further.

Sincerely, Harleigh Ewell

cc: The Hon. Ken Calvert

ID: nht95-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Kawa Saki Motors Corp., U.S.A

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: Projector Beam Headlamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY SHETLER (A43; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 2/7/94 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/6/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER

TEXT: Attached per my telephone conversation with Mr. John Womack are the following:

1. Two drawings of projector beam headlamps a) original drawing submitted with our February 7, 1994 request for interpretation (Drawing A) b) modified drawing showing the addition of a cowling over the headlamp (Drawing B)

2. February 7, 1994 Kawasaki correspondence to NHTSA

3. May 6, 1994 correspondence from Mr. Womack

Standard 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.

The subject Kawasaki motorcycle headlamp in Drawing A and B contains the upper and lower beam in one housing and is a single headlamp. However, the addition of the cowling (Drawing B), which is a permanent part of the motorcycle to which the headlamp wi ll be applied, provides the appearance of two headlamps.

My question to Mr. Womack during our telephone conversation was concerning the addition of the cowling and the interpretation of the requirements in Standard 108.

Will the revised proposed application of the projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle as seen in Drawing B meet the requirements of Standard 108?

Thank you in advance for your quick response to our inquiry.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext. 2456.

Regards

DRAWINGS OMITTED.

ID: nht95-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brad Rourke -- Director, Government and Community Affairs, The Electric Bicycle Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/4/95 LETTER FROM BRAD ROURKE TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rourke:

Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle.

We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful.

Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change.

Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565.

Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment.

Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn.

We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids.

You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right ha nd control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place th e rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left.

The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the mac hine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (thou gh this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-em ission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 12 3, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard.

Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use " a high-power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirement s for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low-powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp.

Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist-g rip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).