ID: kill.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
Monte Carlo Minis
Box 369
Earl, NC 28038

Dear Mr. Cox:

We are replying further to your petition for temporary exemption of the Mini passenger car from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that it has taken some time to get back to you since my letter of November 4, 1996.

After considerable discussion within the agency, I am sorry to tell you that we have concluded that we cannot consider you a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the temporary exemption hardship regulations. This means that we cannot consider your petition.

As we understand the facts from the correspondence we have received from you since last summer, Monte Carlo Minis was established at the beginning of 1996, with you as the sole owner, for the purpose of importing and selling Rover Mini passenger cars that are not manufactured to conform to any motor vehicle regulations of the United States, including the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because Monte Carlo had neither income or expenses, you were unable to file with your petition any information on the financial status of the company. The manufacturer of the car is not willing to sell you any vehicles for your enterprise, or to cooperate with you by furnishing information that would assist you in determining the extent to which the Mini might or might not meet U.S. requirements. You propose to buy the cars from a Mini dealer in Belgium. You are willing to remove all items of motor vehicle equipment that do not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards and to replace them with conforming parts. You have received an estimate from a Registered Importer of the expense to conform the noncomplying Minis. You state that this Registered Importer, J&K Imports, located in Maryland, will be the company that actually conforms the vehicles to those standards for which no exemption has been granted, and installs propane engines to meet EPA requirements.

In the 25 years that the exemption authority has been in effect, with the exception of Isis Imports and Cantab Ltd., the agency has accepted temporary exemption petitions based upon hardship only from the actual manufacturer of the motor vehicle for which exemption was sought. We have not accepted petitions from importers who have no legal or commercial relationship to the manufacturer. An exception was made for Isis and Cantab on the basis that they had been Morgan dealers, and were receiving Morgan cars without engines, completing their manufacture by installing U.S. Ford engines converted to propane. In general, these companies petitioned for exemption from only one or two of the safety standards, and certfied compliance with the rest partially on the basis of information furnished them by the British manufacturer. Both Isis and Cantab's petitions spoke of the cooperation shown by Morgan in assisting their attempts to furnish air bags and other safety equipment.

In contrast, you have no legal or commercial relationship to Rover. In fact, Rover has specifically advised you that it will not furnish you with cars, nor will it provide information as to the compliance status of the British Mini with respect to the U.S. standards, let alone compliance of a Mini manufactured for the Dutch market which you propose to import. Further, under our laws, a manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required to notify owners and remedy any safety related defect or noncompliance with a standard that occurs in its product. Isis and Cantab were existing enterprises with a demonstrated financial record. Whether Monte Carlo Minis has the financial resources necessary to initiate and complete a notification and remedy campaign cannot be determined on the basis of your representation that the company has no balance sheet or income statement. Even if such resources exist, the record does not provide any assurance that Rover would cooperate in furnishing you replacement parts so that a safety related defect or noncompliance could be corrected within a reasonable time.

We have reached this conclusion with regret because we appreciate your willingness to comply with Federal regulations while bringing to our attention those who may not be so publicly spirited. We have informed our enforcement staff of the other companies that may be selling Minis so that they may consider what action is appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, in your FAX of March 13, 1997, you have asked whether you can upgrade to 12 inch tires and rims and add disc brakes to the pre-1973 Minis that you import, reporting that Customs officials in Port Elizabeth, New York, consider that Minis so equiped were manufactured in 1984 or later. Because vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you are free to make these modifications without violating our regulations.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555
d:3/24/97

ID: Kim.1

Mr. Jongsoo Kim
Senior Researcher
Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute (KATRI)
#625, SamJon-Ri, Sonmgsan-Myun
Hwasung-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea (445-871)




Dear Mr. Kim:

This responds to your e-mail to Coleman Sachs of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in which you seek clarification regarding the manner in which air bag cushion material is tested under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Specifically, you asked whether the air bag material is tested in an uninflated (pre-deployment) or inflated (post-deployment) state. As discussed below, the standards test requirements apply to air bag cushion materials in an uninflated state.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 302 sets forth burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, in order to reduce deaths and injuries associated with vehicle fires caused by matches, cigarettes, or some other source. In general, the standards test procedures provide for a component specimen to be burned in a metal cabinet, and in order to meet the requirements of the standard, such materials may not exceed a specified burn rate within 60 seconds from the start of timing.

Paragraph S4.1 of the standard delineates the types of materials covered by the standard. That listing includes any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Paragraph S4.1 does not specifically address whether an air bag is tested in a pre-deployment or post-deployment state. Moreover, this issue has not been addressed in FMVSS No. 302 rulemakings. We do not read into the standard a test condition that the air bag be deployed prior to testing. Accordingly, when conducting testing under FMVSS No. 302, the agency will test the air bag cushion material in its uninflated (pre-deployment) state.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302
d.5/17/06

ID: kim.ztv

Mr. Song M. Kim
C.M.O./Fanteks, Inc.
580 Sylvan Ave., Suite 1A
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Kim:

This is in reply to your letter of August 18, 2003, regarding High Intensity Discharge (HID) conversion kits. You informed us that you have been selling such kits to local distributors and dealer shops.

Your first question is whether the use of aftermarket HID conversion kits is "going to be illegal," and, if so, the reason for it. I enclose a copy of our letter of November 18, 2002, to Jeff Deetz, who had supplied an HID conversion kit for our examination.We informed Mr. Deetz that his kit was "not a design that conforms to the Standard [No. 108] and could not be certified as conforming with [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard] (FMVSS) No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States."

HID conversion kits are illegal if any item in the kit does not comply with Federal requirements for vehicle lighting equipment.Please read the letter carefully and apply our analysis to the components of the kits you are selling. If one or more of these components does not comply with FMVSS No. 108, then you should cease the sale and distribution of this equipment. Your failure to do so could make your company liable for civil penalties for violations of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).If your company manufactured or imported noncompliant HID conversion kits for resale, your company is required to notify this agency, dealers, purchasers, and owners of the kits and to remedy the noncompliance in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. I should advise you that we know of no HID conversion kit that can be certified by its manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 108.

You expressed your understanding that "D.O.T. is an approvable organization," and asked "if we would like to get your approval for HID conversion system, what will be the necessary procedures?"We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicle equipment.We have authority, however, to order the recall of noncompliant motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The symbol "DOT" on an item of equipment is sometimes misconstrued as approval by the Department of Transportation.In fact, the symbol is the manufacturers certification that the item complies with all applicable FMVSS, as required by 49 USC 30115.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. J. Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/26/03

ID: klein.rbm

Mr. Richard H. Klein
Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 527, Fairway Drive
Johnson, NY 10933

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking about the recordkeeping obligations of a motor vehicle manufacturer under 49 CFR 574.10. I apologize for the delay in our response. You wrote on behalf of your client, the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM). You stated that you believed only tire manufacturers are required to retain records on purchasers of new tires.

49 CFR Part 574 has two separate recordkeeping requirements. Both sections have been in effect, largely unchanged, since 1971. The first, 49 CFR 574.7, applies to tire manufacturers and requires them to maintain tire registration records that they receive from tire dealers and distributors. The second section, 49 CFR 574.10, applies to motor vehicle manufacturers and requires them to maintain registration records on tires that they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale. These two recordkeeping requirements are separate requirements. Thus, NATM's members are required to keep records of all new tires they place on their motor vehicles prior to first sale subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 547.10.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:574
d.3/16/00

ID: knapheide.ztv

Mr. John D. Evans
Vice President Engineering
The Knapheide Manufacturing Company
P.O. Box 7140
Quincy, IL 62305-7140

Dear Mr. Evans:

We are responding to your letter of October 10, 2002, asking five questions with respect to interpretations of the "early warning reporting" final rule (49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C).

Your first question was:

Knapheide Manufacturing Company manufactures a wide variety of truck bodies. The vast majority of warranties, consumer complaints and field reports will be related to the truck body rather [than] to one of the vehicle systems defined by the Tread Act (numbers 1 through 22). According to the definition of "Structure" in Part 579.4, the body, doors, bumper and tailgate are included in this category (number 16), and all these items are included on a service body. Is it NHTSAs intent to have all issues related to a body that is installed by a final stage manufacturer be reported in the "Structure" category?

In adopting a definition of "structure," we observed that "we believe it is important to obtain information about problems with a vehicles structure, since many other systems and components attach to the structure" (67 FR at 45861). Section 579.22(b)(2) establishes reporting codes for 22 systems and components of medium heavy trucks and buses. Only "structure" is appropriate for reporting issues directly related to the body of a vehicle, so all reports regarding the body should be filed in the "structure" category. See also, response to final question below.

Your second question was:

If the answer to question 1 is yes, then consider the following. Many warranties regarding a truck body have nothing to do with vehicle safety. For example, dents and dings occurring during shipment, paint failure, water leaks, etc. If these types of issues are reported in the "Structures" category against specific vehicle makes and models, then the summary report could reflect a large number of warranties for a particular vehicle make and model when in fact the warranty issues had nothing to do with the vehicle as manufactured by the OEM. Is it NHTSAs intent to have these types of issues related to a body reported in the "Structure" category?

The purpose of the early warning reporting rule is to provide NHTSA with an earlier indication of potential safety problems in part through submission of the number of warranty claims relating to specified components and systems. These problems generally have their origin in the design or manufacture of a motor vehicle. They do not have their origin in events that occur after a vehicle has left the direct control of a manufacturer, such as dings in shipping, damage from leaking water (although "paint failure" cited by the commenter could indicate a deficiency in manufacturing), and the like, or, as Knapheide put it, warranty issues that have "nothing to do with the vehicle as manufactured by the OEM."

Your third question was:

"Structure" as defined in Part 579.4, means "any part of a motor vehicle that serves to maintain the shape and size of a vehicle." There are many accessories that can be installed inside of a service body that do not change the shape or size of the body. Examples include welders, generators, inverters, etc. Are warranties on these types of accessories reportable as a "structure" issue?

Generally, accessories that are installed inside of a service body would appear to have little potential for creating a motor vehicle safety-related defect. We therefore do not expect warranty claims on "these types of accessories" to be reported to NHTSA unless they do affect safety, such as a problem that creates the risk of a fire.

Your fourth question was:

Ancillary pieces of equipment can be added to a truck body to enhance its work performing capabilities. Examples include hoists, cranes, aerial lifts, ladder racks and material racks. Are warranties on these types of ancillary pieces of equipment reportable as a "Structure" issue?

Ancillary pieces of equipment added to the exterior of a truck body can be defective in themselves and they have the potential for creating a safety-related defect, and warranty claims involving them must be reported. Since there is no code under Section 579.22(b)(1) for reporting systems and components other than the 22 specified, "structure" is the appropriate reporting category.

You prefaced your final question with the explanation that Knapheide is a manufacturer of original and replacement truck body equipment that it sells through distributors. One of the distributors is Knapheides wholly-owned subsidiary while four others "have common shareholders" with Knapheide. These five entities are all final stage manufacturers (as well as distributors). You asked:

If all reports to NHTSA from Knapheide are based on the collective activity of the five above mentioned distributor corporations, can The Knapheide Manufacturing Company be considered as an equipment manufacturer and report only under paragraph 579.27?

We interpret this question as based on the assumption that each of the five manufacturing corporations will report to NHTSA separately. If Knapheide itself were not a final stage manufacturer, it would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment other than child restraint systems and tires, and subject to the less extensive requirements of Section 579.27. Its wholly owned subsidiary would have to report as a vehicle manufacturer, and if it manufactured 500 or more vehicles per year of any specified category, it would have to file comprehensive reports as under Section 579.21 and/or Section 579.22.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: Koito.2

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulations & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to manufacture and sell a headlamp that automatically reduces intensity when the vehicle is stopped. Your letter stated that the lamp (which includes a fail-safe performance feature) would operate at full intensity when the vehicle is in forward motion, but that an electronic light source control gear would reduce the intensity once the vehicle comes to a rest. According to your letter, "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," and you further suggested that such headlamps would have the potential for significant energy conservation (about a 20-40% reduction in wattage), depending upon the optical design of the headlamps. As discussed below, we believe that the intensity-reducing headlamps described in your letter would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108, because the would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard.49 U.S.C. 30122.

As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means."

Your proposed headlamp would not fall within any of the standards express exceptions, and therefore, must be "steady-burning." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g., February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall). However, as stated in your letter, your proposed headlamp would routinely experience perceptible intensity changes resulting in a 20-40% reduction in wattage, so the lamp would not meet above definition of "steady-burning."

There are several reasons for the requirement for headlamps to be steady-burning. For example, several States have expressed concern that lights of variable intensity could be confused with emergency vehicles, which are allowed to have flashing headlamps. We also note that motorcycle headlamp modulation, while permitted under S5.5.10(c), must meet the requirements of S7.9.4; the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. Furthermore, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals.

In your letter, you pointed to our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein in support of your position that Standard No. 108 should permit headlamps that reduce intensity when stopped. The letter to Mr. Goldstein discussed "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions. You quoted from the portion of that letter which provides, "The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified".However, your letter omitted the immediately preceding sentence, which provided, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs".

The situation presented in your letter is distinguishable from the one presented in our letter to Mr. Goldstein. In the case of gradational DRLs, the lamps would be expected to determine an appropriate level of intensity based upon ambient lighting conditions and then maintain that level until conditions had changed sufficiently to potentially warrant a further change in intensity. In that case, intensity changes would be expected to occur infrequently and could occur gradually, such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers.

In contrast to gradational DRLs, the changes in intensity that would accompany your proposed headlamp design would be anticipated to result in frequent modulation, particularly during instances of stop-and-go city driving. Assuming that the intensity change is perceptible, we believe that such a design could be a source of distraction to other drivers, which could have negative consequences for safety. Accordingly, we believe that the headlamp design presented in your letter would not meet the requirements of S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/1/05

ID: Koito.2followup

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting further clarification of our August 1, 2005, letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma of Koito Manufacturing Co. (Koito), in which we stated that your companys proposed intensity-reducing headlamps would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As described in Koitos earlier letter, the proposed headlamp would automatically and perceptibly reduce intensity (with approximately a 20-40% reduction in wattage) when the vehicle is stopped, thereafter returning to full intensity once vehicle motion resumed. Your latest letter asked whether a headlamp would be permitted to change in intensity, so long as the light is "perceived to be a steady beam and essentially unvarying in intensity, as well as occurring gradually (e.g. by setting some phase period) such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers". Presuming that this new design, consistent with your earlier design, would be such that "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," the answer to your question is yes.

To reiterate the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S5.5.10 provides:

S5.5.10   The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)   Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)   Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)   A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)   All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g. , February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall).

We further clarified the requirement in S5.5.10(d) in our March 10, 1994 letter of interpretation to Mr. Joe de Sousa. That letter involved the permissibility of daytime running lamps (DRLs) that operated by using the vehicles lower beam headlamps at less than full intensity through "pulse width modulation," a technique which cycles the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect". In our response to Mr. de Sousa, we stated that although a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement under S5.5.10(d), we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be "steady-burning. "

In our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein, we stated that "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions, are permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that letter, we stated, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified. "

In sum, if an intensity-reducing headlamp operates in a manner that meets all of the other applicable requirements of the standard and is perceived as being steady-burning, we believe that such a design would be permissible under the standard, and we would not expect it to be a source of distraction to other drivers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/5/05

ID: kroger.ztv

Mr. Richard C. Kroger
Corporate Counsel
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474

Dear Mr. Kroger:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 2003, addressed to David "Comen" (Coleman), which we received on May 5. You seek clarification as to whether you are subject to the TREAD Acts early warning reporting (EWR) requirements set out in Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your company manufactures trucks exclusively for the United States Army. You asserted that feedback reports you receive from the Army on your trucks are usually "purposely vague and prevent any meaningful review or truck evaluation." In the event that negative information might be received regarding a trucks performance, you pointed out that furnishing us with this information could result in an enemy gaining knowledge that it could put to tactical use. You argued that "it would seem that the intent of the Act (protecting the consumer public at large) is inapplicable to our situation."

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) recently observed that under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the military need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NTEA asked whether such vehicles should be counted as part of a manufacturers production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc. We replied on May 14, 2003, that:

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to [the defect program or] other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

By "some trucks," we mean trucks that are the counterparts of trucks that a manufacturer produces for non-military use. Thus, reports would not be required under the EWR rules for military personnel carriers. On the other hand, reports would be required for pickup trucks, vans, and sedans that have civilian counterparts.

You have informed us that your company does not produce trucks for civilian applications. In other words, there are no civilian counterparts. Based on this information, we do not consider your company subject to the EWR requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/21/03

ID: kronosport.ztv

Mr. Edward A. Kron
President & CEO
Kronosport
Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market St., Suite A500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dear Mr. Kron:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 2003, describing four-wheeled pedal-electric vehicles that you manufacture which travel at a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. You have asked for "an exemption to NHTSAs speed requirement in order to allow our vehicles to be legally operated on roadways that have a posted speed limit of 35 mph or under."

NHTSA has no "speed requirement." We have established a category of motor vehicle called "Low-Speed Vehicle." In part, a Low-Speed Vehicle is defined as a four-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in l mile is more than 20 mph and not more than 25 mph. In adopting this definition, we made it clear that the individual States have the authority to prescribe requirements for the registration and use of Low-Speed Vehicles, including whether to allow Low-Speed Vehicles at all on roads under their jurisdiction, or to limit the roads on which they can be used.

Because the maximum speed of your vehicle is 12 mph, it is not a "Low Speed Vehicle." We do not know whether any State permits use on its public roads of vehicles with a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. We suggest that you consult with each State in which you intend to market your vehicle to determine whether your vehicles may use the public roads in that State.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.5/22/03

ID: label on booster seat