ID: tunick

Lance Tunick, Esquire
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to a message that you e-mailed to Coleman Sachs of my staff concerning a statement in an interpretation letter dated May 24, 2002 that we sent to Mr. Dick Keller of Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin (Bruno). That letter addressed whether the replacement of a seat supplied on a motor vehicle as original equipment with a device developed by Bruno to facilitate the transfer of a mobility-impaired individual between a motor vehicle and a wheelchair would constitute an alteration that triggers the vehicle certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567.

In discussing this matter, we noted that if the device were installed after the vehicles first retail sale, the installation would not constitute an alteration, but the installer would be prohibited under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). We further noted that in a final rule issued on February 27, 2001 (at 66 FR 12628), the agency created an exemption from this prohibition for motor vehicle repair businesses that modify vehicles to enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as passengers in those vehicles. We stated that by virtue of this exemption, if the seating transfer device developed by Bruno "were to be installed in a vehicle after a sales contract is entered for the delivery of that vehicle, but prior to the actual transfer of title . . . the installer would not be subject to the making inoperative prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)."

Your message took issue with the latter statement. In particular, you contended that since the February 27, 2001 final rule, which is codified at 49 CFR Part 595, "only provides for an exemption from the making inoperative prohibition as regards FMVSS No. 207 when no driver seat is provided, then an installer of a seating system would be subject to the making inoperative prohibitions" (emphasis in original). Referencing 49 CFR 595.7(c)(13). You further noted, however, the agencys pronouncement, in its letter of August 21, 2001 to B&D Independence Co. Inc., that it would not pursue an enforcement action against the installer for a violation of the "making inoperative" prohibition if the installer follows procedures set forth in that letter.

We have reviewed our May 24, 2002 letter to Bruno in light of the concerns you have raised, and agree that it incorrectly implies that an exemption from the "making inoperative" prohibition is available, without limitation, to a motor vehicle repair business that replaces a seat supplied on a motor vehicle as original equipment with a transfer device such as the one developed by Bruno. Our letter to B&D Independence Co. noted, in fact, that the final rule establishing the amendments to Part 595 "does not contain any exemptions from Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210 allowing for the installation of six-way power seat bases" similar to the device that Bruno is marketing.

Insofar as Standard No. 207 is concerned, the exemption from the "making inoperative" prohibition is only available under the Part 595 regulations "in any case in which a vehicle is modified to be driven by a person seated in a wheelchair and no other drivers seat is supplied with the vehicle, provided that a wheelchair securement device is installed at the drivers position." See 49 CFR 595.7(c)(13). Since the device marketed by Bruno would not result in "a wheelchair securement device [being] installed at the drivers position," so as to permit the "vehicle to be driven by a person seated in a wheelchair," no exemption from the making inoperative prohibition with respect to the requirements of Standard No. 207 is available under Part 595 to a motor vehicle repair business that installs such a device.

Our May 24, 2002 letter to Bruno is clarified accordingly. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Dick Keller

Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

ref:567
d.1/16/03

ID: tunick.ztv

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Re: Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR 579.21 and 579.27

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in reply to your FAX of June 15, 2003, revising your request of June 9 for an interpretation of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are set out at Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to point out that you have raised several specific issues that had not been raised during the rulemaking proceeding that led to the EWR regulations. In this letter, I will provide an interpretation of what is required under the current regulatory language. However, we may revisit some or all of these issues when we conduct our promised review of the regulations after they have been in effect for some time.

You presented the following hypothetical facts as the context for your questions: (1) a manufacturer of light motor vehicles produces fewer than 500 vehicles in calendar year (CY) 2003 and therefore would report under 579.27 for CY 2003 (i.e., it would only have to report claims and notices involving deaths associated with its vehicles); and (2) during the first quarter of CY 2004 the same manufacturer produces more than 500 light vehicles and thus must report under 579.21 (i.e., it would have to provide comprehensive data about warranty claims, consumer complaints, property damage claims, and field reports) for that quarter and the rest of CY 2004.

Although your hypothetical scenario assumes that the manufacturer in question produced over 500 vehicles in the first quarter of CY 2004, I want to point out that NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to make good faith estimates of their expected annual production when deciding whether to report under 579.21-24 or 579.27. For example, if a manufacturer of light vehicles produces 150-200 light vehicles in the first quarter of any calendar year, and expects to continue production at similar levels throughout the year, it must report under 579.21, rather than 579.27. It may not wait until the quarter that it actually surpasses the 500-vehicle threshold.

You first asked us to confirm your view that:

1. [A manufacturer] must report full 579.21 information only as regards a past model year within the nine-prior-model-years if such model year either:
1. Had production "built for sale in the US" that exceeded 499 units; or
2. Fell within a calendar year that had: vehicle production "built for sale in the US," that exceeded 499 units; and

1. As regards model years during the "nine-prior-model-years" that do not meet either (a) or (b) above, [the manufacturer] must supply only 579.21(b) (incidents involving death) information.

Your suggested interpretations are inconsistent with the language of the regulation. The introductory text of 579.21 specifies that its reporting requirements apply to "a manufacturer whose aggregate number of light vehicles manufactured for sale, offered for sale, imported, or sold, in the United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period . . . is 500 or more . . . ." In any CY in which a manufacturer produces 500 or more light vehicles for sale in the United States, the manufacturer must report under 579.21, regardless of how many vehicles it produced in prior CYs. Moreover, the text goes on to say that any manufacturer reporting under that section must submit the comprehensive information required under 579.21(a) and (c) for the vehicles produced during the model year of the reporting period "and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, including models no longer in production." Thus, under the rule, comprehensive submissions are required from such a manufacturer for vehicles produced during the prior nine model years, regardless of whether the manufacturer was previously required to provide that information with respect to the vehicles produced in those earlier years.

You also asked us to confirm your view that:

A large volume manufacturer that has been reporting under 579.21 but who then downsizes, would, once two calendar years have passed without its crossing the 500-unit mark, no longer have to supply full 579.21 information for the nine-prior-model-years (as it would be reporting under 579.27).

We agree that under the current regulatory language, any manufacturer that reports under 579.27 (because at least two years have passed without it producing 500 or more vehicles of any category), does not have to submit the comprehensive information required under 579.21, regardless of the number of vehicles it produced during the preceding model years. However, we expect it to retain the information required under 579.21.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.7/24/03

ID: tunick2.ztv

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Re: Request for Clarification and Reconsideration of Interpretation

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of August 12, 2003, asking for a clarification and reconsideration of recent NHTSA interpretations of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are set out at Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your first question is:"Consistent with the May 7, 2003, interpretation to Dan De Decker . . . is it correct that a Small Volume Manufacturer ('SVM', i.e. a producer with fewer than 500 USA units/year) does not have to report information going back 9 model years to the extent that such information is not available as computer data and only exists on paper?"

The threshold figure of 500 is not a sum total of motor vehicles but separate totals applicable to the individual categories we have established for EWR purposes. Thus, if a manufacturer produces 350 light vehicles and 400 medium-heavy vehicles in a year, it would report under 49 CFR 579.27 for each category.

The De Decker letter addressed a different situation then the one you raise. We informed Mr. De Decker that, to the extent that a manufacturer has not stored historical warranty records in an electronic medium (e.g., the warranty system is only paper-based), the manufacturer need not submit historical warranty information with respect to the one-time historical report required by Section 579.28(c). The one-time historical report is not required from manufacturers that report only under Section 579.27, and a manufacturer must provide the information on incidents involving deaths, as specified in subsections (b) and (c) thereof, even if it "only exists on paper."Prospectively, beginning with the third calendar quarter of 2003, manufacturers covered by 49 CFR 579.21-.26 must report warranty and warranty adjustment data regardless of the type of data storage system they maintain.

Your second question relates to the timing of a manufacturers determination of the 500 vehicle production threshold separating limited and comprehensive reporting under the early warning reporting regulation. As set forth in a letter to Jason Cavallo of July 21, 2003, where individual small volume manufacturers are held by a single parent corporation, under Section 579.3(b), EWR reports could be filed by either the parent corporation or each of the vehicle-manufacturing subsidiaries, but in either event, the production of all related vehicle manufacturers must be aggregated to determine whether the threshold for comprehensive reporting was met. We also stated in a July 24, 2003 letter to you that we expect each manufacturer to make a good faith estimate of its expected annual production of a category of vehicle, and that if its estimated production is 500 or more annually, the manufacturer should begin comprehensive reporting in the quarter in which the estimate is made rather than the quarter in which production actually reaches or exceeds 500.

You also stated that you had been under the impression that comprehensive reporting would begin with the first quarter following the calendar quarter in which production first exceeded 500. In consideration of these letters and your understanding of the regulation, you have asked us to agree to exercise our prosecutorial discretion not to take action against any manufacturer whose total production in 2003 was less than 500 if it fails to file comprehensive information for the first quarter of 2004.

While we do not believe it appropriate to make such a commitment, we do not anticipate taking enforcement action, particularly against relatively small manufacturers, who make good faith mistakes in attempting to comply with the EWR regulation.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/14/03

ID: Turner.1

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Vice Chairman
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
6298 Rock Hill Road
The Plains, VA 20198-1916

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your February 17, 2004, letter in which you discuss what you believe to be errors in certain school bus-related provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Specifically, you stated that as currently printed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), paragraphs S9.2(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the standard, pertaining to field of view requirements for the outside rearview mirrors on school buses, are inconsistent with amendments published in a 1995 final rule. Your letter seeks correction of the identified errors. After reviewing the relevant provisions, we agree that the current language in the CFR is inaccurate and in need of revision.

As you pointed out, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration previously modified FMVSS No. 111, including the above-referenced provisions, in a Federal Register notice published on March 27, 1995 (60 FR 15600). Paragraph S9.2(b) of that final rule, changes which were properly reflected in the CFR as late as 1997, provided as follows:

(b) Includes one or more mirrors which together provide, at the drivers eye location, a view of:

(1)For the mirror system on the right side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder N in Figure 2, and that area of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder N to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

(2) For the mirror system on the left side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and that area of the of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder M to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

We believe that we now understand the source of the problem.In 1998, FMVSS No. 111 (and several other standards) were amended as part of the agencys metric conversion efforts (see 63 FR 28922 (May 27, 1998); 63 FR 50995 (September 24, 1998)). In converting the above requirements to metric measurements (i.e., 61 m), the May 27, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted language referencing "area of the ground," rather than maintaining proper focus on the test cylinder (see 63 FR 28922, 28929). Subsequently, in attempting to correct an error brought to the agencys attention in a petition for reconsideration, the September 24, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted a correction intended for S9.3(b)(2) at S9.2(b)(2) (see 63 FR 50995, 51000). Thus, the changes you have pointed out resulted from simple error, rather than any intentional regulatory action.

We appreciate your bringing this error to our attention, and we wanted to make you aware that we have drafted the attached correcting amendment to the standard to resolve the issue that you have raised. 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

Enclosure
ref:111
d.4/8/04

ID: 18462.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636, Japan

Re: Motorcycle stop and taillamp arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1998, asking for our advice on a motorcycle stop and taillamp system that Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. is developing.

Stanley presents two hypothetical rear lamp arrangements for which it seeks an opinion on how it should decide the number of lighted sections that should be grouped for the purpose of determining photometric compliance, that is, "whether all the lighted sections of the same function (tail or stop lamp) installed on both sides should be grouped, or the lighted sections installed on each side should be grouped." Specifically, "we would like to have your advice how we should consider the number of the lamp (one lamp with four or six lighted sections spread over the rear side of the vehicle or two lamps with two or three lighted sections on each side) in such cases."

Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have one stop lamp and one taillamp but permits it to have two stop lamps and two taillamps symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The stop lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J586 February 1984, and the taillamps, those of SAE Standard J585e September 1977. Neither of these standards differentiate between lamps for motorcycles and lamps for other types of motor vehicles. Therefore, compliance with the photometric requirements of the two SAE standards is determined in the same manner for all motor vehicles equipped with stop lamps and taillamps.

Table 1 of each SAE Standard establishes photometric requirements for lamps with one, two, and three lighted sections. Footnote 3 to Table 1 of SAE J585e and Footnote d to Table 1 of SAE J586 refer to a "multiple device" lamp which "gives its indication by two or more separately lighted sections which may be separate lamps." The photometric values "are to apply when all sections" which provide the signal are considered as a unit except when the dimensions between optical centers exceed 560 mm for two-compartment lamps or lamp arrangements, and does not exceed 410 mm for three-compartment lamps or lamp arrangements.

Type 1 depicts a system of six combination stop/taillamps. Two lamps are mounted on each side of the motorcycle and a third lamp is mounted below the two lamps. The distance between optical centers of the innermost upper lamp and the lower tail/stop lamp is 390 mm. The distance between the optical centers of the outermost and innermost upper lamps is not specified but is less than 390 mm. The distance in optical centers between the outermost upper lamp and the lower tail/stop lamp on each side is not specified but, if the drawing is to scale, it appears to be 390 mm.

In the Type 1 arrangement, the optical centers between the innermost upper lamp and the lower stop/taillamp on each side of the motorcycle, or between the innermost upper lamps on each side of the motorcycle, are 390 mm apart. Thus, each pair comprises "multiple devices" whose photometric requirements are those that apply to single lamps with two lighted sections. However, because more than two sections exist (three or six) in this design, one must determine whether there is more than 410 mm between optical centers. The drawing indicates that the optical centers of the three combination lamps are all within 410 mm of each other. Thus, Stanley can group three lamps on each side as a single three-compartment lamp.

The drawing also shows that the distance between optical centers of the innermost upper combination lamps on either side of the motorcycle is 390 mm. However, no dimension is given for the distance between the optical centers of either of the two upper lamps on one side of the motorcycle and the lower lamp on the other side, or for the distance between the optical center of the lower combination lamps on each side of the motorcycle. If the distance is not more than 410 mm between the optical centers of any of the six lamps, Standard No. 108 permits this arrangement to be considered a single lamp with more than three compartments.

Type 2 depicts a system with two combination tail/stop lamps mounted vertically adjacent to each other on each side of the vehicle. The distance between the optical centers of the upper lamps on each side of the vehicle is 520 mm. The distance between the optical centers of the lower lamps in the two-lamp array on each side of the vehicle is not stated but appears to be at least 520 mm. Type 2 also depicts a lower mounted stop lamp whose optical center is 340 mm from the optical center of the lower combination tail/stop lamp on the same side (the distance to the optical center of the upper lamp is not stated but is less than 560 mm). The distance between the optical center of the lower stop lamps on each side is unstated, as is the distance between the optical center of the lower stop lamp on one side of the motorcycle, and the optical centers of the two combination tail/stop lamps on the other side of the vehicle. However, the distance appears to be more than 560 mm.

In the Type 2 arrangement, the two combination tail/stop lamps on either side can be considered a taillamp with two compartments, but because the optical centers of the taillamps on the right and left are greater than 410 mm apart, the four lamps do not constitute a single lamp that comprises more than three compartments. Similarly, the three stop lamps on either side can constitute a single three-compartment lamp. However, the optical centers of some of the six stop lamps are greater than 410 mm apart and this array cannot be considered a single lamp with more than three compartments.

We note that your questions pertain to the use of "all the lighted sections of the same function" in each Type and therefore we have not addressed how photometrics might be measured when less than all lighted sections of the same function are used for compliance purposes (e.g., use of the upper pairs of stop lamps in Type 2).

We hope that this explanation is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.11/20/98

ID: 18464.ztv

Mr. Ralf Wohl
EMB Incorporated
6780 Depot Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Wohl:

This is in reply to your fax of July 29, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your electric motorcycle.

Your first question is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control. The answer is yes; as you have noted, S5.1 states that "Each motorcycle shall be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control, located and operable as specified in Table 1" (our emphasis). You have also asked whether the operation of your control, as you have described it, "is adequate for this purpose." As you have also noted, "Operation - Column 3" of Table 1 is blank. This means that Standard No. 123 does not specify how the supplemental engine stop control shall be operated. This choice is left to the manufacturer but obviously it must be a control that provides an alternative means of stopping the engine. On your electric motorcycle, the primary stop control is the twist grip handlebar on which the throttle is returned to the off position. If the throttle sticks in the open position, the propulsion system may also be overriden and deactivated by application of the brakes. We view this as a "supplemental engine stop control" within the general meaning of the term.

You also tell us of your wish to manufacture motorcycles for a limited time using "an off the shelf 28V military headlamp that does not meet all the photometric requirements for a motorcycle per FMVSS 571.108," and ask whether a waiver is possible. I enclose a copy of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555) under which manufacturers of motor vehicles, including motorcycles, may apply for temporary exemptions from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this process takes from three to four months because of the necessity to publish a notice in the Federal Register asking for comments on the application.

This may not be responsive to your situation since it is possible that your technical difficulties will be solved by then. Other than Part 555, we have no authority to grant a waiver from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:123
d.11/12/98

ID: 18475-2.drn

Dear <Confidential>

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of how S5.1 of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection applies to your company's planned passenger car with a new side door system feature. As explained below, the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) for the car must not exceed the 90 g requirement applicable to passenger cars with two side doors.

Your new side door system feature can generally be described as follows:

The side door system is that of a conventional 2-door vehicle with certain variations. The front portion of the side door system is identical in structure to that of the side door on a conventional 2-door vehicle. Access to the rear seat is possible using the front portion of the side door system alone. The side door system also includes a narrow rear access door panel. This panel cannot be opened independently of the front portion of the side door system. There is no structure between the front portion of the side door system and the rear access door panel.

I note that this type of side door system could be used on one or both sides of a vehicle. For ease of discussion, we will address the situation where it would be used on both sides. However, our interpretation would not differ if the system is used on one side of a vehicle.

Standard No. 214's dynamic performance requirements are set forth in paragraph S5. The performance requirements for passenger cars differ for 2-door cars and 4-door cars. More specifically, under S5.1, the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) may not exceed 85 g for passenger cars with four side doors, and 90 g for passenger cars with two side doors.

The issue raised by your letter is whether passenger cars equipped with your new side door system would be considered 2-door cars or 4-door cars for purposes of S5.1. Put another way, the issue is whether the front portion of the side door system and the rear access panel would be counted as separate doors in determining whether the vehicle is a 2-door car or 4-door car.

We note that this issue is not directly addressed by the language of Standard No. 214. Among other things, the standard does not include a definition of "door." It is therefore especially appropriate, in interpreting the standard, to look to the purposes behind the different performance requirements for 2-door cars and 4-door cars.

In the preamble to the final rule establishing the different performance requirements for 2-door cars and 4-doors (see 55 FR 45722; October 30, 1990), the agency provided the following explanation:

Another important issue, however, is technological feasibility. In particular, based on its review of the record, NHTSA is concerned about the ability of manufacturers to achieve TTI(d) lower than 90 g for all of their two-door cars, and lower than 85 g for all of their four-door cars.

NHTSA believes that it is generally more difficult for manufacturers to achieve lower TTI(d) for two-door cars than for four-door cars. The reason for this is that the side structure and geometry of two-door cars is different from four-door cars. For example, since the door on a two-door model is typically wider than on a four-door model, it is more difficult to design as strong a structure for the door on the two-door model. Taking into account the confidential data submitted by the manufacturers and other available data, the agency has six sets of data on two-door and four-door versions of the same model. These data indicate that the driver dummy injury measurements in a two-door car are about 14 percent higher than in a four-door car. NHTSA also observes that of 22 two-door cars for which the agency has data, only one had driver TTI(d) less than 80, only two had less than 85 g, and only five had less than 90 g.

(55 FR 45746-45757.)

The primary rationale for the slightly higher TTI(d) limit for 2-door cars was thus the difference in side structure and geometry of 2-door cars and 4-door cars, including but not limited to the wider doors typically used for 2-door cars.

The side structure and geometry of the car design at issue is comparable to that of a typical 2-door car rather than a 4-door car. As discussed above, the front portion of the side door system is identical in structure to that of a conventional 2-door vehicle, and access to the rear seat, using the front portion of the side door system alone, is possible. The front portion of the side door system, by itself, thus has the width of the wider doors typically used for 2-door cars. Moreover, there is no structural component between the front portion of the side door system and the rear access door panel.

Given that it is unclear from the language of Standard No. 214 whether the rear access door panel should (considering its small size) cause the vehicles in question to be regarded as 4-door cars, and given the new side door system has the same characteristics that led the agency to establish a slightly higher TTI(d) limit for 2-door cars, the agency concludes that the vehicles should be considered 2-door cars for purposes of determining S5.1's applicable TTI(d) limits.

I note that because this interpretation is based in large part on the policy determinations behind establishing different TTI(d) limits for 2-door and 4-door cars, it should not be viewed as precedent for how we would interpret the term "door" in other contexts.

NHTSA grants your letter's request for confidential treatment of certain information and will keep the identity of your company confidential. The information in publicly available copies of the letter will be redacted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:214
d.10/1/98

ID: 18558.ztv

Mr. Jim Ashdown
E & D Manager
Magnetti Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire WS11 3LP
England

FAX 9-0111543466325

Dear Mr. Ashdown:

This is in reply to your fax of August 6, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Because of the need to coordinate interpretations of Federal motor vehicle safety standards with other Offices of this agency, we were unable to respond by "return fax" before now.

You have two questions and they relate to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You ask for confirmation that "paragraph S.7.8.5.2.C is the correct section for tamper proof V HAD systems." We confirm your understanding. Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) requires that headlamps with VHADs manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with their calibration permanently fixed by the headlamp manufacturer.

Your second questions is whether there is "a requirement now for optical centre markings on rearlamps similar to S.7.8.5.3.f on headlamps." There is no such requirement. Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f) requires such markings only on headlamps. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that the optical center be marked on any lamp other than a headlamp.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/22/98

ID: 18559.ztv

Mr. Robert M. Currie
Senior Vice President
Fiber Light Solutions, LLC
1408 One Hancock Plaza
Gulfport, MS 39501-1980

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, seeking an opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statutes, regulations, and standards, regarding the legality of "FATBOYZ," a product of your company.

You reference a letter from this Office dated January 31, 1997, in which we informed you that we considered an earlier version of this product to be a supplementary side marker lamp, and advised you that the color of the supplementary lamp must not conflict with the color required for original equipment side marker lamps by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

FATBOYZ may be wired to illuminate either red or amber "so as to agree with the vehicle Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) side marker lamp color." On trailers whose overall length is 30 feet or more, "the forward half will be amber, and the rear half red." There is a "color cruiser" version which is "not capable of flashing," available in either amber or red, "to be installed matching the OEM color of the vehicle side marker lamps."

As you have described FATBOYZ, the new system appears to be consistent with the advice we have given you previously. It appears permissible as original or aftermarket supplementary lighting equipment under Standard No. 108 and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety. As a supplementary side marker lamp, it may flash with the turn signal lamps, but it is not required to. The color must be red for FATBOYZ mounted on the side of the box of pickup trucks, and, on trailers, amber up to the midpoint of the trailer, and red to the rear of the midpoint. This is required regardless of the overall length of the trailer.

If you have further questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/22/98

ID: 18560.ztv

Mr. Malcolm R. Currie
President and CEO
Currie Technologies Inc.
7011 Havenhurst Ave., Unit A
Van Nuys, CA 91405

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor driven cycles. You believe that your product, an electric bicycle, qualifies for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. Sec.30113(b)(3)(B)(iii). This section authorizes exemptions that "would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle." You plan to introduce your product in September 1998 if the exemption is approved.

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant an exemption on the basis of your letter. Section 30113 has been implemented by 49 CFR Part 555, and the procedures set out in this regulation must be followed both by you and the agency in considering requests for temporary exemptions. To apply for an exemption on the basis of Sec. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), you must submit an application containing the information specified in Sec. 555.5(b) and Sec. 555.6(c).

The agency does not grant blanket exemptions from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571). This means that your application must identify each standard, or the part of each standard, that applies to motor driven cycles, and from which you are requesting exemption. As indicated above, the application should contain sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that the exemption "would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle."

When we have received an application meeting the procedural requirements of Part 555, we prepare and publish in the Federal Register a notice inviting interested persons to comment on the application, which provides them a period of 30 days in which to do so. After evaluating the comments, we prepare and publish the Administrator's decision. The entire exemption process requires three to four months. This means that, under the best of circumstances, we could not give you an answer as early as September 1998.

If you have any questions, please call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.9/29/98