ID: 17690.ztv

Mr. William A. Parkyn
Teledyne Lighting & Display Products
12525 Daphne Avenue
Hawthorne, CA 90250

Dear Mr. Parkyn:

This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1998, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to stop lamps for motor-driven cycles.

Paragraph S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that a motor-driven cycle may be equipped with a stop lamp whose photometric output "for the group of test points specified in Figure 1 is at least one-half of the minimum values set forth in that figure." Table III specifies that motorcycle stop lamps shall meet SAE Standard J586. You ask for confirmation that S5.1.1.22 "means that motor-driven cycle stop lamps must meet one half of the minima set forth in SAE Standard J586."

The minimum allowable candlepower value for a stop lamp is established by Figure 1b. For a single compartment stop lamp, this is 80 candlepower. Rather than determining photometric compliance through measuring candlepower at each individual test point, Figure 1c groups the individual test points into five Zones. Figure 1c is titled "Sum of the Percentages of Grouped Minimum Candlepower." The sum of the percentages for Zones 1 and 5 is 65 percent. The minimum allowable candlepower value for Zones 1 and 5 is determined by multiplying the minimum value of Figure 1b by the Zone percentage in Figure 1c, that is to say 65 percent of 80 candlepower, which is 52 candlepower. Under S5.1.122, then, at least half this value must be met by a motorcycle stop lamp, that is to say, Zones 1 and 5 must achieve at least 26 candlepower. The corresponding value established by SAE J586 is only 25 candlepower. For this reason, it is not correct to say that S5.1.1.22 means that motor-driven cycle stop lamps must meet one-half the minima set forth in SAE J586. However, this is a true statement for Zones 2, 3, and 4 where the values under both Figure 1 and SAE J586 are 100, 380, and 100 candlepower respectively.

In our review of your letter, we find that S5.1.1.22 could be more clearly expressed, and should read that the "photometric output for any group of test points specified in Figure 1c is at least one-half of the minimum value obtained when the minimum allowable stop lamp candlepower value of Figure 1b is multiplied by the appropriate percentage for the group that is specified in Figure 1c."

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/1/98

ID: 2967yy

Mr. Howard "Mac" Dashney
Pupil Transportation Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, Michigan 48909

Dear Mr. Dashney:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation" (49 CFR 571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus" d:4/l2/9l

ID: nht91-3.19

DATE: April 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-19-91 from Howard "Mac" Dashney to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5739)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR S571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210;

Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR S571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR S571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation" (49 CFR S571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR S571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ALICE COLLINS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/15/88, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM ALICE COLLINS

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activitie s in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I wi ll address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a d efect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MP V, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle

2 class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an Augu st 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition again st vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our C onstitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr. Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief t hat school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school c hildren by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupa nt's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

3

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for veh icles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. "

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: Ocean_imports_scooter_03-9045.2version2

Mr. Brian Lambert
Panalpina Inc. / Ocean Imports
18600 Lee Rd.
Humble, TX 77338

Dear Mr. Lambert:

This responds to your letter asking whether several models of scooters you are considering importing into the United States are "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the two models with a maximum speed greater than 20 mph are motor vehicles.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" (Emphasis added.) "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In a November 26, 2003, letter addressed to Mr. Amir Ambar, we addressed the issue of whether a scooter that he wished to import into the United States was considered a motor vehicle under this definition. We will consider the points we made in that letter in responding to your request.

In responding to Mr. Ambar, we noted that when determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency first looks to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

We also noted that in an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for

the purpose of our standards (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed). At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter at issue in our November 2003 letter was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranged between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter was shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warned against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we concluded that the "scooter" at issue was properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore was not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. We explained that the scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This was reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters were comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice.

We also stated that while the scooter at issue in that letter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipated that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways would be comparatively rare. We recognized that the scooter was equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. We noted that while this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, such equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

Finally, we stated that while we had concluded at that time that the scooter was not a motor vehicle, we might re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

We will now turn to the scooters you asked about. In your e-mail, you stated that the three scooter models you are considering importing are intended for off-road-use only. The JC 50 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 49 cc, a maximum speed of 15 mph, and a height of 32.6 inches. The JC 70 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 72 cc, a maximum speed of 37 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. The JC 90 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 85.7 cc, a maximum speed of 50 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. Your e-mail stated that all three models are marked for off-road use and all three models have VINs. You further stated that sales of these scooters would be primarily through the internet. As advertised on the internet, the scooters are shown with headlights and mirrors.

ID: 1984-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Walsh:

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for confirmation of a 1972 agency interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In pertinent part, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that, at a minimum, a motorcycle be equipped with one taillamp, one stop lamp, and four turn signal lamps. Table IV directs that the stop lamp and taillamp be placed on the vertical centerline, and that the turn signal lamps be placed on each side of the vertical centerline with a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp "and tail or stop lamp." Table IV expressly permits dual stop and taillamps "symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." No express exception is made to the 4-inch spacing requirement if dual stop or taillamps are installed, raising the question whether the minimum distance must be maintained no matter what the rear lighting configuration may be.

You have called to our attention an interpretation of July 1, 1972, that Motor Vehicle Programs of this agency provided Stanley Electric Company Ltd. In that instance the proposed rear lighting configuration consisted of two combination stop, turn signal, and taillamps placed on either side of the vertical centerline. The agency opined that the minimum separation distance was not applicable to combination lamps when there was "no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline." You have asked for confirmation that this remains the agency's view.

As you have pointed out Suzuki's proposed design of a unit combining amber turn signal lamps with red stop and taillamps is similar to current passenger car practice where the minimum distance requirement does not exist. Therefore, this will confirm that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and stop and taillamps applies when single stop and taillamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and taillamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

October 31, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation -FMVSS 108

As we discussed by telephone on 31 October, this is to request confirmation that a July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 applies to the motorcycle rear lighting configuration described below.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 requires that motorcycle rear turn signals be separated by 9 inches or more (centerline to centerline, and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the tail or stop lamp be 4 inches or more. These requirements contemplate the typical motorcycle rear lighting configuration of a centrally located combination tail lamp/stop lamp and separate turn signal lamps on each side of the tail/stop lamp.

For some of today's wider motorcycles, however, we are contemplating a different rear lighting configuration, shown roughly in the enclosed sketch. This configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located near the outer edge of each side of the rear of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp would be a red tail lamp/stop lamp combination, and the outboard part of the lamp would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would typically be more than 24 inches, far exceeding the 9 inch minimum required by FMVSS 108, and providing clear indication of the direction of an intended turning maneuver. In essence, this rear lighting configuration is comparable to current practice in passenger car rear lighting.

In 1972, NHTSA indicated that

the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each noneside of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline.

A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your reference. Based on this interpretation, Suzuki has designed a configuration as shown in the sketch. We would ask you to confirm that the 1972 interpretation would apply to the configuration shown, in recognition that it is meaningless to require a 4 inch separation distance where it is impossible because of the combined construction of the rear lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department

JW:ej

Enclosure "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

July 1972 N41-34 Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of July 5 concerning the requirements for stop and turn signal lamps on motorcycles. The answers to the questions you asked follow -- Question 1.

According to FMVSS 108 Table IV, it says, "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail stop lamp is 4 inches." However, in the case of the above sketch where tail lamp, stop lamp and turn signal lamp are combined in one, can we ignore the above requirements of Table IV? The answer is yes; the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each side of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline. Question 2. Suppose the above lamp arrangement is acceptable, must each stop lamp meet the Class A turn signal lamp (red) -- SAE J575d, Table 1? Or, is complying the said requirements with the total of two lamps acceptable? The two stop lamps cannot be considered as multiple lamps, since it is required that the stop lamp be extinguished on the side when the turn signal is flashing. Each of the stop lamps must therefore meet the Class A photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J575d. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker for E. T. Driver, Director Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs

ID: 3320o

George F. Ball, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Ball:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck emissions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have certain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the GM 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 minivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chassis" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:l2/2l/88

ID: aiam2745

Dear Mr. Beach: This responds to your November 15, 1977, letter asking severa questions concerning Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; In your first question, you paraphrase the requirements of S5.3. concerning emergency exit force requirements and release motion and ask whether your understanding of the section is correct. Your interpretation of the standard's requirements are accurate.; Second, you enclosed photographs of a manufacturer's rear emergenc door release mechanism and asked whether it complies with the standard's requirements. The force release mechanism shown in the pictures does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. The release mechanism is not located in the high force access region as required by the standard, and the motion required for release of the exit is not upward as required by paragraph S5.3.3.; Finally, you asked whether your enclosed copy of Standard No. 217 whic includes paragraph S5.2.3.1 is up-to-date. The answer to your question is yes. You have been confused by paragraph S5.2.3.1 because it states that a bus must have, at a minimum, one rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push-out window. The requirement for one rear emergency door does not preclude a schoolbus with a 10,000 pound GVWR or less from using two (double) rear emergency doors. Paragraph S5.4.2.2 states '...the opening of the rear emergency door *or doors* shall be ...' (Emphasis added). The use of the term 'doors' in paragraph S5.4.2.2 indicates that double doors are permitted.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2587

Dear Mr. Decker: This responds to your March 30, 1977, letter asking whether th rebuilding of a motor vehicle with all new running gear and an old body constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle requiring compliance with Federal regulations.; In the rebuilding operation you describe, you retain the old body tan structure while replacing the entire running gear assembly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined by regulation in 49 CFR 571.7(f) that the rebuilding of a motor vehicle using old running gear with a new body does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The vehicle will be considered newly manufactured unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly is not new and was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. In addition, the trailer must be owned or leased by the same party both before and after the remanufacture. Since the running gear with which you plan to equip your vehicle is new, your operation constitutes the new manufacture of a vehicle.; You ask secondly what portion of the running gear can be replaced a normal repairs without such replacement being considered the manufacture of a new vehicle. You may replace any part of the running gear assembly that breaks or malfunctions during operation of the motor vehicle. The NHTSA would consider this to be normal maintenance of the vehicle, not subject to the requirements applicable to vehicle manufacture.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2244

Dear Mr. Tucker: This responds to Titan Trailer Corporation's March 2, 1976, questio whether certain bulk grain and feed meal trailers manufactured by Titan qualify as bulk agricultural commodity trailers that are permitted until June 30, 1976, to meet emergency and parking brake requirements other than those specified in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Sections S5.6 and S5.8 provide that a trailer manufactured before Jun 30, 1976, that is designed to transport bulk agricultural commodities in off-road harvesting sites and to a processing plant or storage location, as evidenced by skeletal construction that accomodates (sic) harvest containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs that minimizes damage in field operations, is entitled to a specified option.; From the descriptive material enclosed, it appears that the Tita models 92 and 24 are designed for field use and conform to the criteria of skeletal construction that accomodates (sic) a harvest container, despite the fact that the container is permanently attached to the frame that surrounds it. It is not clear that the trailers are not more than 28 feet in length, or that the design positions air lines and reservoirs to minimize field-related damage. Assuming that the length, air lines, and reservoirs do meet these criteria, it appears that the trailers would qualify for the manufacturer option under S5.6 and S5.8.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel