[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter asking about 49 CFR Part 523, Vehicle Classification, specifically whether the vehicle design you are considering would qualify as a light truck for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) reform regulation of this agency (amended by final rule published April 6, 2006). The agency has granted your request for confidential treatment of information contained in your letter. However, we asked for and you agreed to our including in this letter certain general descriptions of your vehicle, to facilitate a clear interpretation of the CAFE requirements in question. Based on the information you have provided to the agency and our analysis below, our answer is the vehicle could be considered a light truck, subject to certain conditions. More information is needed, however, to render a more definitive interpretation.

As you noted in your letter, the CAFE reform final rule established two primary criteria for vehicles manufactured in model years 2008 and beyond that rely on the vehicles expanded use for non-passenger carrying purposes to qualify for light truck classification (523.5(a)(ii)) (71 FR at 17650-17652 (April 6, 2006)):

1)      The vehicle must be equipped with at least 3 rows of designated seating positions as standard equipment; and,

2)      permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal or stowing of foldable or pivoting seats so as to create a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobiles interior.

In answering your letter, we will address both of these criteria in turn.

Three Rows of Designated Seating Positions as Standard Equipment

You have developed a vehicle design consisting of standard-equipment adjustable seating that can provide multiple arrangements.  The vehicle has a drivers seat and a front outboard seating position, a second row of 3 seats, and a fixed single full size seat (as you describe it) in the vicinity where third row seats would typically be installed in a minivan. Of course, all seats, including the rearmost fixed single seat, would have to meet the definition of a designated seating position in 49 CFR 571.3(b)[1] in order to be counted for purposes of establishing a row.

Based on the schematic drawings you provided, it appears to us that your vehicle has three rows of seats. While the common understanding of a row of seating implies two or more seats in alignment, we could consider a rearmost fixed single seat to be a row. Generally speaking, we would determine whether a single seat is a row by determining whether there is any lateral overlap between the outline of the seat and the outline of other seats fore and aft of it when viewed from the side. A seat outline would be derived from the outer limits of a seat projected laterally onto a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane. If a single seat does not overlap with any other seat when all seats are positioned as described below, we would consider the single seat to be its own row. On the other hand, if the single seat does overlap, we would consider it to be part of a row with the other seats with which it overlaps.

We would consider one or more seats aligned laterally across the width of the vehicle, when adjusted in the way described below, to constitute a row. Specifically, when the vehicle is viewed from the side from one or more points perpendicular to the vehicles longitudinal axis, the outline of the seat does not overlap the outline of a seat in front of or behind it, when:

        All seat backs, if adjustable, are set to the manufacturers nominal design riding position; and

        The front designated seating positions are set to the seating reference point (SgRP) position as defined by 49 CFR 571.3.

        All other seating positions are set to any adjustable position.

While we are unable to reach a definitive conclusion based on the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that your vehicle meets this criterion. We note, however, that the three rows requirement does not become mandatory until model year 2012. We are considering clarifying rulemaking between now and then to improve the explanation of the requirement.

Flat, Leveled Cargo Surface

It also appears, based on the schematics of your proposed design, that the vehicle would meet the flat-floor requirement of the light truck definition (523.5(a)(ii)). The definition states that a light truck must be designed to permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal or stowing of foldable or pivoting seats so as to create a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobiles interior.

It appears to us from the pictures included with your letter that all of the rear seats in your proposed vehicle design either fold into the floor or fold and pivot to store in front of the forwardmost point of installation of these seats. We cannot provide a definitive opinion without knowing more about your vehicle, but we note that we would consider any intrusion of a seat component into the area extending backward from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats as not adhering to the flat-floor criterion.

I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:523

d.2/21/08

Mr. Michael P. Hancock

Advanced Fire Control Technologies, Inc.

13685 E. Davies Place

Centennial, CO 80112

Dear Mr. Hancock:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, would apply to your companys product. Your letter explained that your company produces fire suppression delivery systems that are all or in part powered by high pressure compressed air. You stated that under your design, this high pressure compressed air is usually stored in DOT controlled cargo bottles which are fixed to the carrying vehicle, but your company would like to switch to lighter composite type high pressure bottles. Specifically, you asked whether the agency regulates compressed natural gas (CNG) high pressure composite bottles that are filled with compressed air under FMVSS No. 304 (49 CFR 571.304), and if so, whether it is possible to obtain an exemption from those requirements. Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that your compressed air tanks would not be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 304 for the reasons that follow.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

FMVSS No. 304 applies to each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel and to each container designed to store CNG as motor fuel on-board any motor vehicle (see S3). The standard does not apply per se to tanks that simply are capable of holding CNG, but instead, it is concerned with CNG-fueled vehicles

and the tanks that hold CNG for those vehicles. It is plainly conceivable that the same type of high pressure bottles could be suitable for holding a variety of different substances. Thus, the only tanks that are subject to FMVSS No. 304 are those that are designed to and do store CNG as motor fuel for motor vehicles. Even if, as you suggest in your letter, the bottles which your company uses for compressed air were originally designed to store CNG for fueling a vehicle, in your application the tanks would not be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 304. As we have concluded that your bottles are not subject to FMVSS No. 304, there is no need to discuss the issue of an exemption from FMVSS No. 304.

Furthermore, we note that despite the fact that your bottles are not subject to FMVSS No. 304, they may be subject to other applicable Federal regulations or to State regulations. However, we cannot advise you regarding those provisions. We are forwarding this letter to the Office of Chief Counsel of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and you may also wish to contact them for guidance on whether the bottles that you are producing are in fact subject to the Federal hazardous materials laws.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:304

d.5/23/07

Scott Willard, Regulatory Analyst

Central Engineering

Seating Systems Division

Lear Corporation

21557 Telegraph Road

Southfield, MI 48034

Dear Mr. Willard:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head restraints; Mandatory applicability begins on September 1, 2008. Specifically, you asked for clarification with regard to what is the lowest position of adjustment for a head restraint. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we have concluded that, for the design you ask about, the lowest position of adjustment refers to the position in which the head restraint is in contact with the top of the seat back.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture.

You noted in your letter that Head restraint design often allows adjustment travel below the lowest locking position because contact with the seat back serves as the stop for the lowest position. You stated that this is not considered a stowed position, but that usable head restraint adjustment travel includes this distance and may [a]ffect the determination of the mid-travel locking position chosen for the dynamic test. You asked whether the lowest position of adjustment under S5.3.4 was a locked position slightly above contact with the top of the seat back, or below that position, in contact with the top of the seat back.

S5.3.4 of FVMSS No. 202a reads, in relevant part, as follows:

At each outboard designated seating position, .If the head restraint is adjustable, adjust the top of the head restraint to a position midway between the lowest position of adjustment and the highest position of adjustment. If an adjustment position

midway between the lowest and the highest position does not exist, adjust the head restraint to a position below and nearest to midway between the lowest position of adjustment and the highest position of adjustment.

We interpret the phrase lowest position of adjustment to mean, for the design you ask about, the position where the head restraint is in contact with the top of the seat back. Most head restraint adjustment positions are the places where the head restraint locks or clicks into a detent. However, for designs where the head restraint may be adjusted below the lowest locking position, the position where the head restraint contacts the top of the seat back would be an adjustment position, even though it does not click into a detent at that point. The seat back provides a stop for the downward adjustment of the head restraint, just as a detent does at other positions of adjustment. Additionally, we note that many people leave or position the head restraint at this point. Therefore, we consider it the lowest point of adjustment for purposes of determining the mid-travel locking position for the dynamic test.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:202

d.7/23/07

Mr. Mark A. Fowler

Hollywood Postal

4747 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 101

Hollywood, FL 33021

Dear Mr. Fowler:

This responds to your letter regarding the requirements for importing a low-speed vehicle/neighborhood electric vehicle (LSV/NEV). Specifically, you ask about the procedures for importing a vehicle built to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low-Speed Vehicles.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA defined the types of vehicles that can be certified as LSVs and established FMVSS No. 500 to ensure that LSVs are equipped with appropriate motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a self- certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. Our regulations prescribe how certification is accomplished (see 49 CFR 567).

You ask where you can get a list of exactly which parts this agency needs to test, and how many of each part we would need. You also ask if we require a finished vehicle to inspect. As explained above, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA selects a certain number of vehicles for its compliance testing program. If NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that a vehicle does not comply with the FMVSS, or is defective, the manufacturer must notify owners of the vehicle and provide a remedy for the noncompliance. By statute, the importer of a vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the vehicle and has the statutory duty to remedy a noncompliance or a safety-related defect.

An LSV/NEV is considered a motor vehicle, and therefore subject to NHTSA regulations regarding the importation of vehicles. NHTSAs website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov) contains a substantial amount of information regarding the procedures for importing vehicles. Enclosed with this letter we have provided a printout of the overview of frequently asked questions relating to vehicle importation and certification. The specific address for this web page is http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/FAQ%20Site/index.html. This page also contains links to other information which may be of interest to you.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:500

d.9/20/07

Kerry Legg, Safety & Compliance Manager

Customer Services Head Office

New Flyer, Inc.

25 DeBaets Street

Winnipeg, Manitoba

R2J 4G5 Canada

Dear Mr. Legg:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask whether it would be permissible to incorporate flashing applications of otherwise steady-burning lamps, or add additional special functioning lamps, for emergency conditions on a transit bus. According to the information you supplied, these lamps would be part of a silent alarm system, perhaps used in conjunction with a GPS or radio alarm system, which would notify outsiders or law enforcement to the presence of an emergency situation on the bus without alerting the individual(s) who may be causing a threat inside the vehicle. After considering the information you provided and the analysis discussed below, we regret to inform you that the silent alarm system you have described with flashing clearance or other special lamps would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Analysis of the Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.5.10

The question of which lamps are permitted to flash on a vehicle is addressed in paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. The relevant provision states:

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.

As you correctly point out in your letter, paragraph S5.5.10(d) of the standard supplies the general rule. All lamps are required to be steady-burning unless specifically excepted by S5.5.10(a)-(c). Therefore, any lamp not covered by these exceptions cannot flash under any circumstances. You specifically ask whether clearance lamps are permitted to flash. Clearance lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, clearance lamps must be steady burning and cannot flash.[1]

Paragraph S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps and side marker lamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, we do not believe that the silent alarm system constitutes signaling purposes for the purpose of S5.5.10(b). We do not believe that the phrase signaling purposes should be interpreted in its broadest possible context, which could mean any information communicated to others via visual signals. Instead, we interpret the phrase signaling purposes to be limited to those signals communicating traffic information.[2] The silent alarm, however, does not signal traffic information, but rather information regarding the duress of the driver. We believe that extending our interpretation of signaling purposes could conflict with the intent of S5.5.10(d), which is to limit the use of flashing lamps on vehicles to a limited and easily-understandable set of signals. Therefore, a silent alarm system utilizing flashing headlamps and side marker lamps would not be permitted under FMVSS No. 108.

Under S5.5.10(a), turn signal lamps and hazard warning signal lamps must be wired to flash. Therefore, S5.5.10 would not prohibit the use of those lamps as part of a silent alarm system. However, we note that the lamps must still conform to the requirements listed in Table III of FMVSS No. 108.

Analysis of Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.1.3

While Standard No. 108 mandates the installation and design of required lamps, it does not prohibit the installation of auxiliary lamps. However, the use of auxiliary lamps is subject to the restriction in paragraph S5.1.3 (as well as the general prohibitions on flashing lamps in S5.5.10(d)). Paragraph S5.1.3 reads:

S5.1.3 No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.

As you have not provided the specific designs and locations of the auxiliary lamps you are considering, we will provide some examples of interference with required lamps.

Off-color lamps, such as red lamps in the front of a vehicle, would be considered to interfere with the standardization of highway signals set forth by Standard No. 108.[3],[4]

Lamps that distort established patterns, such as the three-lamp identification cluster, would be prohibited by Standard No. 108.[5]

Auxiliary lamps that are close to required lamps, and whose glare may obscure the required lamps, would be prohibited under Standard No. 108.[6]

In addition, lamps that communicate non-standard signals are generally prohibited under Standard No. 108.[7]

Emergency Circumstances

You also suggest that silent alarm applications, even if they use non-compliant lamps, may meet the spirit of the regulation because they are only used in emergency circumstances. We cannot concur with this interpretation. Your alarm system must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. While some police and other emergency vehicles have emergency lighting systems involving flashing lamps, we do not permit these systems on other vehicles. NHTSA determined that the drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the warning system only under certain circumstances, and permitted the system because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement.[8]

Aftermarket Considerations

In your letter, you also requested a waiver, permitting manufacturers to install your system in existing vehicles. The modification of existing vehicles is regulated by Section 30122 of the Safety Act, which states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter

If one of these entities listed in 30122 were to install lighting equipment that resulted in the vehicle no longer meeting S5.5.10, S5.1.3, or any other portion of FMVSS No. 108, then the entity would be in violation of 30122. We do not issue waivers from the responsibility entities have to meet under FMVSS No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108

d.2/21/08

Mr. Tommy Nordkil

Volvo Technology Corporation

Corporate Standards

M1.6, Dept. 6857

405 08

Gteborg, Sweden

Dear Mr. Nordkil:

This responds to your email requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding certification test data. Your question arises in the context of testing procedures set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the answer is no, but a manufacturer would be well-advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions established in the safety standards when conducting its own compliance testing, and the results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public through the agency's Technical Information Services division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, where a manufacturer submits a noncompliance report, it must submit to NHTSA the test results and other information on which it based its determination of noncompliance. (49 CFR 573.6(c)(7).) Moreover, if NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to recall provisions, and is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care" in certifying the product and had no reason to know that its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards. (49 U.S.C. 30112). Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in a manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish reasonable care.

NHTSA has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle defects and malfunctions that may relate to motor vehicle safety. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

NCC-112:EGross:5/18/07:62992:OCC 07-001810

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 302

S:\INTERP\302\07-001810 Nordkil--draft (18 May 07).doc

Mr. Tommy Nordkil

Volvo Technology Corporation

Corporate Standards

M1.6, Dept. 6857

405 08

Gteborg, Sweden

Dear Mr. Nordkil:

This responds to your email requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding certification test data. Your question arises in the context of testing procedures set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the answer is no, but a manufacturer would be well-advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions established in the safety standards when conducting its own compliance testing, and the results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public through the agency's Technical Information Services division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, where a manufacturer submits a noncompliance report, it must submit to NHTSA the test results and other information on which it based its determination of noncompliance. (49 CFR 573.6(c)(7).) Moreover, if NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to recall provisions, and is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care" in certifying the product and had no reason to know that its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards. (49 U.S.C. 30112). Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in a manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish reasonable care.

NHTSA has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle defects and malfunctions that may relate to motor vehicle safety. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

NCC-112:EGross:5/18/07:62992:OCC 07-001810

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 302

S:\INTERP\302\07-001810 Nordkil--draft (18 May 07).doc

Mr. Howard Seligman

Velosolex America, LLC

501 Kennedy Blvd.

North Bergen, NJ 07047

Dear Mr. Seligman:

This responds to your letter in which you ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the regulating authority for the Velosolex pedal assisted bicycle (the Velosolex). Based on your description of the product and the analysis presented below, the Velosolex would not be considered a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) rather than NHTSA.

By way of background, NHTSA regulates the manufacture, importation, and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The definition of motor vehicle is given is 49 USC 30102, and reads:

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

In your letter, you describe the Velosolex as driven primarily by muscular power, and indicate that the engine only supplements the primary driving force. You state that it has a small internal combustion engine, which does not activate until the bicycle reaches a speed of five miles per hour. Furthermore, you state that if the rider does not continue to pedal after the engine is running, the Velosolex will eventually stop, as the engine is not powerful enough to keep the Velosolex moving on its own.

Based on your description, including the fact that the engine is not powerful enough to keep the Velosolex moving on its own, it is our opinion that the primary motive force for the Velosolex is muscular power, not mechanical power within the meaning of the definition of motor vehicle. Therefore, the Velosolex is not a motor vehicle under 30102, and it is subject to the jurisdiction of CPSC rather than NHTSA. We note that your product could also be subject to the jurisdiction and regulations of other Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

If you have any further questions relating to NHTSA, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.9/17/07

Mr. Melissa Brooke

Safety & Compliance

ICI International Carriers (Tilbury) Inc.

42 Mill Street West

Tilbury, Ontario

N0P 2L0

Canada

Dear Ms. Brooke:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that you would like clarification on additional factory installed lamps that are in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three amber identification lamps. You stated that the lamps in question would not be spaced at a distance that is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the required cluster, and would be on a separate switch from the cluster. As discussed below, it is our opinion that such a design would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. You also asked whether this would be a violation of 49 CFR 391.11(d) if the additional lamps remained off while a vehicle was in the United States. As that regulation was promulgated and is enforced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), we are referring that question to that agency.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.  

In your letter, you requested clarification on additional factory installed lamps that are in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three amber identification lamps. You added that the lamps in question are not spaced at a distance that is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the required cluster. Based on your description, this lamp design would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

We have explained in past interpretation letters that additional lamps placed in the vicinity of and in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three identification lamps impair the functioning of the identification lamp cluster, and are therefore not permitted by FMVSS No. 108.[1] We have also explained that this problem is avoided if the additional lamps are spaced at a distance of at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the identification cluster.[2] Because the lamps you describe are in the horizontal line with the identification lamps, and are not spaced far enough apart from the cluster, they are not permitted by FMVSS No. 108. The fact that the lamps would be on a separate switch from the required cluster would not change this result, as the lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps whenever they were turned on.

You also asked a question about 49 CFR 393.11(d). Specifically, you asked if the additional lamps placed on a separate switch from the identification cluster remained off while the vehicle was in the United States, whether there would be a violation of section 393.11(d). Again, we are referring that question to FMCSA.

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs regulations, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108

d.9/18/07

Mr. Dick Sabath

Senior Manager, Compliance

Country Coach, LLC

135 East First Avenue

P.O. Box 400

Junction City, OR 97448

Dear Mr. Sabath:

This responds to your letter concerning testing of driver and front row passenger bucket seats and seat belt systems to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) No. 207 and 210. Specifically, you asked whether a longitudinal movement of - to -inch of these seats during testing constitute[s] an out-of-compliance or safety concern under FMVSS No. 207. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, we would not consider this amount of movement to constitute a test failure under FMVSS No. 207.

By way of background information, 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. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

In your letter, you stated that all three anchorage points of both seats (type 2 seat belts) are on the seat. You further describe the forward and rearward movements of these seats as being motorized with a single electric motor. It appears that the electric adjustment motor affects the performance of your seats in the compliance tests for FMVSSs No. 207 and 210. You explain that During the (repetitive) forward pull tests . . . we have observed a consistent and repetitive forward travel of to -inch in the longitudinal adjusted position due to the backlash of the electric adjustment motor. You further state that:

Once the backlash has occurred, the entire seat and seat belt assembly holds the prescribed test loads for the time specified in the FMVSS 207/210. No other movement or breakage was observed during the four different tests we conducted on the same seat models to verify the cause of the to inch forward displacement. The to -inch of travel remains consistent throughout all tests.

S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 states that Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5. (Emphasis added.) We have long interpreted S4.2.1 to allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained.[1] For example, we have stated that bending and twisting of the seat or seat components during the force test would not result in non-compliance with FMVSS No. 207, unless the bending or twisting resulted in the seat moving from one adjustment position to another, which would violate S4.2.1s requirement that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested.

You indicate that the movement of the seat is due to backlash in the electrical adjustment motor. The term backlash in this context typically refers to the gap between mechanical elements such as mating gears used to drive or move a device.[2] As such, backlash may also be present in a manual seat adjustment, such as the detents in a typical seat fore-aft adjustment mechanism. As such, forward movement of a seat during the application of the required loading strictly due to backlash, whether or not the mechanism of adjustment is an electrical motor, would not be considered in violation of the requirement in S4.2.1 that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. Thus, in terms of the specific factual situation described in your letter, we would not consider such movement a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. However, if any of the seat movement were due to a factor such as movement of the driving mechanism, such as rotation of the gear providing the seat adjustment, S4.2.1 would be violated. In addition, as we have previously stated, if a change in the adjusted position of the seat back is caused by the gear mechanism being destroyed, the seat would also not comply with S4.2.1.[3] Thus, in terms of the specific factual situation described in your letter, we would not consider such movement a test failure under FMVSS No. 207.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:207

d.11/13/07