ID: GF009254

Mr. Richard Keller
Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
1780 Executive Drive, PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066




Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As explained below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers changed the vehicles such that the information of the tire placard is no longer accurate, but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard).Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for purposes other than resale, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard)indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

I note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

Finally, we note that with respect to modifications of vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities, 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) requires modifiers to provide the vehicle owner with a document that indicates a reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are completed.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Ms. Dana Roeling
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
3327 W. Bearss Avenue
Tampa, FL 33618

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: nht90-2.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

FROM: Marc J. Fink and Stephen C. Crampton -- Dow, Lohnes & Albertson; Signature by S.C. Crampton

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-20-90 from P.J. Rice to M.J. Fink (A36; Part 591)

TEXT:

We request your approval to allow John A. Rosatti to import his Porsche 959 into the United States as a "demonstration" car. Mr. Rosatti intends to use his car to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and, if approval from New York State authorities is obtained, a future, adjunct automobile museum. Mr. Rosatti does not intend to drive his car on the road at any time. If necessary to ensure that the Porsche 959 will not be driven on the road, Mr. Rosatti will agree to remove the engine from the car.

John Rosatti has been in the automobile business for twenty five years; for the last fifteen years, he has owned and operated Plaza Motors of Brooklyn, Ltd. ("Plaza"). 1/ Plaza's grounds consist of buildings totalling approximately 75,000 square feet an d cover two city blocks. Plaza holds Honda, Acura, and Oldsmobile dealerships, selling about 500 cars each month. Approximately 2000 to 3000 people come into Plaza every week.

1/ Copies of recent newspaper advertisements for Plaza are appended to this letter as Attachment A.

NHTSA's new regulations, implementing the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, provide a "demonstration" exemption from restrictions on imports of motor vehicles that do not comply with NHTSA safety requirements. 2/ As discussed below, Mr. Ro satti's proposed use of his Porsche 959 falls under the plain language of NHTSA's regulation and the statute. Indeed, his proposed use is consistent with uses mentioned in the Supplementary Information accompanying the new rules.

The Supplementary Information states as follows:

Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles (i.e., demonstration vehicles) has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not general ly used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited.

54 Fed. Reg. at 40,076. As stated above, Mr. Rosatti has no intention to drive the Porsche 959. In this regard, Mr. Rosatti is agreeable to whatever reasonable restrictions NHTSA may impose to insure the car is not driven. If NHTSA requires, Mr. Rosat ti will provide a written statement attesting to his promise not to drive the car. Furthermore, to insure

that the Porsche 959 could not be used on public roads by anyone, Mr. Rosatti, if required, will agree to remove the engine from the car.

2/ The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 2818, 2824 (to be codified at 15 U.S.C. S 1397(j)), provides that "(t)he Secretary may exempt any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment . . . upon such terms and conditions as t he Secretary may find necessary solely for the purpose of . . . demonstrations."

The NHTSA regulation implementing this provision of the statute, 54 Fed. Reg. 40,069, 40,080, as amended by 54 Fed. Reg. 49,098, 49,101 (1989) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. S 591.5(j)), states as follows:

No person shall import a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment into the United States unless, at the time it is offered for importation, its importer files a declaration, in duplicate, which declares . . . (t)he vehicle or equipment item does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but it (sic) being imported solely for the purpose of . . . demonstrations.

Importantly, NHTSA's Supplementary Information specifically sanctions manufacturers' display of cars for commercial use. Id.3/ Like auto manufacturers, Mr. Rosatti intends to display his car to promote sales. The Porsche 959 would, he believes, serve a s a powerful attraction, drawing people to his automobile dealerships. Also like manufacturers, Mr. Rosatti will not drive the car. There is therefore no distinction between Mr. Rosatti's proposed use and the commercial display of a car by a manufactur er. NHTSA's own rationale and regulations dictate that permission be given to Mr. Rosatti to import his car for demonstration purposes.

Dealers like Mr. Rosatti depend heavily upon promotional campaigns to attract buyers; indeed, Plaza spends as much as $50,000 per month on promotional activities. Mr. Rosatti's promotional plan for the Porsche 959 specifically involves his Acura dealers hip.4/ Acura cars are advertised as high-quality, exciting, and inexpensive alternatives to fancy European sports cars. In fact, recent advertisements encourage car-buyers to trade in their expensive European cars for Acuras. In keeping with the Acura image, Mr. Rosatti intends to use his Porsche 959 to attract potential Acura buyers. As persons targeted for Acura sales are also likely to be interested in high-quality European sports cars, they will come to see a Porsche 959 on display. When they c ome, Mr. Rosatti will then have the opportunity to explain the benefits of his sporty, yet affordable, Acuras.

To implement his plan, Mr. Rosatti envisions running numerous advertisements in newspapers and on the radio, enticing potential car-buyers to come and see the Porsche 959. Initially, Mr. Rosatti intends to place the Porsche 959, along with his Ferrari T estarossa, Lamborghini Contach, specially built Porsche 935, and Mark IV Cobra, in a showroom on Plaza's premises. Preliminary estimates are that the automobile display could attract as many as 1000 additional persons per month to the dealerships. Thus , completely in line with NHTSA regulations, John Rosatti intends to import the Porsche 959 as a

commercial demonstration model.

3/ The Supplementary Information interprets "demonstration" cars as including "nonconforming products for display at automobile shows to gauge public reaction to new styling or engineering features." Id.

4/ Advertising proposals for the Acura/Porsche 959 advertising campaign are appended to this letter as Attachment B.

Mr. Rosatti, however, has a second interest in importing the Porsche 959, one that also accords entirely with the concept of a demonstration car. NHTSA's Supplementary Information manifests a concern that museums are not to be deprived of interesting and valuable items in their collection, stating that museums can import cars under the 25-year exception. Id. Mr. Rosatti's Porsche 959 is both interesting and valuable to automobile enthusiasts. Although Mr. Rosatti's car is less than 25 modelyears old and thus would not fit within the 25-year exception, its importation for use in a car museum conforms to the language and policy of the demonstration exemption.

Mr. Rosatti's museum will soon be ready for operation. Recently, the New York State Education Department recommended to the New York Board of Regents that Mr. Rosatti be issued a Provisional Charter to begin his museum. The Regents are scheduled to mee t soon and are expected to follow the Education Department's recommendation. The Provisional Charter is valid for three years and will be replaced by a permanent charter if the Education Department is satisfied with the progress of Mr. Rosatti's automob ile museum. When approval for the museum is received, Mr. Rosatti will convert a Plaza showroom into a museum for the Porsche 959 and his other valuable cars. Museums linked with commercial establishments are not uncommon. In many commercial establish ments, an ancillary museum, while not the main part of the business, serves as a major attraction for customers of the business.

Mr. Rosatti's motivations for wanting to import his Porsche 959 are simple. Mr. Rosatti is interested in combining his passion for automobiles and pride in his accomplishments in the automobile business with his commercial enterprise. To Mr. Rosatti, t he Porsche 959 and his other collector automobiles represent his success in the automobile industry, an industry to which Mr. Rosatti has devoted his working life. The Porsche 959 is the greatest trophy in his collection of cars. Mr. Rosatti naturally w ants to show off his cars, both for their commercial value and appeal and because they represent his achievements in the automobile industry.5/

Mr. Rosatti is very sensitive to NHTSA's concern that the Porsche 959 never be driven on American roads. Accordingly, Mr. Rosatti is prepared not simply to drain the engine of fluids, as you mentioned might be required in your letter of November 13, 198 9, but to remove the engine from the car. Thus, you can be completely assured that Mr. Rosatti's Porsche 959 will not be driven. Although Mr. Rosatti would prefer to display the engine next to the car, he is perfectly willing to display the engine at a separate location. Furthermore, Mr. Rosatti will gladly furnish periodic reports to NHTSA regarding the car's location and use.

To comply further with the conditions you suggested in your November 13 letter, Mr. Rosatti is willing to make a declaration that, if the Porsche is transferred by sale or inheritance, the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car se parate.

5/ To further exhibit his car, if permitted Mr. Rosatti would transport it to automobile shows, in particular, monthly Porche club shows and annual shows at the Jacob Javits Center.

In sum, the Imported Motor Vehicle Safety Compliance Act and NHTSA regulations provide a "demonstration" exemption from import bans to permit cars that will not be driven on the road to be imported for the purpose of demonstration. In this case, it woul d be contrary to the statute and NHTSA's regulations to deny Mr. Rosatti the opportunity to import his Porsche 959, especially as he offers to completely disable the car to satisfy NHTSA. Mr. Rosatti is not attempting to circumvent the law. He is simpl y a man who loves cars. Surely the law does not prevent him from collecting and showing trophies of his trade.

Therefore, we ask that you grant prior written permission for Mr. John A. Rosatti to import his Porsche 959 into the United States for the purpose of demonstration.

ID: nht92-8.12

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl J. Clement -- Clement Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/28/92 from Carl J. Clement to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6949)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 28, 1992 requesting information on any Federal regulations that may affect a new product you are developing. The product is an electronically-operated automotive sun visor that would automatically detect the direction of sunlight or glare and reposition itself to shield the driver. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, S 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

NHTSA has issued two safety standards that apply to sun visors: Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. These standards are called vehicle standards, because they apply to new vehicles, not to individual pieces of equipment. The Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Therefore, if your sun visor were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the requirements of these two standards. Standard No. 201 requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. Standard No. 302 requires sun visors to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute.

If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of your product prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is considered an "alterer" and is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards affected

by the alteration. In addition to Standards No. 201 and 302, the installation of your product might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed your sun visor would have to ensure that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of S108 (a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that S108 (a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, your sun visor would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. If your sun visor will be sold as an item of equipment to be installed by the vehicle owner, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies. However, even if there is no safety standard applicable to the item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Additionally, a company making your product would be considered a manufacturer. A manufacturer is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-2.43

DATE: 11/07/92

FROM: JORDAN J. POKRINCHAK -- PRESIDENT, JORDAN RESEARCH CORPORATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCIL D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO JORDON J. POKRINCHAK (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO NHTSA LETTER OF 3-26-92 TO CHARLES W. O'CONNOR

TEXT: I am writing to you in regard to your recent decision to approve electronic brake controls made by Tekonsha Engineering Company in relation to stop lamp operation when braking with a trailer in tow.

I would cite Section 393.25 Paragraph (F) "Stop Lamp Operation," of Code of Federal Regulations Volume 49 (Transportation Parts 400 to 999) Revised as of October 1, 1989, for the basis of my concern as to the operation of the stop lamps when applying the trailer brakes in an emergency condition.

I believe this section of the code is quite specific when dealing with the actuation of the trailer stop lamps, either manually or automatically, and has nothing to do with the installation of controllers in regard to rendering the stop lamps inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) of 15 U.S.C. which you have cited in rendering your decision.

I also believe that in all laws and regulations, there is the letter of the law, and the intent of the law which must be considered when rendering such an important decision as you have on Tekonsha Brake Controls and its effect on the general driving public.

Tekonsha Engineering has had problems with the operation of their brake controls for some time. One way of alleviating the problem was to remove the wire that activated the control through the tow vehicle stop-light switch and which in turn operated the stop lamps on the trailer being towed. By eliminating this feature of activating the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode, they have placed the operator of the vehicle towing the trailer at risk for a rear end collision. While he (the operator) may have knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation of the hand control (manual mode) as stated in your decision, the driver behind the trailer has not been given any warning that the brakes on the trailer are being applied.

Tekonsha Engineering has cited your decision in regard to Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) with all due pomp and circumstance, but has failed to comply with common sense in regard to avoiding accidents. You have in effect given them the "green light" to produce their "Voyager" and "Commander" brake controls without regard to driver safety.

I believe you should reconsider all the facts in rendering your decision on the basis of driver safety and not some regulation that Tekonsha Engineering is using out of context. We do, Gentlemen, look to you for decisions that will protect lives on our highways.

You have it within your power to require Tekonsha Engineering to comply with regulations pertaining to the operation of trailer stop lamps by simply requiring that they (Tekonsha Engineering) add the wire or connection to their controls that would activate the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode. After all, they are the only manufacturer of trailer brake controls that do not activate the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode and are using you to help market a potentially dangerous product.

ID: nht95-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1995

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rourke:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 0697

Mr. Brad Rourke
Director, Government and Community Affairs
The Electric Bicycle Company
27426 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265

Dear Mr. Rourke:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108#123 d:3/30/95

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: 8223

Mr. Donald L. Anglin
706 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Dear Mr. Anglin:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether removing the self-adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the "anti-tampering" provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters.

You specifically asked about the agency's "anti-tampering" provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the "rendering inoperative" provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:105#121 d:4/19/93

ID: vastatepat.ztv

Col. W. Gerald Massengill
Superintendent
Department of State Police
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261-7472





Dear Col. Massengill:

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding undercover or "hide-a-way" lights on Virginia state police patrol vehicles. You would like to equip unmarked patrol cars with a certain lighting system for use on Interstate highways within the Commonwealth if the lights comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked two specific questions.

For the reasons discussed below, our answer is that you may equip your vehicles with this system without violating Federal law.

You write that "Ford Motor Company engaged a consulting firm, Crown North America, to install the Whelan lights in the taillight, four side marker lights, and possibly the parking lights of a new Crown Victoria for evaluation." The "Whelan lights" are apparently strobe lights. These appear to be part of a "Police Prep and Visibility Package" which forms the basis of a "Police Interceptor Police Package" marketed by Ford Motor Company. Under Ford's "Visibility Package," a strobe power supply is installed in the trunk of a vehicle "capable of controlling all strobe light heads."

You have asked:

"First, is whether the modification of the tail and marker lights to allow insertion of the strobe unit impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by FMVSS 108, renders the equipment non-compliant or compromises the integrity of the original lighting devices?"

With respect to new vehicles, Standard No. 108 requires parking lamps, side marker lamps, and optional lighting to be steady burning in use (S5.5.10(d)). When parking lamps and side marker lamps are flashed by the strobe device, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would occur. Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of "other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard" (S5.1.3). Strobe lights are "other motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of this phrase. We read the term "installation" to include use of the other vehicle equipment. Impairment of parking and side marker lamps will result if they are activated for a purpose other than to serve as parking and side marker lamps.

Traditionally, we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. In this instance, the strobe lights will be used on unmarked Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars, virtually identical to Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars available to the general public. We want to allow States to install and use strobe lights on unmarked vehicles yet we do not think it in the interest of safety to allow the general public to do the same on virtually identical vehicles.

We would distinguish police and private vehicles in this manner. The drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the strobe equipment only when it is required to alert a motorist to pull to the side of the road and thereafter to alert other motorists of the presence of stopped vehicles and law enforcement personnel at the side of the road. In all other circumstances, the parking lamps and side marker lamps will operate as they normally do. Thus, the noncompliance and impairment are temporary in nature and are necessary for the missions of the State police. We believe, then, that the strobe equipment is permissible because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement. This would not be the case for vehicles that are not specified by state or local laws to be emergency vehicles that may be required to have special, additional lighting.

"Second, once installed, if the strobes are removed and the hole plugged prior to auctioning the vehicle, would these modifications render the light noncompliant with FMVSS 108?"

We assume that you mean the tail and marker lamps to which you referred in your first question. If the strobes are removed from the tail and side marker lamps, and those lamps continue to perform as they originally did when the vehicle was certified by Ford Motor Company, then the removal of the strobes would not of themselves appear to render the light noncompliant with Standard No. 108. Care should be taken in plugging the holes to minimize the chance of environmental degradation (e.g., dust, moisture) of lighting performance.

Under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle, may itself modify the vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the owner return the vehicle to compliance before selling it. However, we ask that the State Patrol ensure that lamps on vehicles it sells at auctions are properly wired and have the proper bulbs if these were affected by the installation or removal of the lamps used in undercover lighting schemes.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/3/01

ID: 23329ogm

Mr. Gary Rudnik
Practical Innovations
1900 Edmunds
Brush, CO 80723






Dear Mr. Rudnik:





This is in response to your letter requesting NHTSA "approval" of a new product being introduced by your company. As described in the informational materials included with your letter, the product is a brake controller designed to supply and modulate electric power supplied to trailer brakes. This "EZ Brakes" device is plugged into the tow vehicle wiring harness through a standard trailer connector and activates the electric brakes of the trailer when the tow vehicle's brake lights illuminate as a result of the brake pedal being depressed.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued several standards applicable to brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems; and Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems for new passenger cars built after September 1, 2000 and for new multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less built after September 1, 2002. Of these three standards, Standard No. 121 is the only standard that applies to trailers.

Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121) specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions. We note, however, that Standard No. 121 only applies to vehicles with air brake systems. An air brake system is defined in S4 of the Standard as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, including an air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

The device described in your letter appears to use electricity to actuate or control the brakes of a trailer. While the driver may have the ability to activate the electric brake controller through depressing the tow vehicle brake pedal with enough force to activate the tow vehicle brake lights, air is not used as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake on the trailer. Accordingly, the system you describe is not, under Standard No. 121, an air brake system and is not subject to the requirements of that Standard.

Even though your product is not regulated by Standard No. 121, as an accessory or an addition to a motor vehicle, it is "motor vehicle equipment" as we define it (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). This means that, if either you or we determine that it contains a safety-related defect, you, as its manufacturer, must notify and remedy the defect as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.10/22/01