ID: nht90-3.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles T. Thomas -- Prestige Travel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Undated letter to NHTSA Chief Counsel from Charles T. Thomas (OCC-4685)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that "the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, 1988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States." You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September 1988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your 1985 Jaguar remains in Germany.

We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, 1990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562.

However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that 1985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer.

I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

(List of registered importers is omitted.)

ID: nht75-2.9

DATE: 11/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. L. Whitten - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr. Charles Russell of WJLJ, regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 49 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.

To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTSA has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to preserve a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at higher inflation pressures, and thus may even be more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.

For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110, 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.

ID: nht91-5.44

DATE: September 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-91 from John Marcum to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5988)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 26, 1991, asking for a clarification of my letter to you of April 22.

As we advise you, under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." You ask whether "demonstrations or training" includes the carrying of passengers for demonstrations and evaluations. The answer is yes. Where, as here, the imported vehicle is intended for public transit, the carrying of passengers would appear to be an important and necessary part of demonstrating the features of the bus and evaluating the feasibility of offering electric-power public transportation in the United States.

You also ask whether there are any special conditions that may be observed, such as whether passengers should be charged for the rides. There are no special conditions that NHTSA has imposed under section 591.5(j) that relate to your operation. However, any test should be consistent with safe vehicle operation, such as not loading the vehicle above the capacity of the tires and suspension, having adequate braking ability, and provision for sufficient emergency exits. The question of whether a fee should be imposed for riding the bus could be relevant in a personal injury action brought against you by a rider; however, this is not a question to be answered under Federal law. You should consult a private attorney for guidance.

The fact that the law allows importation of a nonconforming bus for purposes of demonstration should not be interpreted as meaning that NHTSA is not concerned with the safety of a vehicle engaged in transporting members of the public. The agency believes that importers of buses should ensure that the vehicle is not loaded above the capacity of the tires and suspension, and that there is adequate braking ability and provision for emergency exits. Importers are reminded that the agency has the authority to impose terms and conditions related to safety in permitting importations of this nature.

Finally, you ask if there is a limit as to the length of time a demonstration with passengers is permitted. So long as the demonstration is ongoing and the length of time is reasonable, demonstrations with passengers would be permitted for the duration of the vehicle's stay in the United States.

ID: 19845.ztv

Mr. P. Binder
Valeo Deutschland
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This responds to your fax of April 12, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

On August 2, 1994, we addressed your rear motor vehicle lighting array. Sketch 1 in your new letter depicts that lighting array: a stop lamp, turn signal lamp, taillamp, and reflex reflector mounted on the car body and, immediately adjacent on the tailgate, a backup lamp, fog lamp, taillamp, and reflex reflector. You were concerned with requirements for the taillamp system, and we confirmed your interpretation that the combination of taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 could be used to meet the photometric requirements for two lighted sections.

You now ask whether that interpretation also applies to a new taillamp design (Sketch 2) that will be used to replace the old design (Sketch 1). In this design, the taillamp portion of Sketch 1 lamp array appears to have been replaced with light guides and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Our interpretation does not apply to your new taillamp design. Because more than two LEDs are used (i.e., more than two light sources), the lamp must meet the photometric requirements for three lighted sections.

The fundamental difference between the old and new systems is that each lighted section of the lamps in Sketch 1 contains a single light source whereas the taillamps in Sketch 2 require more than one light source to achieve compliance with the photometric performance required of a single lighted section. Thus, a lamp using three or more light sources must meet the photometry of a three-compartment lamps.

You asked about additional regulations. We have proposed that lamps with LEDs be designed to conform to photometric requirements based on the dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area for the function being tested (63 FR 34350 at 34356, June 24, 1998). A lamp is regarded as having one lighted section if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp is less than 150 mm, two lighted sections if the dimension is 150-300 mm, and three lighted sections if the dimension is greater than 300 mm. We have not yet made a decision concerning a final rule. Some commenters have expressed significant concerns that this proposal is wrong. We are evaluating these comments. In the meantime, you should not design future lamps on the assumption that NHTSA will adopt the proposal.

If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Vinson (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/7/99

ID: 2517y

Mr. Charles T. Thomas
Prestige Travel
10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 170
Houston, Texas 77042

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that "the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, l988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States." You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September l988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your l985 Jaguar remains in Germany.

We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, l990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562.

However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that l985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer.

I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:59l d:7/3/90

ID: 2519y

Mr. Charles T. Thomas
Prestige Travel
10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 170
Houston, Texas 77042

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that "the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, l988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States." You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September l988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your l985 Jaguar remains in Germany.

We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, l990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562.

However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that l985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer.

I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:59l d:7/3/90

ID: 21472limitprodtireneb

Mr. James H. Johnson
Falken Technical Services
Falken Tire Corp.
10404 Sixth Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You state in your letter that Falken Tire is planning to import a limited number of tires in six sizes for use by weekend club racers whose rules require that their tires be DOT numbered and "street legal". With regard to these tires, your parent company, Ohtsu Tire and Rubber, questions whether they can be considered "limited production" as defined in 49 CFR 575.104(c), so that the testing and assignment of UTQG ratings is not required although, as you state, the tires would otherwise meet all DOT requirements including markings. Specifically you ask for an interpretation as to (1) whether a limited production tire must meet all criteria listed in 49 CFR 575.104(c)(2), and (2) whether 49 CFR 575.104(c)(c)(2)(iii) "applies to a tire manufacturer or is aimed at the vehicle manufacturer who imports less than 10,000 vehicles". As discussed below, the answer to your first question is yes, a limited production tire must meet all the criteria listed in 49 CFR 575.104(c)(2), and the answer to your second question is that paragraph (c)(2)(iii) applies to Falken Tire, as the tire manufacturer, in this instance.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30123 directs the Secretary to prescribe a uniform quality grading system (UTQGS) for motor vehicle tires. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR 575.104.

The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 578.6 which provides civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation of our statute. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.

Turning now to your first question, 49 CFR 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rims diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or "limited production" tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, section 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet:

(i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000;

(ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and

(iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires.

Section 575.104(c) also states that "tire design" is "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires."

With regard to your second question, section 575.104(a) "requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information...". Therefore, paragraph (c)(2)(iii) applies to you, as the tire manufacturer, in this instance. In order for Falken Tire to ascertain whether the subject tires meet all of the criteria for limited production tires, you must determine the motor vehicles for which the stated sizes were designated as recommended tire sizes during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and the domestic production or importation of each of those vehicles for that calendar year.

For your additional information, because paragraph (c)(2)(iii) refers to "a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation (emphasis added)" and "a new motor vehicle (emphasis added), the 10,000 vehicle limitation refers to the production or importation of particular vehicle models, rather than the total of all models for which the tire size is recommended. Thus, if a tire's size is recommended for use on several vehicle models, none of which is produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, the tire would meet the criterion of paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff of (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Enclosure
ref:575
d.5/26/00

ID: nht94-7.27

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: Marvin A. Leach -- Regional Program Manager, Region VIII, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Robert L. Montgomery (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN A. LEACH TO ROBERT HELLMUTH:

Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

Please find enclosed a request for information related to the conspicuity rule, from a local business in Denver. Since they are requesting an opinion, it is beyond the scope of our office to assist. They have forwarded considerable detail and I hope you will be able to be of assistance.

We have had a number of requests for information on the rule, and in most instances sending a copy has sufficed.

I know your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN LEACH TO ROBERT MONTGOMERY:

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

It will not be possible to answer your "conspicuity" question from our office here in Denver. I have forwarded your letter and pictures to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington, and asked them to respond to your request.

I hope this will provide the information your need and thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/9/94 LETTER FROM ROBERT MONTGOMERY TO MIKE BAKER:

Mr. Mike Baker, State Director Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 555 Zang St

Lakewood, CO 80228

REF: 49 CFR Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

Dear Mr. Baker:

I am enclosing two photos. Photo number one depicts the conspicuity stripes as they come from the manufacturer. They are mounted on the Doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. As you can see, it is necessary to offset the rear red and orange logo striping so that the stripes no longer make an even continuous line around the trailer.

Photo number two depicts the rear of an identical trailer where the reflectorized material was installed between and in line with the taillight assemblies. This installation is 46 inches which is 4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. The material DOES NOT extend form the extreme edges of the trailer as in photo number one.

S5.6.1.4.1 allows for "as close as practical" to both height and width.

We would, of course, prefer to equip the rear of our trailers as depicted in photo number two: 1) To avoid the need to offset our red and orange reflectorized striping and 2) to bring the conspicuity striping down more to eye level and in line with the rear lamps.

The diagram provided in the register does show the reflectorized striping from edge-to-edge but the artist failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van and which basically interferes with proper height and width placement on most trailers.

Would it be possible to obtain a written interpretation as to the legality of compliance with the regulation as to the installation of the reflectorized striping shown in photo number two, in a prompt and timely manner.

Thank you. Sincerely,

Robert L. Montgomery, Safety Manager Leprino Transportation Division

ATTACHMENT:

58414 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 238 / Thursday, 12-10-92 / Rules and Regulations. (Text omitted.)

ID: 9358

Mr. David Shapiro
RV Designer Collection
Woodbridge, Inc.
Glenview, IL 60025

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials to aftermarket products. You state that you are planning to market fabric window coverings such as drapes and fabric bedding such as bedspreads for use in recreational vehicles. In response to your request for confirmation that Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket products, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 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. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that directly apply to the products you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. However, Standard No. 302 would not apply to your products because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your products. Under the Safety Act, your products are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your products contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I note that even though Standard No. 302 would not apply to your product, the product's flammability characteristics could be relevant to whether it contained a safety related defect.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...." This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from installing your product in used vehicles if the effect of such installation was to render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 302.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, your products would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302.

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

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:302 d:2/10/94

ID: 8042

Mr. J. C. Townley
Jay Townley & Associates
N1367 Southern Road
Lyndon Station, WI 53944-9708

Dear Mr. Townley:

This is in further response to your letter of November 24, 1992, asking for "an advisory opinion that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a 'motor vehicle' or 'motor driven cycle' within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder." Previously, we had acknowledged your withdrawal of your request for confidentiality.

The Yamaha is "a bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses 'kicking' torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills." It is intended to facilitate standing starts in traffic, assist in climbing hills, and to "keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising. The system is designed to engage when the driver is actively pedaling, and to disengage when the speed is less than 1.24 mph or more than 15 mph, when torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs or more than 110 lbs, and when the braking system is activated. The photographs you have enclosed show, in all important respects, vehicles configured as conventional bicycles.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), defines a "motor vehicle," in pertinent part, as "any vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). On November 6, 1974, the Consumer Product Safety Commission asked the agency whether a "motorized bicycle" was a "motor vehicle" if it utilized mechanical power to propel it "only some of the time." NHTSA replied on December 6 of that year that it considered motorized bicycles to be motor vehicles subject to its jurisdiction (specifically classified as motor-driven cycles), and that it did "not find it relevant to the question of safety standards' applicability that a particular vehicle, fully equipped to operate as a motor vehicle within the meaning of our Act, may also have the capability of operating in some other mode." Earlier that year, the agency had rejected arguments by Peugeot and Motobecane on behalf of their "mopeds" that vehicles which produce no more than 1.5 horsepower deserved a categorization other than as motor-driven cycles (motorcycles developing 5 horsepower or less), but it did amend the motorcycle lighting and braking standards to modify performance requirements for motor-driven cycles with a top speed of 30 mph or less, and to allow placement of the rear brake control on the left handlebar. Subsequently, on October 28, 1976, NHTSA informed Ohio Bikes, Inc. that a bicycle, even if used, became a newly manufactured motor vehicle when an engine was attached to it.

At first blush, it might appear that this line of interpretations should lead to a conclusion that the Yamaha is a "motor vehicle." However, we believe there is a significant difference between the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle and motorized bicycles and mopeds. The propulsion systems of the latter vehicles enable them to operate on power without pedaling. However, the power assist of the Yamaha disengages when torque at the pedals is less than 11 pounds, which means that the system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less. While the Yamaha has a maximum speed of 20 mph or less, its body configuration does not distinguish it from motorized bicycles and mopeds. However, the vehicles that NHTSA addressed under this line of interpretations operated solely on power.

The Yamaha does not easily fit into our previous analyses concerning whether particular vehicles are considered "motor vehicles." After carefully considering the question, we have concluded that, in light of the combination of a low maximum speed while operating on power (the power of the Yamaha disengages when speed is more than 15 mph) and the fact that power is only provided if the operator is providing muscular effort (by continuously pedalling), the Yamaha is not a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. We note that, even with power assist, the operation of the Yamaha is essentially the same as that of a bicycle, i.e., the operator must pedal under the same circumstances as a traditional bicylist and the speed of the Yamaha does not differ from the speed of traditional bicycles.

Since the Yamaha is not a "motor vehicle," it is not subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Vehicles that are not motor vehicles are subject to the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and you should consult the Commission for further information as to whether there are regulations that the Yamaha must meet.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102(3) d:2/16/93