ID: nht92-2.9

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: JAY C. TOWNLEY -- VT JAY TOWNLEY & ASSOCIATES

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION USA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION CONCERNING CLASSIFICATION OF PEDAL ASSISTED BICYCLE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-16-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO J. C. TOWNLEY (A40; PART 571)

TEXT: NOTE: This entire submission is Business Confidential.

I am a consultant working in the international bicycle industry, and I am making this request for an Advisory Opinion on behalf of my Client, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA.

Enclosed as Exhibit I you will find photographs of three (3) prototype Pedal Assisted Bicycles. The first prototype is a shaft drive Commuter, or City Bicycle. The second is a shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle, and the third is a chain drive All Terrain Bicycle.

The Product Definition we are using for marketing plan development 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.

Exhibit II is the Pedal Assisted Bicycle System Abstract and a diagram explaining the system as installed in the second, shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle prototype pictured in Exhibit I.

You will note that the electric motor power output is in proportion to the torque input signal. Also, the system is designed to disengage when:

Speed is less than 1.24 MPH (2 Km/h), or more than 15.0 MPH (24 Km/h).

Torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs (5 Kg), or more than 110 lbs (50 Kg).

The braking system is activated.

Accordingly, the pedal assist feature is intended to provide quicker and therefore safer standing starts in traffic, take the extra effort out of climbing hills, and keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising.

The pedal assist feature cannot be engaged unless the bicycle rider is actively pedaling, and it will "assist" the rider only in direct proportion to the torque the rider inputs to the pedals.

Based on all of the above, we believe that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle does not fall within the current definitions of "Motor Vehicle", "Motor Cycle" or "Motor-Driven Cycle".

FORMAL REQUEST

1. We request an advisory opinion that the Yahama Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a "motor vehicle", or "motor driven cycle" within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Should you be of the opinion that such product is a "motor vehicle" we would like to explore the possibilities to obtain appropriate exemptions from the potentially applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

2. We additionally request a meeting with you and your staff to review and demonstrate the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle at the earliest possible date.

ID: nht76-5.71

DATE: 01/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert J. Geurink

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1975, to the Department concerning "general policies on recalls and any rules you may have on them."

From September 9, 1966, when the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted, until December 27, 1974, a manufacturer was required to notify purchasers of the existence of a safety-related defect or a non-compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, but there was no legal requirement to recall and repair the product. To implement the notification requirement, this agency adopted a regulation, 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification. It also adopted 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports, which requires a manufacturer to report to us periodically on notification campaigns.

Effective December 27, 1974, the Act was amended (Section 151 and following sections) to require mandatory notification, and remedy. We have proposed a new Part 577 to implement the new requirements. The public comments on the proposal are still being evaluated and the final rule has not been issued. I enclose copies of the Act, Part 573, Part 577, and proposed Part 577 for your information, and will be happy to answer any questions you have concerning them.

To address your specific concerns: the fact that a product fails one of our tests does not per se establish a failure to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In the usual case the manufacturer is afforded an informal opportunity to present its views regarding the test failure. Errors in testing or test machines may be brought to our attention which have the effect of negating the test results. Or the manufacturer may be convinced of its noncompliance and voluntarily announce a notification/recall campaign. Or the manufacturer may be directed by this agency to furnish notification after a public hearing on the matter. The agency in the latter circumstance will issue its own press release announcing the recall. Notification must be made "within a reasonable time" after a determination of noncompliance or safety-related defect (Sec. 153(b)). If that determination is made by the government, it may prescribe a time period that it regards as reasonable.

There is no "recent" Goodyear Tire recall of 12,500 tires as you state, though the company did recall 12,602 tires in January 1973. Without knowing the size and type of the tires you are concerned about I cannot comment further.

I am returning your stamps.

YOURS TRULY,

Dec. 29, 1975

DEAR SIR -- Have you made a formal statement or drawn up any regulations regarding recalls?

For instance, must a company announce a recall of a product that fails your tests? Or do you announce it? When are letters sent to buyers?

Goodyear Tire recalled 12,500 tires recently and I wondered about the circumstances. Mainly, though, I'm interested in your general policies on recalls and any rules you may have on them.

I am enclosing return postage for a prompt reply.

Robert J. Geurink

ID: nht72-2.49

DATE: 10/18/72

FROM: C.A. BAKER FOR E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: Bandag, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of September 27 you suggest that Standard 117-paragraph 5.2.1(b) which relates to exposing fabric during the buffing operation of the retread process might be interpreted as forbidding the retreading of casings containing nail holes. You further quote the conclusion of an outside contractor of a Department of Transportation sponsored tire repair study that "while test wheel tests could not be passed on repaired tires, road tests showed them all to be satisfactory."

We do not consider nail holes to constitute an exposure of cord fabric within the meaning of the standard. Briefly, our examination of retread tires to date shows that nail holes which have been repaired with the repair materials vulcanized to the inside of the tire are very satisfactory. We have cut through such repairs and find them to be sound even after being subjected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 117, Endurance and High Speed Wheel Tests. Providing the nail holes are permanently sealed on the inside of the tire they appear to be no more objectionable than the casing penetrations made by new tire manufacturers and retreaders in their awl venting procedures.

The Discussion Paper presented at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Technical Heating hold on April 10, 1969, contained rather detailed requirements for casings that were to be retreaded. Included within this extensive list were requirements for not retreading a casing if "two closed punctures (nail hole type) which extend through the fabric, or are less than 15" apart or are outside of the tread area." As a result of the comments received at the April 10, 1969, technical conference, at which you and Mr. Vischer attended, the Administration changed the casing condition requirements to only prohibit retreading of casing which had cord or bead wire exposed. The Administration considers the casing as part of the raw material used in the retreading process and as such, each retreader must use his exportise in casing selection prior to applying his DOT self-certification symbol.

Supplementing the above, we have noted that repairs with the repair materials not bonded to the carcass loosen during flexing and have a high incidence of failure on the Endurance and High Speed Wheel Tests.

ID: nht79-4.43

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bernard Olcott

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 10, 1979 informing us of your wish to import a 1972 Austin taxicab "for purposes of show on my private Southampton, New York property." You have assured us that "it will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads," and you have asked if we will accept an affidavit for these facts so that you may import the taxi without the necessity of bringing it into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Since you are an attorney you know that under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii) a noncomplying vehicle may be imported for "show" without the necessity of posting bond and conforming it. This exception is available for vehicles of technological or historical significance manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, intended for static display to the general public by motor vehicle manufacturers, museums, or other institutions. The Austin taxi and its use on private property do not appear to fall within this exception and we therefore cannot accept an affidavit from you.

However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance is willing to advise you of the modifications necessary to bring the Austin taxi into compliance as several of them have been brought into the country in recent years. You should write the Director of that office, Francis Armstrong, for further information if you decide to import the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Sir:

I am planning to import a 1972 Austin London Diesel Taxicab for purposes of show on my private Southampton, New York property. It will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. I am a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

Will your office accept an affidavit from me for all the facts indicated above so that I can import such car by using Form HS-7 and indicating my compliance with Paragraph 7.

Bernard Olcott -- PATENT ATTY.

ID: 7240

Mr. Bill Willett
1609A Sumner Drive
Mobile, AL 36605

Dear Mr. Willett:

This responds to your letter of April 17, 1992, with repect to motor vehicle lighting. You believe that a "flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used." The light you have in mind is one which "flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and emergency flashers." The light is intended "to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used . . . ." You have asked "Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that stop lamps be steady-burning when the brakes are applied. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from any modification that renders wholly or partially inoperative motor vehicle equipment, such as stop lamps, installed pursuant to a standard such as Standard No. 108. Were the existing stop lamps to be rewired to flash, we would regard the change from steady burning to flashing as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of this prohibition. However, please note that the prohibition includes only four categories of persons, and does not apply to modifications made by a "survey group member" who is not within one of those categories. Nor does it apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner.

In addition, you should check with the authorities in Alabama to ensure that your modifications do not violate any provision of the State motor vehicle code.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/8/92

ID: nht92-7.10

DATE: May 8, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Willett

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/17/92 from Bill Willett to NHTSA (OCC 7240)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 17, 1992, with respect to motor vehicle lighting. You believe that a "flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used." The light you have in mind is one which "flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and emergency flashers." The light is intended "to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used . . . ." You have asked "Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that stop lamps be steady-burning when the brakes are applied. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from any modification that renders wholly or partially inoperative motor vehicle equipment, such as stop lamps, installed pursuant to a standard such as Standard No. 108. Were the existing stop lamps to be rewired to flash, we would regard the change from steady burning to flashing as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of this prohibition. However, please note that the prohibition includes only four categories of persons, and does not apply to modifications made by a "survey group member" who is not within one of those categories. Nor does it apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner.

In addition, you should check with the authorities in Alabama to ensure that your modifications do not violate any provision of the State motor vehicle code.

ID: 86-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Leon Conner Manager Long & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 691 San Angelo, TX 76902

Dear Mr. Conner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you asked wether this regulation requises the treadwear testing for a tire size to be conducted only with vehicles that specify the subject tire size either as the original equipment size or as one of the recommended optional tire sizes. The UTQGS does not contain any such provision.

The conditions and procedures to be followed in grading tires for treadwear under the UTQGS are set forth in S575.104(e). That section specifies tire loading conditions and rim dimensional requirements for the vehicles used in the treadwear testing. However, it does not specify that the vehicles used in the treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle when new. Accordingly, persons testing tires to determine the treadwear grade may mount the tires on any vehicle, provided that the tire and vehicle satisfy all the requirements of S575.104(e), relating to tire construction, inflation pressure, size designation, vehicle loading, and wheel alignment.

You stated in your letter that the UTQGS compliance test procedures, used by this agency for conducting its enforcement testing for treadwear grades, currently specify that tire sizes must be tested on vehicles that specify that size as either original equipment or recommended optional size. This specification may have been adopted after the following language appeared in a 1975 preamble to a final rule establishing the UTQGS:

Several commenters suggested that the rule specify all vehicles in a given convoy be identical, to reduce variations in projected treadlife...Variations in vehicle type, however, do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize such variations, tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. 40 FR 23073, at 23076, May 28, 1975.

As explained above, the UTQGS regulation does not specify that the vehicles used in treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle. The agency's compliance test procedures are only the methods the agency itself uses to determine the appropriate treadwear grade for a tire. Persons outside the agency are not bound by any testing conditions and methods not set forth in the UTQGS itself. Such persons may, therefore, conduct their own testing in a manner different from that specified in NHTSA's compliance test procedures, provided that their testing satisfies all requirements of S575.104(e).

You also stated that the use of different vehicles for treadwear testing of tires will produce measurably different treadwear grades for the tire, even when all the vehicle factors are closely and properly controlled. As quoted above, NHTSA concluded that vehicle-to-vehicle variations "do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections", when it examined this issue in 1975. However, the agency is currently reexamining the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variations on treadwear projections, particularly with respect to front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive vehicles and passenger cars vs. light trucks and vans. If you wish to provide some additional data on this subject, please forward the data to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at this address. We would be interested in analyzing whatever data form the basis for your belief that our 1975 conclusion was incorrect.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, if you have any further questions about our UTQGS.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office Of Chief Counsel, NAO-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Subject: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Testing

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are requesting clarification of the UTQG Stnadard relative to selection of test vehicles.

The UTQG Compliance Test Procedure requires that, "the vehicles must specify the tire size to be tested as standard equipment or approved alternate for that vehicle", i.e. government compliance testing will be performed with vehicles selected in this manner. It behooves the tester then to select vehicles in the same manner it would seem.

While outdoor road testing inherently involves a large number of variables it is apparent from our accumulated CMT data that different cars do produce different wear rates for a given set of tires and conditions, even when vehicle factors (wheel alignment, wheel loads, mechanical maintenance) are closely and properly controlled. It is therefore possible to bias the candidate tire grades measurably through selection of the control tire car, the candidate tire car or both. Use of certain larger vehicles produce faster wear of the CMT tires and consequently higher grades for the candidate tire; tested in the same convoy.

If the UTQG Standard allows the tester to choose any car in which he can attain the required wheel loads, manufacturers may seek the tester who can obtain the highest grades.

Hopefully you can clarify the intent of NHTSA on this matter. If we can be of assistance in any way please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

J. Leon Conner JLC:bf

ID: 06-007886rls

ID: 77-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: McElwee, Hall & McElwee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the Holly Farms Service Center would qualify as a "motor vehicle repair business" as that term is defined in Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). This is an elaboration of our letter to you of November 8, 1977.

According to your description, the Holly Farms Service Center only repairs and maintains vehicles owned by Holly Farms, except for an occasional repair as an accomodation to another company whose vehicle has broken down on the premises.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that "motor vehicle repair business" means

"any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Based on your description of the function of the Holly Farms Service Center, it would not be considered a "motor vehicle repair business" for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. The fact that the Service Center occasionally repairs another company's vehicles does not change our interpretation, provided the Service Center does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of making such repairs for compensation.

Since the Service Center would not be considered a "motor vehicle repair business", it could alter the braking systems on Holly Farms' vehicles without violating the "render inoperative" provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

SINCERELY,

McELWEE, HALL & McELWEE

December 2, 1977

Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

In accordance with our telephone conversation of this date, I enclose herewith a copy of our letter of November 17, 1977. We would appreciate an immediate reply to the questions posed therein.

MCELWEE, HALL & MCELWEE William C. Warden, Jr.

ENC.

McELWEE, HALL & McELWEE

November 17, 1977

Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. has as one of its divisions a unit called "The Service Center." This garage repairs Holly Farms' own vehicles such as tractor-trailers. There are approximately 139 tractors, and Holly Farms has service center shops in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas. Only Holly Farms' vehicles are repaired or maintained at these centers, except occasionally if another company's vehicle should break down at the Holly Farms premises, as an accommodation, this service center will perform some minor repairs to get the vehicle back on the road. Holly Farms Service Center does not repair vehicles for compensation for the general public.

In reference to your letter of November 8, 1977 to Congressman Stephen L. Neal, we would like to clarify with you and have an expression of your opinion as to whether or not the Holly Farms Service Center comes within the prohibitions of 15 U.S.C.A. 1397 (a) (2) (A). In particular, as to whether or not the Service Center is included in the term "motor vehicle repair business." As you are no doubt aware, Holly Farms is contemplating disconnecting portions of the brake systems upon vehicles it owns and operates itself, and would like to have its own Service Center do this. Therefore, does the aforementioned section of the Code prohibit Holly Farms Service Center from disconnecting the safety device. Please express your opinion in a letter to me.

William C. Warden, Jr.

cc: ODELL WHITTINGTON; VERNON CHURCH

ID: nht68-1.2

DATE: 01/01/68 EST.

FROM: R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Department of Transport

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in confirmation of our telephone conversation of August 26, 1968, and in reply to your letter of July 22, 1968, in which you inquire as to the meaning of "manufacturer" in the Tire Standard, No. 109, particularly in light of the practice of concealing the identity of the real maker of the tires.

The term "manufacturer" employed in the labeling requirements section of that standard, by the rule set forth in 23 C.F.R. @@255.3, is used in the meaning defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C.@@1391:

"Manufacturer means any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale."

The clear implication of this definition is that we are to be concerned with the company that is the actual maker of the tires in question, not retail outlets, suppliers who are not manufacturers, or other parties who may misleadingly appear to be the manufacturer.

We are not aware of any situation where the ownership or control of the tire manufacturing operation is so fragmented as to leave the relevant identity of the manufacturer unclear, within the meaning of the above. If such a case is brought to our attention, we will deal with it on its own facts.

We are happy to be of assistance.