ID: 14891.ztv

Mr. Guy E. Koelling
Manager, Office of the Chairman
SANYO North America Corporation
2055 Sanyo Avenue
San Diego, CA 92173

Dear Mr. Koelling:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1997, about the Sanyo "Enacle" pedal assist bicycle.

You refer to the agency's interpretation letter of February 16, 1993, to J.C. Townley in which we advised him of our conclusion, on the basis of the facts in his letter, that the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You state that Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. produces a very similar product that "is operated on the same principle as the Yamaha product, i.e. a torque sensor that activates when muscular effort is applied. In other words, just as with the Yamaha product, the Enacle will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular assist." You ask for confirmation that, for the same reasons as set forth in the Townley letter, the Enacle would not be classified as a motor vehicle.

We confirm that interpretation. Pedal assisted bicycles whose power assist is insufficient alone to drive the bicycle are not "motor vehicles" subject to our jurisdiction, but instead are under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Noting that your letter is headed "confidential" we asked you for a clarification. On May 14, 1997, you asked us to disregard the "Confidential" letterhead on which your letter was typed. Therefore, a copy of our response to you will be included in the agency's public interpretations file.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Consumer Product Safety Commission
ref:5/28/97

ID: 21499.ztv

Mr. Walter Lewis
Senior Compliance Engineer
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive
Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Lewis:

We are responding to your letter of April 6, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S5.5.7(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to Porsche's "Coming Home Light."

Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires that the taillamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state. Porsche's "Coming Home Light" illuminates the environment around the car "by energizing the headlamps for a short period of time after the key is removed from the ignition." You believe that there is no safety benefit from illuminating these other lamps during the period that the "Coming Home Light" is in use, and ask for an interpretation that it is not subject to S5.5.7(b).

We agree with your conclusion. Devices of this nature have been installed on motor vehicles for over 20 years. The "Coming Home Light" feature is not in use when the vehicle is being operated on roadways, and is activated only when the vehicle is at rest and the ignition key removed. The purpose of Standard No. 108, as stated in S2, is "to reduce traffic accidents. . . by providing adequate illumination of the roadway and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood . . . ." The use of headlamps for a purpose other than those prescribed in S2 does not require compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108. Thus, S5.5.7(b) does not apply in this instance, and the lamps listed therein need not be activated when the headlamps are activated in the "Coming Home Light" mode.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/19/00

ID: nht70-1.49

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Scandex Sakerhetaglas Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1970 in which you applied to the National Highway Safety Bureau for registration of glazing materials your company intends exporting to the United States for use in motor vehicles.

It is important that you understand that the National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or certify that glazing materials meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable thereto (No. 205, copy enclosed). Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1405 ( a copy of the Act is also enclosed) requires the manufacturer to certify that his product complies with all applicable U.S. standards. You may certify that your company's glazing materials meet the standard by following the requirements of Section 114 of the Act or by following the certification alternative provided for in S3.4 of Standard No. 205. If you choose to use the alternative method provided for in the Standard you must apply for an approved manufacturer's code mark.

Although the Bureau does not certify glazing material as complying, it does conduct a compliance program to determine if the manufacturer's product does, in fact, comply with the applicable standards. Persons selling non-complying items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation (see Sections 108 and 109 of the Act).

In addition, your attention is directed to Section 110(e) of the Act which requires persons exporting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment into the United States to designate an agent for service of process. See Subpart D-Service of Process: Agents, of the General Procedural Rules (copy enclosed).

ID: nht72-2.28

DATE: 09/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Zundapp-Werke GMBH Munchen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 8 and your follow-up letter of August 22 to Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, concerning the lighting requirements for motor-driven cycles, were forwarded to this Office for consideration and reply.

The lighting requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 are identical for a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle (except for headbumper see SAE J584 April 1964), because the letter is defined in Part 571 of the standard (Illegible Word) "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less."

In addition, the answers to your specific questions follow --

1. Must the stop-light of a motor-driven cycle be operated by hand and foot brake?

Answer -

Yes. Paragraph S4.5.4 of FMVSS No. 103 requires the stop lamps on each vehicle to be activated upon application of the service brakes, and since both the hand and foot brakes are service brakes, the application of either must activate the stop lamps.

2. Does there exist any regulations concerning the light intensity of the brake-light?

Answer -

Yes. Currently stop lamps must conform in the photometric requirements specified in SAE Standard J575d. Paragraph S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS No. 108 also requires that vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, be equipped with stop lamps meeting the candlepower requirements for Class A from signal lamps in SAE J575d.

3. Are turn signal prescribed?

Answer -

Yes. Class B turn signal lamps (see SAE J575d) are required as motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, and should be mounted as specified in Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 (copy enclosed for your information).

NOT CONTROLLED

ID: nht71-4.16

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, concerning the Certification regulations, as amended April 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 7054). The questions you ask in your letter are dealt with individually below.

1. You request a ruling that, in the case of boat trailers, would allow the "type classification" of the vehicle (@ 567.4(g)(7)) to be stated as "trailer". The use of the word "trailer" in the case of boat trailers will satisfy the requirement.

2. You ask that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to exempt boat trailers from the requirement of specifying the GAWR (@ 567.4(g)(4)). You state as the basis for this request that the gross axle weight rating of a boat trailer is meaningless as it can vary depending upon the load distribution. We must deny your request. The purpose of requiring both GAWR and GVWR is to distinguish between the weight of a fully loaded vehicle and the weight on each particular axle of the vehicle. This distinction is important in the case of a single axle trailer, as the GVWR and GAWR may differ due to the distribution of the GVWR between the axle of the trailer and some component of the towing vehicle. By specifying values for both GVWR and GAWR that he deems appropriate, the manufacturer, rather than providing a meaningless figure, will be providing figures that represent an appropriate distribution of a load between the trailer and the towing vehicle.

3. You also ask whether, in cases where a tire size option exists, a GVWR can be stated on the label for each tire size. The question is presently under consideration as part of action being taken on petitions for reconsideration of the regulations that have been received. Accordingly, we will deal with this question in our action on the petitions pursuant to 49 CFR 553.37.

ID: nht75-1.37

DATE: 09/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. I. Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: File

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Meeting concerning labeling requirements of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses

On September 16, 1975, a meeting was held with representatives of Volkswagen of America to discuss the labeling of short lengths of brake hose pursuant to Standard No. 106-74. The following persons were present: Cerherd Riechel VW Karl-Heinz Ziwica VW Welfred Redler NHTSA Mark Schwimmer NHTSA

The Volkswagen representatives discussed difficulties they have experienced with the requirement that a full legend of the information specified in the standard appear on each brake hose, regardless of its length. They submitted samples of the hose in question and a photograph and drawing indicating its installation. They suggested that a sequence of hose segments, interrupted only by check valves or T-connectors, be considered a single brake hose for the purposes of the standard's labeling requirements. I explained that a Federal Register notice addressing the short hose issue is expected to be published in the near future.

ID: nht72-5.47

DATE: 07/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Normark Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 26, 1972, to the Office of the Regional Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the Bond Bug.

For purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the Bond Bug is classified as a "motorcycle" since it is a "motor vehicle . . . designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground". The only Federal standard currently applicable to it is Standard No. 108. Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems will apply to motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1974. I enclose a copy of each for your information. The new standard on motorcycle controls and displays, No. 123, does not apply to a motorcycle equipped with a steering wheel.

If you are interested in importing this vehicle on a commercial basis, I suggest that you write us directly for information on obligations of the manufacturer and importer concerning consumer information and safety-related defect notification.

ID: nht75-6.37

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: BARBER B. CONABLE -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TO: HONORABLE WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECRETARY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED OCTOBER 10, 1975 FROM WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, TO HON. BARBER B. CONABLE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TEXT: This letter is written in the interest of Mr. F. J. Guppenberger of Batavia, New York, to express his concern about the traffic safety hazard posed by automobiles which have been modified for racing or other purposes.

I recently received a letter about this from Mr. Guppenberger, describing the increased dangers of a collision with a car having a raised rear bumper such as is sometimes done with racing cars. Mr. Guppenberger feels that either the modifying of cars in this way or the driving of them on highways should be made illegal.

A copy of Mr. Guppenberger's letter to me on this is enclosed for your information and consideration. I will greatly appreciate a careful evaluation of the issues raised by this enclosure, including whether there are existing federal authorities in this area.

ID: nht72-3.11

DATE: 04/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pike Paint & Glass Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 15, 1972, requesting information on requirements for replacing broken glass in campers and trailers.

Federal regulations (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (49 CFR 571.205, formerly 571.21)) require glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment such as campers to meet the requirements of the American National Standards Institute Test Z26.1-1966 (July 15, 1966), and other requirements enumerated in the standard. In addition, manufacturers of such materials are required to certify, pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) that the materials comply with the standard. This requirement applies to both prime manufacturers (those who either fabricate, temper, or laminate the material) and those who cut material from larger sheets.

The standard does not apply to trailers. With reference to campers, the standard requires that forward facing windows be constructed of glazing materials meeting tests for AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, or AS5 glazing materials, which are described in ANS Test Z26.1-1966. Other camper windows may be of any glazing material that meets the requirements of the standard (AS1 through AS11). All of the materials which can be used under the standard are readily available. A notice of proposed rulemaking issued January 9, 1971, would allow additional materials to be used in campers, and the preparation of a final regulation regarding this matter is currently in process. The final regulation will, when issued, be published in the Federal Register.

A copy of Standard No. 205 is enclosed. The American National Standards Test Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into the standard must, however, be obtained directly from the American National Standards Institute. Their address is 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.

If you have further questions, please write.

ID: nht78-1.17

DATE: 02/17/78

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

TO: Mr. Wirtz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1977, inquiring about tire endurance tests.

The tire endurance test proposed in Docket No. 74-2, Notice 1, has not been adopted by this agency. Comments received in response to the notice were generally critical of the suggested amendment. The agency found the comments essentially meritorious and, thus, is at this time contemplating closing the docket on the proposed revision. The tire endurance test currently prescribed in Standard 109 remains in effect and should be regarded as establishing the performance level necessary for compliance.

If you wish to obtain copies of the SAE standards, you should contact the SAE directly at the following address:

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 17, 1977

Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) - Registration No. 74-2 notice from January 10, 1974

Passenger car tires which shall be labeled with the symbol DOT must among others be subjected to the tire endurance test. In the notice No. 1, registered under No. 74-2, the proposal was made to replace the tire endurance test defined in MVSS 109 by a new SAE-procedure showing some changes in the testing conditions compared with the test method defined in MVSS 109.

Would you be kind enough to inform me whether the new SAE test procedure (published under registration No. 74-2) was put into force for the performance of the tire endurance test according to MVSS 109, and which of both test methods is obligatory for the proof of tires to conform to the requirements of MVSS 109.

At the same time I ask you to place to my disposal all SAE standards regarding tire test procedures.

Sincerely Wirtz -- General manager