ID: nht73-1.17

DATE: 10/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: T. J. Wagner

COPYEE: PESKOE; WALLACE; ARMSTRONG

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1973, concerning your recent purchase of tires that were marked "Blemtube type must use tube," but which were installed on your car without tubes.

The NHTSA does consider the mounting of "tube type" tires without tubes to involve at least a potential violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the establishment of a violation by the agency involves the purchase and testing of new tires, a time-consuming and costly process. The agency would not, moreover, under its authority, be able to take any action with respect to the tires sold to you. We will, however, inquire into the matter by contacting the dealer who sold you the tires in the hope that we may prevent a recurrence of the problem.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

WAGNER COMPANY, INC.

AIRMAIL September 18, 1973

Office of the Secretary Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I have recently been the beneficiary of laws which your department has established in regards to the branding of defective tires. I do a great deal of expressway driving, so it is very possible my life or that of others has been spared.

Two weeks ago, I ordered from Ciesar's Chrysler Dealers in Whiting, Indiana, and was billed $ 50 per tire for a first trade set of tires. On September 15, 1973, a gas station attendant, while observing my tires, noticed that they were Seconds and banded, "Blemtube type must use tube". He also discovered that the four tires were mounted tubeless. These were GoodYear tires and all carried your identification number [illegible].

I contacted the Hammond Police to witness my predicament and they informed me that my car would not pass a safety inspection and if I had been involved in an accident, I could have been subject to arrest. I informed the Indiana State Police who told me there was nothing they could do since they knew of no state law prohibiting such an act by this new car dealer. Your law of branding the tires is very good, but it is too bad that there isn't a penalty against people who mount tires in an unsafe condition, or is there?

Your advice to a common citizen would be appreciated as to any recourse that I have.

Yours very truly,

T. J. Wagner

cc Congressman William J. Madden

ID: 0394

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY 10118-6098

Re: Your Ref. No.: 12.065

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

We have received your letter to John Womack, the former Acting Chief Counsel of this agency, responding to his letter to you of July 20, 1994. Thank you for enclosing a copy of his letter for ready reference.

Our previous letter to you was without the benefit of the diagram of the Caine system which you have now enclosed. The system is intended to be placed "along the side of trucks and other vehicles." It consists of three red lamps mounted over three amber (yellow) ones, the array installed between the amber front side marker lamp and the red rear side marker lamp. In normal operation the amber lamps are used as "running lights" but will be turned off when the red lamps are illuminated in a steady burning state upon application of the brake pedal. The three amber lamps will flash to indicate that the vehicle is turning. All six lamps will flash when the hazard indicator switch is on. If the turn signal is on and the driver's foot is on the brake pedal, the amber lamps will flash while the red ones illuminate in a steady burning state. At 32 candela, the turn signal lamps will be at a higher intensity than the running lamps which operate at 3 to 5 candela. These are within NHTSA specifications. You ask whether this system will be in violation of Standard No. 108.

This office has corresponded with you on lighting matters on a number of occasions and you are well aware that supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited as original equipment only if

it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. This determination is to be made by the manufacturer or dealer who installs the equipment and NHTSA will not question it unless it is clearly erroneous.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/8/94

ID: nht93-5.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1993

FROM: Charles D. Shipley -- Director, Ohio Department of Public Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Charles D. Shipley (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allan Schwartz (Std. 108)

TEXT:

It is our understanding that NHTSA is reviewing questions and concerns from the various states regarding installation of neon lighting units to the underside and/or other portions of motor vehicles.

The Ohio Department of Public Safety has received inquiries regarding the legality of neon lighting installation to vehicles operated in this state. While Ohio law does not specifically prohibit installation of underbody neon lighting, in responding to such inquiries, we have noted that such lighting may be in violation of one or more of Ohio's vehicle lighting statutes.

The two sections of Ohio law to which we frequently refer are (1) Ohio Revised Code Section 4513.17 when someone proposes installing red or blue neon lighting because it prohibits equipping a motor vehicle with, and displaying flashing red, or flashing red and white or flashing blue, or flashing blue and white light except for law enforcement officials and (2) Ohio Revised Code Section 4513.13 which requires that side cowl, fender or side lights emit a white or amber light without glare. Regarding O.R.C. Section 4513.13, we have noted that while proposed neon lighting may be mounted underneath the vehicle rather than on the vehicle side as addressed in this statute, such neon lighting-installed vehicles may result in confusion to other drivers regarding the placement, the purpose, and the effect of the proposed lighting. This confusion to motorists would be of special concern when vehicles are operated on rural highways.

Also, under ORC 4513.12 addressing spotlights and auxiliary driving lights, motor vehicles may not be equipped with more than three auxiliary driving lights on the front of the vehicle. We feel that in certain conditions, underbody neon lights could also bi mistaken for auxiliary driving lights.

We have additionally suggested that those inquiring contact NHTSA for information on applicable federal regulations. We would appreciate any guidance you might be able to provide in this area.

For your information, I am forwarding copies of the following Ohio statutes and administrative code sections which address vehicle lighting and equipment standards:

ORC Sections 4513.02 through 4513.19 addressing Ohio vehicle lighting, ORC Section 4513.261 addressing directional signals,

OAC Section 4501:2-1-09 addressing motor vehicle equipment standards for lighting, OAC Section 4501:2-1-10 addressing motor vehicle equipment standards for turn signals and OAC Chapter 4501-15 addressing Ohio vehicle lighting.

Thank you for any information and guidance you are able to provide in addressing the possible hazards and confusion presented by underbody-mounted neon lighting.

ID: 1985-04.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Sam Verma -- Erincraft Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Sam Verma Erincraft Mfg. Co., Inc. 742 East 8th Street Michigan City, Indiana 46360

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1985, asking how to obtain a "DOT number," so that your company can import truck tires into the United States from a plant in India. The procedures to be followed are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. That regulation requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see 574.5), including the identification mark assigned to the manufacturer. To obtain an identification mark, the actual manufacturer of the tires should provide the information specified in 574.6 of the regulation. Please note that an identification mark will be assigned only to the actual manufacturer of tires, and not to companies importing those tires. This is because 574.5 requires that this identification mark be molded into or onto all new tires. The only party which can mold the mark on the tire is the actual manufacturer. Therefore, the entity which owns the tire plant in India must apply for the identification mark. An identification mark is normally assigned within two weeks after the receipt of such a request. The owner of the tire plant in India should also be aware of a procedural rule which applies to all parties subject to the regulation of this agency, 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). This rule requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. The identification mark required by Part 574 will not be assigned until this agency has received a valid designation of agent from the Indian tire manufacturer. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and p;ace where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the Indian tire manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of that manufacturer's tires which do not bear the name of the company; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the Indian tire manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the Indian tire manufacturer, and the agent may be an individual or U.S. firm or corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. If you need any further information or a clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: nht88-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/88

FROM: JOHN S. CROCKENBERG

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO JOHN S CROCKENBERG; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205

TEXT: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing to you after speaking with Joan Tillgham regarding a device I am developing. Ms. Tillgham suggested I obtain and research Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 through 999; Section 571.103 and 571.111. I have read this vo lume and cannot find any information that applies.

I will describe this device and its purpose to enable you to understand my device and answer my questions.

The device is an antiglare shield for automobiles. It is a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. It adheres to the interior of automobile windows.

The development of this product was necessitated by the need to deflect obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors could not be placed.

My questions are:

1) What standards if any apply to this type of product?

2) If no standards apply what might I need to concern myself with before proceeding with the manufacturing and marketing of this device.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

ID: 07-000630drn

ID: 18122.ztv

Mr. Malcolm Currie
President and CEO
Currie Technologies, Inc.
7011 Hayvenhurst Ave., Unit A
Van Nuys, CA 91406

Re: Power-Assisted Electric Bicycle

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1998, asking for confirmation that the power-assisted electric bicycle developed by your company is not a "motor vehicle" subject to the regulations of this agency.

According to your letter, the electric power unit of your bicycle does not operate in the absence of muscular input by the operator, who "must continue pedaling and exerting force for the motor to stay on." When a speed of 17-18 mph is reached, "the motor does no work and all of the power is supplied by the rider."

We confirm your understanding. We do not consider your bicycle to be a "motor vehicle." Muscular power is required for the motor to start and to assist in propelling the bicycle. Even with the input of muscular power, the motor ceases to operate at a speed of 17-18 mph, and above that speed the bicycle is propelled by muscular power alone. Most importantly, you have told us that "The bicycle cannot be operated by power assist alone without pedaling." For these reasons, we do not view your bicycle as a vehicle that is "driven by mechanical power" as the phrase is used in the statutory definition of "motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

You also write that your company "plans to sell a stand-alone propulsion system which the consumer can mount to their own bicycle in order to convert it into an electric bicycle." You intend the propulsion system to be sold separately "and not as part of a transaction involving the sale of a new bicycle." You ask for confirmation of your understanding "that there is no compliance responsibility imposed by Federal law," referencing the letter of November 20, 1997, from this Office to Zap Electric Bikes.

Your letter implies that the type of motor you intend to offer will convert the bicycle into a "motor driven cycle" under our regulations. Your understanding is overly broad, but is correct as it applies to your plans. We informed Zap that if it "sells the motor alone and not as part of a transaction involving the sale of a new bicycle, there would be no compliance responsibility imposed by Federal law" on the company. There is a compliance responsibility imposed by Federal law, but it applies to the "manufacturer" of a "motor vehicle," in this case, the person installing the electric motor on the bicycle. Under your scenario, this would be the consumer (though it could be the retailer from whom the consumer has bought the motor). The consumer or retailer, then, would be responsible for ensuring that his or her newly-created "motor driven cycle" meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards before it is operated on the public roads.

Nevertheless, we consider the power unit to be "motor vehicle equipment" since, when installed, it will be a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(7)(A). If you are the manufacturer of the power unit, you will be responsible for notification and remedy in the event a safety related defect occurs in the power unit. I enclose an information statement that the agency provides manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment .

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/15/98
ref:571

ID: nht75-1.25

DATE: 09/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Weatherhead Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1975, concerning the banding requirements of Standard No. 106-74. You asked whether the requirement for a band may be avoided in the situation where a hose manufacturer makes a hose assembly to a vehicle manufacturer's "specified requirements," under the exception for hoses "assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer."

The exception in the standard for assemblies made by a vehicle manufacturer cannot be interpreted to apply to those made by a hose manufacturer, as you suggested, so the answer to your question must be no. It is the intent of the standard to distinguish between the two situations you described.

We are presently reviewing the labeling requirements of the brake hose standard in light of your letter and other information. If you wish to present further data and arguments toward the revocation of the banding requirement, the appropriate form in which to do so would be a petition for rulemaking under Part 552.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 9, 1975

Reference: MUE-561

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Applicability Ruling FMVSS 571.106 Para. S5.2.4

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer need not be labeled by means of a band around the assembly. Elimination of this labeling band saves at least 3% on the cost of most hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The Weatherhead Company is not a vehicle manufacturer, therefore, the many millions of new vehicle hydraulic brake hose assemblies that we make are now costing 3% more than those assembled and installed by vehicle manufacturers. The resultant cost differential may cause The Weatherhead Company a substantial loss of business or a severe economic hardship. The vehicle manufacturers that are presently our customers may choose to assemble their own hydraulic brake hose to achieve reduced costs. Obviously, orders competitively bid with vehicle manufacturers will be lost or profits jeopardized due to the 3% cost differential.

Relief from this unnecessary burden can be obtained without regulatory effect by a favorable ruling on the applicability of Para. S5.2.4 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Counsel.

Question: Can "except for those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him" (from Para. S5.2.4) be interpreted to include assemblies that are assembled by anyone (such as Weatherhead) so long as they are assembled to the vehicle manufacturer's specified requirements and are then installed in vehicles manufactured by him?

This ruling is considered appropriate by Weatherhead since new vehicle assemblies are certified by the vehicle manufacturer's certification of the complete vehicle and the assemblies are normally made to his specified requirements. In addition, absolute traceability of these new vehicle assemblies is already there without the labeling band. After-market assemblies would still have to be banded since they would not be installed by the vehicle manufacturer.

Your prompt response to our question of interpretation of applicability of the labeling rule for hydraulic brake hose assemblies would be appreciated.

Yours very truly,

THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY

John H. Mueler, Manager, Engineering Standards

ID: nht79-2.28

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dixson, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Clay Lansdown Chief Engineer H. D. Instrument Division Dixson, Inc. P. O. Box 1949 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501

Dear Mr. Lansdown:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1979, asking whether construction, mining and agricultural machinery must comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127. In order for a vehicle to fall within the ambit of Standard 127 or any other safety standard it must be a motor vehicle. Section 103(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) defines a motor vehicle as

any vehicle drawn or driven by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use the public highways as part of its intended function.

There are two exceptions to the above rule that permit certain vehicles to use the highways without being considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment that is strictly used in farm fields and only incidentally uses the roads adjacent to those fields has been excepted from the definition of motor vehicle. However, not all agricultural equipment is excepted from the definition of motor vehicle. A piece of agricultural equipment, like any other vehicle, that uses the public streets and roads not adjacent to the fields on a necessary and recurring basis would be considered to be a motor vehicle and must meet the requirements of Standard 127 and the other safety standards.

The agency has further excepted certain vehicles from the definition of motor vehicle despite frequent highway use. Some maintenance and construction equipment whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinquishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles.

I suggest that you contact the manufacturers to whom you are selling your equipment. It is their responsibility initially for determining whether use on the public highways is part of the vehicles' intended function. The enclosed information sheet should be helpful in making that determination.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 7, 1979

National Highway Traffic Administration United States Department of Transportation Docket No. 76-06 Speedometer-Odometers 400 Seventh Street S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Our product line includes electronic speedometer-odometers. A significant portion of the units we manufacture are sold to manufacturers of construction, mining, and agricultural machinery. I am not sure if S3 of Standard 127 defines vehicles of the type listed above. These vehicles do on occasion, travel on highways, and in some cases are used to repair and build highways. The speedometers in these vehicles rarely, if ever, have markings above 40 MPH I wish to know if these vehicles are defined by S3 of Standard 127 in order to determine if the speedometers are required to meet S4.1.1 and S4.1.3 of Standard 127.

Sincerely,

DIXSON, INC.

Clay Lansdown Chief Engineer aH. D. Instrument Division

CL/ms

ID: 12438.WKM

Mr. Dennis S. Chrobak
American Tire Corporation
446 West lake Avenue
Ravenna, OH 44266

Dear Mr. Chrobak:

This responds to your facsimile inquiry of September 10, 1996, in which you stated that you understand that bicycles can lawfully operate on highways without licenses and that bicycles can use tires with inflation pressures of up to 225 psi. You asked whether these statements are true or whether they should be modified.

NHTSA's authority extends to regulation of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. "Motor vehicle" is defined in 49 U.S. Code 30102(6) as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power" (emphasis added), and "motor vehicle equipment," such as tires, is defined as "any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," or a replacement part or accessory. Thus, since bicycles are propelled by their riders rather than by mechanical power, they do not meet the definition of "motor vehicle." This agency, therefore, has issued no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to bicycles or their equipment, including their tires. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, however, has issued certain requirements for bicycle tires (see Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, section 1512.10). Any questions about such requirements may be directed to the Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone (301) 504-0980.

With respect to licenses, we are not aware of any Federal licensing requirements for bicycles. Some states or political subdivisions may have bicycle licensing requirements, but this agency does not maintain that information. You should contact the Departments of Transportation of the states in which you are interested for such information.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 119

d:10/4/96