ID: nht95-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/23/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO ORRON KEE (OCC 10925)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked ho w the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish infor mation about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

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

ID: nht95-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. F. Tolley -- Senior Development Engineer, New Products Office, Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/28/95 LETTER FROM R. F. TOLLEY TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10847)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tolley:

This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The second sentence of this paragraph states that "The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern." You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifica lly, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp.

We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as "some other point"), our comment is that; until N HTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Department, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL J. WIRSCH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11006)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wirsch:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995, relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ("EVs") which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor veh icle safety standards.

The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: "transferring ownership" to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs.

Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter.

In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the e nd of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the or iginal importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases).

We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClell an without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicle s itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use.

This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure.

Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs.

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

ID: nht95-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: Arthur N. Arschin, Esq

TO: Wilart Banks -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ARTHUR N. ARSCHIN (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 574)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Banks:

I am writing as the attorney and agent for the captioned companies, which are tire manufacturers based in Thailand. Previously, in 1987 I had made an inquiry to your office to obtain DOT identification numbers for those two Thailand corporations for the purpose of importing new and retreaded tires into the United States.

By your agency letters of November 3, 1987 and August 24, 1988 (copies enclosed), the DOT assigned identification marks to my client as follows: YRV for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2. In addition Plant No. 1 was assigned the code 4A and Plant N o. 2 was assigned 5A for purposes of new tire manufacturing.

What I need from your agency is a written confirmation that such assigned codes are still valid and may be validly used by my client.

If you are not able to do that, I would need a letter stating that once such codes are assigned, they remain valid for an indefinite period unless abandoned by the manufacturer.

Please contact the undersigned if additional information is needed.

Your prompt and considered attention will be greatly appreciated.

Attachments

LETTER # 1: 8-24-88

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, N.Y. 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

We have registered the Vee Rubber Co., LTD., Inc. of Bangkok area retreed manufacturer with you as their agent.

The identification marks assigned to this company are: FOR PLANT NO. 1 YRU FOR PLANT NO. 2 YRV

These marks identify the Vee Rubber Co. as the retread manufacturer of both plants.

If you should no longer represent them or if there is a change in the company location or ownership, please notify us immediately.

Note: The code YPV, previously assigned to you is error, is not to be used as it is retained by another retreader.

Sincerely,

Nelson Gordy Motor Vehicle Requirements Division Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

LETTER # 2:

11/3/87

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin Attorney at Law 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, NY 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

This is in reply to your request for assignment of tire manufacturer identification codes for the Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber Int. Co., Ltd. plants located at Samutsakorn, Thailand.

We are assigning the code 4A to Plant No.-1 and code 5A to Plant No.-2. Our records show the address of these plants and your main office as follows:

Plant Plant No.-1: B7/5 Gp. 4 Sethakij Road, Ban Koh Muaug District, Samutsakorn Province - Thailand Plant No.-2: 22/3 MOO 2 Tambal Chaimongkol Ampher * Samutsakorn, ThailandMain Office Plant No.-1: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. 142/37 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 Plant No.-2: Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd. 142/35 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 * Denotes Illegible Word

We are enclosing the following publications for your information:

Regulation Part 574

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119

The use of the DOT symbol molded into or onto a tire constitutes a certification by the manufacturer and signifies that the tire meets applicable Federal safety requirements. While it is not required that tires be tested prior to using the DOT symbol, t he National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does maintain a compliance test program to enforce safety standards, and any tires that are found not to meet the Federal standards, are subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per tire but not to exce ed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

Your tire manufacturer's identification code mark is required on all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for highway use. This code mark and other tire identification labeling are specified in Regulation Part 574.

Sincerely

Stanley R. Scheiner, Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

3 Enclosures

ID: nht95-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 28, 1995

FROM: T. J. Sommer -- President, White Bear Sales

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO T. J. SOMMER (SEC. 30162(a)(6); A43; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

I was directed to you for information regarding the legality of licensing four wheel all-terrain vehicles.

White Bear Sales Inc. is the U.S. distributor of a three wheel police vehicle classified as a "motorcycle" by the DOT, CARB and EPA. Our vehicle is street legal and licensable and has been emission certified.

The City of Chicago Police Dept. is using a number of four wheel all terrain vehicles for patrol work within the downtown area. These vehicles have been issued Illinois State license plates and the officers are using them on public roadways.

We believe that these vehicles are illegal to use on the streets. The City of Chicago is placing their employees at high risk by allowing officers to operate this unit on their routes. The director of Chicago's fleet asked me to compile all federal def initions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use.

Would you direct me to this information or send me a copy of the statute(s) that apply to licensing (or proof that it is not licensable) for this type of vehicle? We would appreciate any pertinent information regarding this topic.

Phone: 414-466-6868 Fax: 414-466-6936

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht95-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Steven B. Fisher -- Kostow And Daar, P.C.

TO: Phillip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO STEVEN B. FISHER (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

I am writing you in hopes of obtaining an opinion and/or interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 108, including but not limited to Table II of such Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Pursuant to the above safety standard, with respect to truck, trailer identification lights (red), what is meant exactly by the word "practicable" as used in @@ 5.3.1.1, and 5.3.1.4.

Secondly, whose responsibility is it to assess, or in other words to determine, what is "practicable" and what is not "practicable" relative to the placement and location of rear, identification lamps (red). Is it the manufacturer of the particular i dentification light who provides the trailer manufacturer with tye type of identification light requested or is it the duty of the trailer manufacturer who receives the identification light for incorporation into its trailer to make such determination as they see fit in accordance with No. 108 and in light of the particular design/configuration of the trailer involved?

Third, given the "practicability" term as used in the above standard, combined with the many number of different types of trailers which are made each year and travel the public roadways, is there any way for a manufacturer of a single, rear identific ation light to know for certain, anticipate or otherwise predict where the trailer manufacturer will ultimately place and/or locate the identification lights on any given trailer?

Your cooperation and assistance concerning the above request for an advisory opinion and/or interpretation of the aforementioned standard would be greatly appreciated.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. My direct number is 312/474-1404. Thanks again.

ID: nht95-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization ge sture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Fu rther, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Im portant Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantl y less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" T urn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenti ng period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Auto s look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights se ll cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehi cle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: nht95-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/77 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: I have been reviewing all NHTSA's attempts over the years at improving the definition of "OPTICAL COMBINATION" as the subject applies to Vehicle Lighting. I have numerous pages of information from the Federal Register and from NHTSA's Docket "Legal Inter pretation" Files gathered over the past 20 years and I must say the situation is now worse than it ever has been.

Back in 1977 I was sent the attached letter from NHTSA lawyers. This was sent to me after five pieces of rather Technical back and forth correspondence * . The substance of the letter is that NHTSA's legal experts finally admitted that Lighting function s that share the same housing and the same lens (and when both use Separate Bulb Filaments and fulfill all other Lighting requirements for their particular function when lit separately), were "not" to be considered Optically Combined.

* All five pieces of Correspondence available upon request, but also in NHTSA's Docket Records.

Later, the Canadians, in spite of U.S. and Canadian written agreements to adopt identical rules and interpretations on this issue, said essentially they would only honor the common housing portion of this Interpretation, which "somehow?", NHTSA also late r adopted in spite of the 1977 Legal Interpretation sent me that was based on well thought out scientific discussions and conclusions. *

Then, around 1990, "out of the blue", NHTSA put a "Rider" into a proposed change that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, "NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING", which of course, knocked out the second part of the Lega l Interpretation sent me. In response, I wrote NHTSA asking for clarification and a reasonable explanation, and was essentially ignored.

Using the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support?

ID: nht95-3.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Sinkez -- Vice-President, Mitsubishi Motors of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sinkez:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of our Vehicle Identification Number regulation, which you made in a July 5, 1995, meeting with Dorothy Nakama and Steve Wood of this office. You asked, after Diamond Star Motors Corporation's (DSM's) name is changed to Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (MMMA), whether that company may continue to use the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to DSM. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

We understand the facts as follows. When DSM was formed, shares of DSM stock were split between Mitsubishi Corporation and Chrysler Corporation. In 1994, Mitsubishi purchased all of Chrysler's shares in DSM. Mitsubishi now owns 100% of DSM stock. Eff ective July 1, 1995, Mitsubishi changed DSM's name to MMMA. We have been informed that no changes other than transfers of shares in DSM stock and the name change were made in MMMA's corporate form.

By way of background information, 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements is intended to simplify VIN information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle defect recall campaigns. Section 565.4(a) prov ides that a portion of the VIN, called the WMI, must "uniquely identify the manufacturer."

The basic issue raised by your question is, if MMMA continues to use the WMI assigned to DSM, whether the WMI will "uniquely identify the manufacturer." In the factual situation at issue, only the company's name is changed, and not the identity of the ma nufacturer, i.e., MMMA is the same corporation as DSM. Therefore, MMMA may continue to use the WMI assigned to DSM.

I hope this response is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terrence S. Lockman -- Investigator, Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Attorneys-at-Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM TERRENCE, S. LOCKMAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10855)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lockman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Model Year (MY) 1981 Versa Sweeper road sweeper is a "motor vehicle" and therefore subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that were in effect when the vehicle was manuf actured. Further, you ask whether the Versa Sweeper had to comply with requirements for an occupant restraint system or for rollover protection. You explained that you are conducting an investigation, and that "At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway."

I note, before beginning, that your letter had asked for certain information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NHTSA separately answered your FOIA request by letter dated May 22, 1995, from Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, Assistant Chief Couns el for General Law.

Yours is an unusual interpretation request. Typically, questions concerning whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle are raised around the time of manufacture of a vehicle or its importation into the country, and by a person knowledgeable about the intended use of the vehicle, such as the vehicle's manufacturer. In contrast, your question asks about another entity's vehicle 14 years after the vehicle's manufacture, which makes our response more difficult. We cannot say for certain what principles would h ave applied in 1981 concerning the Versa Sweeper, and our knowledge of the vehicle is limited to the information you provided. Thus, a conclusive answer is beyond our reach.

We can make the following observations, however. NHTSA applies several principles when making a determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act n1 defined a motor vehicle as "a v ehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." We are not certain, based on the information you provided, that the Versa Sweeper was manufactured for use on public highways. Th e literature you sent indicates that the Versa Sweeper is intended for "road maintenance sweeping and highway preparation cleaning." It appears that the vehicle might be a construction vehicle. Moreover, you indicated that the vehicle was being used in a construction zone "at the time in question." Construction-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. With r egard to the 1981 Versa Sweeper, its use of the highway is unclear.

n1 In 1994, the Safety Act was recodified, without substantial change, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. The motor vehicle" definition is set forth in section 30102(a).

Assuming the Versa Sweeper had regularly used the highway, NHTSA's longstanding position has been that vehicles of unusual configuration that are incapable of obtaining speeds greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) are not required to comply with the FMVSS s. It is unclear how this principle applies to a 1989 Versa Sweeper has "Indefinitely variable speeds from 0-30 miles per hour. . ." It is unclear whether this means each Versa Sweeper can attain a speed of 30 mph or whether some, but not all, can. A V ersa Sweeper that had a maximum speed of less than 20 mph is excluded. One that went over 20 mph might not have been.

You ask about requirements for occupant restraints and rollover protection. The agency has stated that "street sweepers" -- that are motor vehicles -- are trucks. In 1981, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), required open-bodie d light trucks to have a lap belt system. There was no rollover requirement.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.