ID: Winbel_scooter_v5

Amir Ambar
Winbel, Inc.
6231 McLeod Drive # E
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Ambar:

This responds to the interpretation request sent to us by Alan Schnitzer, Esq. on your behalf, asking if a scooter you are attempting to import into the United States is a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the scooter is not a motor vehicle.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

When determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency will first look to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

In an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our standards. (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed) At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter that you are seeking to import was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranges between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter is shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warn against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we conclude that the "scooter" you are seeking to import is properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. The scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This is reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters are comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice. While your scooter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipate that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways will be comparatively rare. We recognize that the scooter is equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. While this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, we note that this equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

While we have concluded at this time that the scooter you are seeking to import is not a motor vehicle, we may re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571.3#597
d.11/26/03

ID: wolf21888

Mr. Bret W. Wolf
Indiana Vac-Form, Inc.
2030 North Boeing Road
Airport Industrial Park
Warsaw, IN 46580






Dear Mr. Wolf:

This responds to your July 10, 2000, letter regarding replacing rear glazing material on a passenger van with a polycarbonate material.

You state in your letter that you are writing on behalf of a customer, Mr. Charlie Klerner, who is "seeking input to determine the feasibility of a project that entails replacing the right rear glazing material on a Chevrolet Passenger Van for the purpose of replacing it with a Polycarbonate material...so that electronic equipment including a consumer operated touch pad may be installed in the window opening." Mr. Klerner, in correspondence to this office dated July 13, 2000, specifies that the glazing material will be used between the C and D pillar adjacent to the seating of a passenger vehicle. As explained below, glazing made from a polycarbonate material must meet certain performance requirements and may only be used in certain locations on a vehicle.

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

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

You company's product, as a "polycarbonate" material which would replace the existing glazing material in the right rear window opening of a passenger van, is considered to be item 4A glazing subject to the requirements of S5.1.2.11 of Standard No. 205. S5.1.2.11 specifies the locations in a vehicle where rigid plastic for use in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar are permitted. Item 4A glazing is permitted in the following specific vehicle locations (see S5.1.2.11(a)):

(1) All areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used (these areas do not include the rear side or rear window area of a passenger van).

(2) Any side window that meets the criteria in (i) and (ii):

(i) is in a vehicle whose rearmost designated seating position is forward-facing and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-facing; and

(ii) the forwardmost point on its visible interior surface is rearward of the vertical transverse plane that passes through the shoulder reference point (as described in Figure 1 of 571.210, Seat belt assembly anchorages (copy enclosed)), of that rearmost seating position.

NHTSA does not permit Item 4A glazing near rear-facing seats or side-facing seats in any motor vehicle because of the concern that occupants (particularly unbelted ones) riding in those seating locations may be able to contact their heads against Item 4A glazing in a crash. The breaking of rigid plastic windows in a crash could leave sharp, pointed shards in the window frame which could easily be contacted by an occupant's head. There is also concern about occupant injury resulting from large shards of rigid plastic glazing being propelled inward by vehicle impacts with trees, poles, or other vehicles. Accordingly, replacing the right rear glazing material on a Chevrolet passenger van with a polycarbonate material adjacent to a passenger seating is generally not permitted.

In addition, S5.1.2.11(a) of Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for rigid plastic for use in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar. (See Test Procedures for Item 4A - Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" Pillar.) These performance requirements would apply to the polycarbonate glazing material.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 (copy enclosed) (formerly 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ⁽¹⁾) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any glazing material for use in motor vehicles (such as the glazing from the polycarbonate material) unless the products comply with applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Further, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell a motor vehicle whose glazing does not comply with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205.

In addition, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. The polycarbonate glazing material could only be installed by the aforementioned entities if it meets the performance and location requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the glazing you describe, also have responsibilities under our statute for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The statute requires such manufacturers to notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge.

In closing, I would like to draw your attention to FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which applies to "....multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, with a GVWR or 4,536 kilograms or less." You should carefully review this standard to determine whether installation of the electronic equipment and touchpad in vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 201 would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standard. While NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to an electronic touchpad, the "make inoperative" provision of our statute (30122) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from installing the equipment if the installation would adversely affect the compliance of any FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 201.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales Jr.
Chief Counsel

cc:  Charles Klerner
      2 Enclosures

ref:205
d.9/25/00

---

1. Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)

ID: Wolford.2

Kevin M. Wolford, Executive Director
Automotive Manufacturers
Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. ,
1101 15^th Street, NW, Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005-5020




Dear Mr. Wolford:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of certain issues pertaining to the requirements for replacement lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether a manufacturer designing a lamp with a bulb using an indexed base, but which has a series of LEDs, would need to meet the requirements for a "single compartment" lamp or a "three compartment" lamp (i.e. , whether a bulb with several LEDs has a single light source or multiple light sources). You also asked whether it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to develop a lamp with a red bulb that complies with the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) standard for bulbs. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant provisions of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571).

As you are aware, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides, "Except as provided below, each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard."

We would note that the substantive issues raised in your letter, regarding compliance of certain lamp designs with the requirements of Standard No. 108, have largely been addressed in prior interpretations. The first scenario presented in your letter involves a replacement lamp (non-headlamp) that includes a series of LEDs. You stated that the hypothetical replacement lamp is designed with an indexed base conforming to SAE J567, Lamp Bulb Retention System. Your letter, in effect, asked whether the LEDs, taken together, would be considered a single light source when determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108 (thereby being subject to the requirements for one lighted section), or whether the LEDs would be considered individual light sources (thereby being subject to the requirements for three lighted sections).

As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, lamps with LEDs are considered to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single source. The letter goes on to state that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections". We note, however, that in our December 21, 2005 letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma (see enclosure), we stated that if a number of LEDs is wired such that failure of any one LED would cause the entire array of LEDs to cease functioning, we would consider the array of LEDs to be a single light source. Furthermore, each array of LEDs wired in this manner would be considered one light source for the purposes of determining number of lighted sections in SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, which is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. For example, a turn signal lamp that is wired with two arrays of LEDs, operating in the manner described above, would be considered a two-lighted-section lamp.

As to the second issue presented in your letter regarding the permissibility of using a red bulb in a taillamp, such a configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Under Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 and appropriate SAE standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (without specifying either bulb color or lens color). The color specifications that such lamps must meet in order to comply with FMVSS No. 108 are contained in SAE Standard No. J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices (February 1977), which S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference. The ECE regulation mentioned in your letter (E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.36/Rev.3/Amend.3) is not a substitute for SAE J578c.

On this point, your letter also questioned whether the interpretation as expressed in our October 5, 2000 letter to Senior Trooper W.L. Hill has been changed. It has not. In that letter, it was stated that we were not aware of any manufacturer certifying a taillamp with a red bulb and a clear lens under FMVSS No. 108. However, the response reflected our understanding that a red bulb/clear lens configuration was not economically feasible at that time, not that such a configuration is impermissible under the standard. Since then, we understand that some manufacturers are currently producing lamps with red LED bulbs and clear lenses that do comply with the standard.

Your letter also raised the separate issue of how the above principles apply to aftermarket manufacturers in light of our notice of interpretation published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2004, which interpreted paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard dealing with replacement lighting equipment (69 FR 60464). In response to several requests for reconsideration of that notice of interpretation, the agency published a revised notice of interpretation in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65972). We encourage you to read this latest notice of interpretation (see enclosure).

In that second notice, we have decided to adopt a less restrictive interpretation of S5.8.1, which, simply stated, requires that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies, is permitted so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to the standard using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp actually used (including replacement headlamps using different light sources than the original equipment headlamps). In light of our revised interpretation of S5.8.1, we believe that there would not be a significant difference in the treatment accorded to original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket/replacement equipment manufacturers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/5/06

ID: WRL3229

Bryce Pfister, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Collins Bus Corporation
PO Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946

Dear Mr. Pfister:




This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components."Specifically, you ask whether a door configuration used in your school buses is a "folding door" excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 206.

As discussed below, we believe the door you describe in your letter is a folding door for purposes of Standard No. 206.

You explain in your letter that the Collins Bus Corporation manufacturers school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) ranging from 9,500 to 19,500 pounds.One of your customers needs a vehicle with a passenger capacity of nine passengers, for the purposes of transporting pre-schoolers.You plan to sell the same basic vehicle you ordinarily would sell as a school bus, but with a reduced passenger capacity. Because the vehicle will only accommodate nine passengers, you will have to classify these vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) rather than as school buses. [1]However, in a telephone conversation with Rebecca MacPherson of this office, you stated that, with the exception of the requirements for flashing lights and stop arms, these vehicles meet all Federal requirements for school buses.

You describe the door used in these vehicles as follows:

The typical passenger entrance door configuration of the Collins school bus includes two door leafs, each pivoting along its outer edge, and each attached to the door jamb at one upper and one lower pivot point.Both

door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger, and the door opening is formed between the two door leaves in their outward position.A hand-operated linkage extending from the drivers seating position opens and closes the forward door.An overhead linkage connecting to the forward door controls the rear door motion.The doors are latched in the closed position by a device attached to the door operating linkage near the drivers seat.

Standard No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle in the event of a crash.The standard applies to passenger cars, trucks, and MPVs, but not to school buses.S4(c) of Standard No. 206 specifically excludes "folding doors" from the standard's requirements.The door described in your letter is a type of door typically used in school buses rather than MPVs.

As to whether the door is a "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206, we note that the standard does not include a definition of that term. Unlike some of the doors typically used for the same purpose in school buses, your door does not consist of two leaves that are hinged together and "fold" in on themselves.Rather, the two leaves in your door are separate.Each pivots outward. Nonetheless, considering the total design of your door as described above, including (but not limited to) the facts that both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger to form an opening, and both leaves operate together (through a linkage) by means of the same hand-operated control, we believe your door comes within the meaning of "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/1/02





---




[1] 49 CFR 571.3 defines a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

ID: X Prize

ID: Xiao.1

Mr. Xiaoda Xiao
President & CEO
ZX, Invention
135 Belchertown Road
Amherst, MA 01002




Dear Mr. Xiao:

This responds to your letter seeking an evaluation of your product (the Vector Blind Spot Mirror enclosed with your letter), in order to determine whether the mirror, when properly installed, blocks the front windshield or shakes during driving. Because, we do not conduct certification testing or offer product endorsements, we are unable to provide such an evaluation. The following discussion briefly explains how our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) operate and how they may pertain to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards (see 49 CFR Part 571) before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

As you are probably aware, FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets forth requirements for mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles in order to provide a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear (49 CFR 571.111). New vehicles must be certified as complying with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, as well as all other applicable standards.

However, the packaging and descriptions of your product suggest that it would not be installed on the vehicle as original equipment, but instead, it would be sold as aftermarket equipment. Accordingly, we believe that your product would be a supplemental mirror that is not covered by FMVSS No. 111, so you would not have any corresponding certification responsibilities under our standards.

With that said, there are certain limitations on aftermarket installation of motor vehicle equipment. For example, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. We are also returning to you the sample mirror provided with your letter. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:111
d.4/14/05

ID: XSCI

Mr. Dan Goor
Vice President for Technology
Xportation Safety Concepts, Inc.
4143 Sinton Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907





Dear Mr. Goor:

This responds to your September 21, 2000, letter to Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, informing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of your intent to file an "application for rulemaking" concerning our safety standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213, 49 CFR 571.213).

You have developed a rear-facing child restraint which you believe is "compatible with an airbag." You would like NHTSA to adopt a regulation under which a manufacturer could certify rear-facing seats as "acceptable for use an air bag" if the seats meet certain performance requirements. You state:

The Application for RuleMaking [sic] will propose:

That providing, based on NHTSA approved testing, any given rear-facing infant seat/restraint which performs within CRABI performance guide-lines (as may be modified by NHTSA) when interacting with an airbag, be accredited, and labeled in a similar manner to: Certified acceptable for front seat placement. Additionally, such seats will not be required to carry labels to the contrary.

Standard No. 213 requires rear-facing child restraints to be conspicuously labeled with warnings to consumers not to place the restraint on the front seat with an air bag (S5.5.2(k)(4)). Assuming that you wish to change this requirement, the procedure for petitioning NHTSA for a change to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

It is important for you to note that your child restraints must have the air bag warning label specified in S5.5.2(k)(4) in the absence of an amendment to the standard. You are not permitted to change the content of the label. Further, you should not assume that your petition will result in the amendment you seek. Our decision whether to grant your petition, should you decide to submit one, will be made in the context of an administrative proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213
d.10/27/00

ID: Yuen.1

Mr. Derek Yuen
Xtest, Inc.
16035 Caputo Drive, Suite A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037




Dear Mr. Yuen:

This responds to your recent e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you seek clarification regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, pertaining to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically, you asked whether a motorcycle (or a three-wheeled vehicle with two wheels at the front) may be equipped with a four-headlamp system (with two lower beams and two upper beams), and if so, whether it would be permissible to place one set of lamps (either the lower beams or upper beams) closer to the outer edge of the vehicle, provided that the other two lamps are within 200 mm of each other. As discussed below, FMVSS No. 108 does not permit a motorcycle headlamp system composed of more than two headlamps, so we need not consider the additional issue of spacing of a second pair of headlamps.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As an initial matter, you are correct in that the three-wheeled vehicle mentioned in your letter would be considered a "motorcycle" under our regulations. Under 49 CFR 571.3, "motorcycle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contract with the ground".

The requirements for motor vehicle lighting are contained in FMVSS No. 108, with the headlighting requirements for motorcycles set forth in S7.9, Motorcycles. In particular, paragraph S7.9.6 requires that a headlighting system be located on the front of the motorcycle and, most pertinent to your proposed design, be installed in accordance with the requirements of S7.9.6.2. The requirements of S7.9.6.2 are as follows:

(a) If the system consists of a single headlamp, it shall be mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

(b)    If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline.

(c)     If the system consists of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides the lower beam, the headlamps shall be located on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height.

Because the system your letter envisions consists of four headlamps, it would not meet the requirements of S7.9.6.2 of FMVSS No. 108. (We note further that the Japan Auto Parts Industries Association submitted a petition for rulemaking in 1998, which included a request to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow four distinct headlamps on motorcycles, but the agency decided not to do so (see 69 FR 55993 (Sept. 17, 2004). ) Because such a system is not permitted under Standard No. 108, we need not analyze this system in terms of the motorcycle headlamp location requirements contained in paragraph S7.9.6 of the standard.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.1/4/06

ID: Zimmer.rbm

Ms. Reneta Zimmerman
301 Golden Isles Drive, #407
Hallandale, Florida 33009

Dear Ms. Zimmerman:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes your concerns about placing your infant in front of the passenger-side air bag of your Mazda Miata. Since your vehicle has no back seat, NHTSA will grant an exemption to allow the dealer or a repair business to deactivate the passenger-side air bag. NHTSA is allowing this deactivation because an infant in a rear-facing child restraint should never be placed in front of an air bag and because it recognizes that you may be unable to replace your vehicle with a car equipped with a back seat.

If it is possible to retrofit your car with the installation of a manual cutoff switch, this option should be pursued rather than a total deactivation of the air bag. Mazda should be able to tell you if a manual cutoff switch is available for your vehicle.

If installation of a manual cutoff switch is not an option, you may choose to have your passenger-side air bag deactivated.

Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with air bags at the front outboard seating positions. The Federal law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, NHTSA has previously stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical and justified by public need, and that it would not begin enforcement proceedings.

Since your vehicle does not have any back seat, NHTSA will consider the deactivation of the passenger-side air bag as a

technical violation of the "make inoperative" provision that is justified by public need. Accordingly, it will not begin enforcement proceedings against any dealer or repair business which deactivates the passenger-side air bag.

Please note, however, that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, that the current and subsequent owners and occupants of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated once your child is old enough to ride safely in the front seat or when it is returned to the company which leases it.

In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts and to tell them that the passenger-side air bag has been deactivated.

I hope this letter resolves your problem. You should show this letter to the dealer or repair business when you take your car in for deactivation of the passenger-side air bag.

If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:11/19/96

ID: Zozloski_1635

Mr. Stanley J. Kozloski
694 Evelyn Drive
Lady Lake, FL 32162

Dear Mr. Kozloski:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to "golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. Specifically you asked about the applicability of FMVSS No. 500, Low speed vehicles. You also raised several questions regarding the ability of Florida to regulate the operation of "golf carts."I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways[.]

Under this authority, NHTSA established FMVSS No. 500 (copy enclosed) to ensure that low-speed vehicles (LSVs) are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, except a truck, whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but less than 25 mph (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

The FMVSSs generally apply to motor vehicles only prior to their first retail sale. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

You indicated in your letter that your initial concern was the applicability of the Federal standards to "golf carts" that have had been modified after their first retail sale. You stated that local businesses are modifying golf carts through the installation of "high

speed 5.5 hp motors, high speed gears, high speed controllers, oversize tires," and the modifying or disengaging of a speed controlling governor. Your letter further explained that these modifications are to increase the maximum speed capacity from just below 20 mph to one as high as upwards of 30 mph.

I note that, in establishing FMVSS No. 500, NHTSA explained that the agency did not intend to regulate golf carts with a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or lower (63 Federal Register 33209; June 17, 1998; enclosed). The agency has determined that conventional golf carts (those with a maximum speed capacity of 20 mph and lower) are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our regulations. ^[1] The primary purpose of a conventional golf cart is not for operation on public roads, beyond that of an incidental nature. Therefore, they are not included in the definition of "motor vehicle."

Because conventional golf carts are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to any FMVSS as originally manufactured. Therefore, a conventional golf cart cannot be taken out of compliance with an FMVSS, because none apply. As such, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply.

The act of modifying a golf cart for use on the public roads would, however, create a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSSs would become applicable at the time of the modification. For purposes of compliance with NHTSAs regulations, we would regard the modifier as the manufacturer. As a motor vehicle manufacturer, the modifier would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle conformed to all applicable safety standards. These would vary depending on whether the vehicle was an LSV or some other type of motor vehicle.

You indicated in your letter that many of your concerns relate to the operation of"golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. You specifically asked about the establishment and enforcement of State or local registration, inspection, insurance, and operational requirements.

These areas are within the jurisdiction of the States. You may therefore wish to raise these concerns with your local or State representatives.

If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:500
d.4/16/04





---

[1] This does not imply that all vehicles with a maximum speed capability 20 mph and below are not motor vehicles.