ID: 18464.ztv

Mr. Ralf Wohl
EMB Incorporated
6780 Depot Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Wohl:

This is in reply to your fax of July 29, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your electric motorcycle.

Your first question is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control. The answer is yes; as you have noted, S5.1 states that "Each motorcycle shall be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control, located and operable as specified in Table 1" (our emphasis). You have also asked whether the operation of your control, as you have described it, "is adequate for this purpose." As you have also noted, "Operation - Column 3" of Table 1 is blank. This means that Standard No. 123 does not specify how the supplemental engine stop control shall be operated. This choice is left to the manufacturer but obviously it must be a control that provides an alternative means of stopping the engine. On your electric motorcycle, the primary stop control is the twist grip handlebar on which the throttle is returned to the off position. If the throttle sticks in the open position, the propulsion system may also be overriden and deactivated by application of the brakes. We view this as a "supplemental engine stop control" within the general meaning of the term.

You also tell us of your wish to manufacture motorcycles for a limited time using "an off the shelf 28V military headlamp that does not meet all the photometric requirements for a motorcycle per FMVSS 571.108," and ask whether a waiver is possible. I enclose a copy of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555) under which manufacturers of motor vehicles, including motorcycles, may apply for temporary exemptions from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this process takes from three to four months because of the necessity to publish a notice in the Federal Register asking for comments on the application.

This may not be responsive to your situation since it is possible that your technical difficulties will be solved by then. Other than Part 555, we have no authority to grant a waiver from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:123
d.11/12/98

ID: nht90-3.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael O'Donnell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-18-90 to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA from Michael O'Donnell; (OCC 4690) TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to this office asking whether NHTSA's safety standards apply to vehicles in service on the public roads. Specifically, you were interested in the applicability of NHTSA requirements to a 1977 school bus that was convert ed to a "recreational vehicle/house coach" that is now only for personal and family use.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) promulgated by this agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The requirement that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment compl y with all applicable FMVSS applies only until the product is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after a vehicle or item of equipment is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to that product are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Natio nal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in co mpliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

If any of the commercial entities identified in section 108(a)(2)(A) were to make modifications that resulted in a "render inoperative" violation, the violating commercial entity would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Pl ease note that this "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance w ith a safety standard.

Please note also that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles within their borders.

Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. You may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of New York to learn if the State has established any requirements applicable to your use or registration of this vehicle in New York.

I hope you have found this information helpful.

ID: 2619y

Mr. Michael O'Donnell
P.O. Box 127
Skaneateles, NY 13152

Dear Mr. O'Donnell:

This is in response to your letter to this office asking whether NHTSA's safety standards apply to vehicles in service on the public roads. Specifically, you were interested in the applicability of NHTSA requirements to a 1977 school bus that was converted to a "recreational vehicle/house coach" that is now only for personal and family use.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) promulgated by this agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The requirement that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable FMVSS applies only until the product is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after a vehicle or item of equipment is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to that product are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

If any of the commercial entities identified in section 108(a)(2)(A) were to make modifications that resulted in a "render inoperative" violation, the violating commercial entity would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Please note also that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles within their borders. Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. You may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of New York to learn if the State has established any requirements applicable to your use or registration of this vehicle in New York.

I hope you have found this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref: VSA d:7/l8/90

ID: nht88-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Bernard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert L. Bernard Attorney at Law 12342 Wrenthrope Drive Houston, TX 77031

Dear Mr. Bernard:

This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21, 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR S571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufacture s. It does not.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indel ibly on a Dart of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirement s, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 or 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief of Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: FMVSS-115

I have purchased a AC Mark IV motor vehicle manufactured by Autokraft in England which complies with all D.O.T. and E.P.A. rules and regulations and is imported and sold through Ford Motor Company franchised dealers with Ford warranty.

Enclosed please find a copy from the company brochure.

I have requested the deletion of the chrome script name "Autokraft" from the trunk from the manufacturer.

I request your opinion that the above standard and regulation does not require the chrome script name "Autokraft" on the trunk because there is the name and data plate affixed to the body in the engine compartment.

I have discussed this matter with Joan Tilghman and she requested that I write to you.

Please advise.

Very truly yours,

Robert L. Bernard

RLB/kmr/ed

cc: Joan Tilghman

ID: nht74-2.9

DATE: 03/19/74

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

TO: American Snowblast Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 4, 1974, question whether your rotary snowplows, constructed with four-wheel drive and four-wheel steer and a top speed of 35 miles per hour, must be certified to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You also asked whether "certified brakes" will be sufficient certification to Standard 121, what the effects of a locked transfer case are on an anti-lock system, and what procedure exists to petition for an exemption from the standard.

I have enclosed an information sheet which explains that the vehicles you build for highway use are motor vehicles subject to the standard. The standard applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, not just to the brake system. In the event that the vehicles as completed do not actually comply, it is the manufacturer of the vehicle who is responsible.

I have enclosed a copy of the law and regulations explaining the basis for and necessary procedures to apply for a temporary exemption from our safety standards.

With regard to a locked transfer case, S6.1.11 of the air brake standard requires:

S6.1.11 Special drive conditions. A vehicle equipped with an interlocking axle system or a front wheel drive system that is engaged and disengaged by the driver is tested with the system disengaged.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

March 4, 1974

Department of Transportation - NHTSA

Attention: Sid Williams

Gentlemen:

Please give us your opinion on where we stand with respect to FMVSS-121.

We build large rotary snowplows (brochure enclosed) which are sold primarily to airports. We do build an average of five or so per year for highway plowing, and this is our area of concern.

These machines are air braked, four wheel drive and four wheel steer, have a top speed of 35 m.p.h., and weigh less than 40,000 lbs. but more than 30,000 lbs.

Our questions are: must we certify; will certified brakes be sufficient to certify the vehicle; what are the effects of a locked transfer case on anti-lock; the procedure for petitioning for an exemption, etc.

Sincerely

AMERICAN SNOWBLAST CORPORATION;

D. L. Massy -- Chief Engineer

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht75-1.22

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 12, 1975, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to an anchor coupling.

You enclosed a diagram depicting the installation of two of these couplings, and suggested that they are not subject to the labeling requirements of the standard. This interpretation is correct. "Brake hose end fitting" is defined in Standard No. 106-74 as:

a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.

The anchor couplings which you have described are attached to the ends of completed brake hose assemblies, rather than to the ends of brake hoses. Therefore, they are not "brake hose end fittings" subject to the standard's requirements.

It appears from your letter that you might not consider the nylon tubing to be "brake hose." If the nylon tubing is flexible, however, such an interpretation would be incorrect. "Brake hose" is defined in the standard as:

a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Thus flexible chassis plumbing and other flexible conduits, in addition to rubber brake hoses, are subject to the standard's requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

American Trailers, Inc.

August 12, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. To - Docket 1 - 5, Brake Hoses

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: Anchor Couplings

In a sliding suspension condition we use an anchor coupling fitting to join the nylon tubing assembly to the rubber air hose assembly. See the attached sketch. Our question is, whether or not the anchor coupling must meet the labeling requirements of FMVSS-106? Fitting manufacturers to-date have indicated that labeling is not required at this point since the coupling is not part of the air hose assembly.

Your earliest reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jerry W. McNeil Director Of Engineering

cc: D. Wieriman; TTMA

(Graphics omitted)

AMERICAN TRAILERS, INC. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

Name ANCHOR COUPLING LOCATION

Drawn By: McBay

Date: 8-11-75

Drawing No. 1-32-0006

ID: nht72-4.22

DATE: 03/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter dated January 19, 1972, to Mr. Eugene Laskin, regarding questions you have reisting to interpretations of demonstration procedure descriptions contained in paragraphs 5.2j and 5.2k of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. Paragraph S5.2j - The phrase "within a period of 50 milliseconds" refers to the rise time of the acceleration only with the webbing movement measured from start of acceleration to lockup. The movement occurring after lockup due to natural webbing elongation and webbing compaction around the retractor spool is not measured. Webbing movement exclusive of the above-mentioned compaction and elongation can be measured by using a rotary of linear potentimeter reading out on a dual channel oscilloscope or oscillograph along with the readout of the time vs acceleration trace.

2. Paragraph s5.2k - The present standard does not specify any particular sequence for performing the 10,000 lockup cycles on emergency locking retractors as part of the total 50,000 cycles. This office presently has two laboratories performing the compliance tests in the following manner.

Laboratory A - One lockup cycle out of every five using the commercial Carlson cycling apparatus.

Laboratory B - 40,000 cycles of extension and retraction followed by 10,000 lockup cycles.

3. The methods presently employed by our test laboratories in actuating the lockup mechanism is to accelerate the retractor by means of compressed air, thus effecting the lockup.

This method of lockup is employed by our laboratories because a retractor that is sensitive both to vehicle acceleration and tilting would most frequently be locked by acceleration when installed in a vehicle.

This is not to say that you are compelled to cycle your retractors by accelerating them. If the locking mechanism is the name for both modes (e.g. a (Illegible Word)), it may make little difference whether the retractors are accelerated or tilted. However, if our test disclose a cycling failure, you will be obliged to show that your method was, in fact, equivalent to ours.

Should you require any further details or information regarding the test procedure for emergency locking retractors, please contact Mr. R. Jasinski of this office.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety.

ID: nht92-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1992

FROM: Kevin R. Boyne -- Chief Engineer, Dynamics and Durability Engineering, Transportation Research Center Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kevin R. Boyne (A40; Std. 114)

TEXT:

This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.114, Section 4.2.1 (FMVSS 114, "Theft Protection"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) is conducting FMVSS certification tests on a passenger car for compliance, beginning September 1, 1992. The test vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission and a console-mounted shift lever. There is no provision for an override device for the removal of the ignition key.

Section 4.2.1 requires each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position to prevent removal of the key, unless the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. The vehicle we are testing operates in the following manner:

Initial Condition - Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action - The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern - As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

Is this condition within the requirements of the standard?

The solenoid which prevents the moving of the key from the accessory to lock position, and subsequent key removal, is deactivated by the position of the shift lever. Additionally, the shift lever will only lock in "park" if the thumb button is released.

TRC has inspected other vehicles of similar layout for this condition and found it to exist in all three foreign-designed vehicles we tested. The one domestic-designed vehicle we inspected required release of the thumb button to permit rotation of the key to the lock position and subsequent removal.

Please provide TRC in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: nht74-2.28

DATE: 01/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dow Chemical Europe, S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1974, concerning motor vehicle brake fluid certification.

The answer to your first two questions is no. The answer to your third question is also no, since the report of the independent testing laboratory covers only the fluid actually tested and bears no necessary relationship to a manufacturer's quality control program and the necessity to assure continuing compliance with Standard No. 116.

The answer to the fourth question is yes - the manufacturer must satisfy himself of continuing compliance and, when necessary, provide data to the NHTSA in substantiation of his certification.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Ref: MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID CERTIFICATION

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you for clarification on a point which is, alas, still causing some confusion here in Europe.

As you can see from the attachment, I wrote to the SAE in 1969 and my letter to them was forwarded to Dr. Robert Brenner for the DOT position. Unfortunately I never received a reply.

May I therefore repeat my enquiry:

1. Does the DOT/NHTSA issue certificates of compliance of brake fluid with the current Federal Regulations (FMVSS116, March 1972)?

assuming not:

2. Does the DOT/NHTSA officially recognise certain laboratories as being capable of testing to the requirements of the current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

3. Is the DOT/NHTSA satisfied when the manufacturer of brake fluid obtains a test certificate from an independent testing laboratory, showing compliance of its product with current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

4. Does the DOT/NHTSA simply place the onus on the manufacturer to satisfy himself and, when necessary, to prove that his product complies with current Federal regulations?

Furthermore, I should appreciate guidance on the following:

Previous to the issuance of Federal Regulations, most of the individual States had their own regulations pertaining to brake fluid. After the issuance of Federal Regulations, can it be assumed that no State Authority may take action against a supplier/manufacturer/trader of brake fluid not complying with that particular State's regulations, but complying fully with the Federal regulations?

In other words, may a State legally enforce requirements which are different, more stringent etc. than the Federal regulations?

I should like to thank you in advance for your trouble and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Technical Service & Development

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

December 23, 1969

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Services, Dow Chemical Europe S.A.

Dear Mr. Abbott:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1969 regarding brake fluid certification.

As noted in your letter, the practice in the United States is that laboratories certify to the manufacturers that their fluids meet either SAE or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There is no control over the laboratories by SAE or the Federal Government. The competence of the laboratories is determined by the industry and those who use the laboratories specifically.

The policy which has been and will continue to be followed by SAE is to produce the best standards available and not to be involved in the deterimation of compliance to these standards. Since all SAE standards are for voluntary use by both industry and government, it would not be practical for us to do otherwise.

We cannot speak for the Department of Transportation which to the best of my knowledge does not at the present time have any plans to determine the adequacy of independent laboratories. I am referring your letter to Dr. Robert Brenner, Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau (DOT) so that he can provide you with an official position regarding the Federal Government in this matter.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Very truly yours,

Henry Martin -- Research Manager

cc: Robert Brenner

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

Society of Automotive Engineers

Attn. Hank Martin, permanent secretary, Brake Fluid Committ

Dear Mr. Martin,

As you are probably aware from certain questions raised at recent SAE Brake Fluid Committee meetings by personnel from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, we in Europe are at present experiencing some difficulty in establishing, for a large potential customer with a significant export business to the United States, the exact legal situation and also procedure required for a brake fluid to be considered legal within the United States.

At present, as I understand the situation and please correct me if I am wrong, a brake fluid is legal in the United States if it complies with the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 116 which, in turn, states that fluids complying with SAE J 7OR1, R3 (and presumably J 1703 and J 1703a) automatically comply with Regulation 116.

The big question now is: who is to determine whether a brake fluid complies with SAE specifications. In the United States, the practice is, I am informed, for the manufacturer to submit the fluid in question to a so-called independent testing institute for examination against SAE specifications. Examples of such institutes would be Foster O. Snell, Electrical Testing, South-Western Research etc. and they would, as a disinterested party between manufacturer and buyer, issue a notarised certificate stating whether the fluid did or did not fulfil SAE specifications.

The point recently raised by our customer, however, was that does the Department of Transportation or the SAE, whose specification constitutes Standard 116, have any control or check on these independent laboratories, also does any official D.O.T. or SAE approval exist which would then certify these laboratories as being approved testing institutes capable of testing brake fluids completely against the legal mimimum requirements.

Consequently, I am asking you to kindly state for me the official SAE standpoint in this matter.

My since thanks in advance for your trouble.

Yours faithfully,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Service

ID: 08-003470 Recaro movable seat back height