ID: aiam1187

Dear Mr. Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, inquiring as to you responsibilities regarding the conformity and certification of motor vehicles on which Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E) performs certain manufacturing operations. You indicate that the operations involve 'body transfers,' in which used bodies are first removed from used trucks chassis, repaired and repainted, and then transferred to new cabs and chassis. The two questions you raise are:; >>>1) Must the vehicle comply with Federal motor vehicle safet standards at the time of the body transfer, and; 2) If not, need it comply at the time of sale to the public.<<< You indicate that your position is that you believe the answer to bot questions to be negative, that with respect to the first question, the vehicle need not conform nor be certified as conforming because no 'sale' of the vehicle has occurred, and with respect to the second question, you argue that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding used vehicles (Sec. 108(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. S 1397 (b)(1) appear to exempt these vehicles from conforming to the standards when they are sold.; We must disagree with both of your conclusions. We agree that th operations performed by PG & E, adding used bodies to new chassis, make PG & E a 'final-stage manufacturer' as defined in the Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). The Certification regulations require that final-stage manufacturers who complete vehicles for their own use ascertain and certify conformity to all applicable standards as of the time the final-stage manufacturing operations are performed. We do not agree that section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)) applies only in connection with the sale of vehicles. That section also requires conformity with respect to the introduction and delivery for introduction of vehicles in interstate commerce. We have construed this language to include the use of any vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways, even if the vehicle has not been sold. The responsibility for certification under the regulations is concomitant with the responsibility for conformity, and, similarly, is not dependent upon a vehicle sale.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in our view, als requires a vehicle used by its manufacturer to conform to all applicable standards at the time of its eventual sale by that manufacturer. Our conclusion is based upon section 108(b)(1), which requires conformity until the first purchase of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. where a manufacturer uses his own vehicles, that purchase would not take place until the manufacturer ultimately sells the vehicle. However, the NHTSA is aware that conformity of vehicle systems which deteriorate under normal use may be impossible to maintain, and as a matter of administrative practice does not consider it necessary for such a manufacturer to renew conformity when his use of the vehicle has been bona fide.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 5, 1990

FROM: HANK KMIECIK -- STEERABLE CARRIAGES

TO: OFFICE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-13-90 TO HANK KMIECIK; STEERABLE CARRIAGES, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; VSA 108(A)(2)(A); 108(A)(1)(A)]

TEXT: On the advice of Robert Clarke and Michael Trentacoste, I am writing to inform you of our intent to manufacture axle steering systems for tractor trailers, long bodied straight trucks, buses and special application vehicles and ask you to review the syst em and advise us if it is in compliance with the applicable DOT regulations.

Description Axle Steering System

The axle steering system provides a method and means for steering the rear of a tractor trailer combination by turning the wheels of the trailer to increase the maneuverability of the entire unit during turning maneuvers, parking, provide additional mane uverability in congested traffic and under close clearance conditions. This is accomplished by means of a steering apparatus comprising sections of steel beams, hydraulic cylinder/motor assembly, 2- locking pin assemblies, steering pin assembly, manifol d assembly, air reservoir, battery and control panel.

The sections of steel beams used as the framework for the system are welded to one of the existing trailer axles for retrofit to an existing trailer or incorporated simply into the manufacturing process for new trailers. The steering/axle assembly is po sitioned under the trailer chassis and welded to it. The other system components are installed in their designated locations on the trailer chassis (see the enclosed illustrations) and the control panel to operate the steering system is located in the ca b on the dash panel for ease of operation by the driver. No modifications are made or required to the suspension system or the brake system of the axle.

The axle steering system requires approximately 16 man hours to install by a skilled truck mechanic and helper.

The system is not designed for full-time rear wheel steering at highway speeds.

System Operation

Assume the trailer has 2 axles on the rear. Both axles have an air suspension. The ideal setup is air suspension and lift kit on each axle. The axle steering system works with either setup, combination of or the non steering axle can be a spring axle.

For example, when the driver needs to make a right hand turn onto a congested road, the driver would bring the tractor trailer momentarily to a full stop, a short distance before the intersection and engage the axle steering system. Using the control pan el (Illegible Word) in the cab, the driver releases air from, or otherwise deactivates, the rear axle suspension system of the steering axle, effectively raising one set of rear wheels off the ground. The driver then selects the right hand turn button o n the control panel which activates a two way double acting hydraulic cylinder which applies force against the raised rear wheel steering assembly in the direction it is desired to change the orientation of the rear axle. After the steering assembly is turned in the desired direction the two locking pins are engaged into the locking hole positions on the curved beam firmly locking the axle/steering system into the desired position, air is readmitted into the rear air/axle suspension system causing the steering wheels to return firmly to the ground. Air is now released from the air/axle suspension system of the adjacent axle which raises the wheels of the adjacent axle and eliminates the ground friction they would create in making the turn. The drive r of the truck then proceeds at slow speed to make the desired turn or other maneuver with the one axle turned.

After completing such turn, the vehicle is brought to a stop and the driver repeats the above procedure in reverse order, removing the steering wheels from the road surface turning the rear wheel steering assembly to the normal driving position and engag e locking pins before resuming highway travel.

It takes 10-15 seconds from the time the driver stops the truck to complete the initial steering sequence and about the same time to return the axle steering system back to the locked position for normal highway travel after making the turn.

Enclosed is a short video tape showing the axle steering system in action.

If you require further information or a demonstration, please do not hesitate to ask.

AXLE STEERING SYSTEM

Steerable Carriages 1/10/90

(Graphics omitted)

AXLE STEERING SYSTEM

(Graphics omitted)

AXLE STEERING SYSTEM

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam5585

"Dear Ms. Ward: This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following u on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and 'over-the-road type coaches' (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmation that our safety standards for school buses 'are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches.' That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to 'buses,' and those that apply to 'school buses.' Since a 'school bus' is a type of 'bus' under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to 'school buses' in addition to those that apply to 'buses.' A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our 'bus' standards, but not our 'school bus' standards. We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when making school transportation decisions. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards. If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 1983-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Susan Reilly -- Reilly Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan Reilly Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, Iowa 52314

Dear Ms. Reilly:

This responds to your letter asking whether a motorcycle helmet fastener your company produces, called "Alpha Clip," complies with Federal requirements.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, includes various minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. The only requirement directly relevant to your fastener is the retention test, which is set forth at section S5.3. The letter you enclosed from the University of Southern California suggests that the clip passes that test.

I would note that Standard No. 218 only applies to new motorcycle helmets and not to replacement equipment for motorcycle helmets. Thus, unless your clip was sold as part of a new motorcycle helmet, the requirements of Standard No. 218 would not be directly applicable. (Please note, however, that the agency discourages helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..")

I would also note that should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect. These provisions apply regardless of whether the device is covered by a safety standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

Sincerely

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, IA 52314 (319) 895-8479

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

At the advice of Mr. Gilky of the NHTSA Safety Compliance Office I am writing for your judgement as to the compliance of our Motorcycle Helmet Fastener to Federal requirements. We believe the "Alpha Clip" meets all requirements and is a safe and reliable product. I have included the clip, packaged for mail order, for your review. As of now, we market only the clip, not O-rings or helmets, and the consumer is responsible for installation.

I have also included a copy of a (unreadable) of U.S.C.. He then tested our fastener as a public service. Since receiving his letter we've added a plastic vinyl cap fitted to the hook, creating an interference fit.

Other recent information is as follows: 1 The hook is designed to fold in within itself when tension is released (we are in the process of moving the design patented)

2. Made of nickel plated (unreadable) steelwire of .142 +.005 - .000 inches dia. Length .900 I .020 in., width l.l90 I .020 in., width .702 I .010 Weight .

3. Has a deformation point of 600 pounds tensile

4. Does not protrude from the helmet

5. Installs directly to helmet strap - nothing is removed from the helmet.

I have also sent a clip and information to Mr. B. Roven, Coordinator of Motorcycle Safety for the Iowa DOT, if you wish to contact him for comment. Please let us know your judgement on our clips compliance as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely, Susan Reilly

June 3, 1983

Mr. Steve Reilly RR 2 Mount Vernon, IA 52314

Dear Steve,

Thank you for sending your new retention clip to us for evaluation. Professor Hurt asked me to run some tests on it and give you some comments.

The beauty of your clip design is that it could be retrofitted to most helmets providing a much more convenient method of fastening than conventional D-rings.

The first test I did was to use your clip on a complete helmet for the actual DOT retention test. Enclosed is that portion of the standard. I used an Electro E3 which has an extremely strong retention system. This choice of helmets made your part the weak link. With the Reilly clip in place, the test result was 0.54 inch elongation @ 300 lbs., about normal for an Electro. The clip showed no deformation at this load.

Taking the entire system up in loading, the strap began to slip at 640 lbs. when the unwelded ends of the clip deformed. This load at failure is typical for many helmets that pass the DOT requirements.

The problem that your design has is answered by many industrial safety codes that require a safety snap latch on all hooks. This spring-loaded device swings inward when engaging the hook and then returns to block the throat of the hook creating a closed loop. Bell Tourlite bicycle helmets use a somewhat similar hook with a safety latch made by Fastex. A less satisfactory solution would be to close up the radius of the hook bend to create an interference fit onto the D-ring.

Please feel free to send out any future revisions to us for evaluation. As with the better mousetrap, the world is ready for a better helmet retention strap fastener.

Sincerely, Original signed by David Thom, Laboratory Technician

ID: GF009666

Dick Keller, Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066




Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 202; "Head restraints".That standard provides several compliance options until September 1, 2008. You ask whether a vehicle modifier; i.e., (an entity that modifies a motor vehicle after the first retail sale) would be permitted to substitute seats in vehicles certified to one compliance option with seats that would enable the vehicle to meet a different compliance option during this period.

By way of background, on December 14, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule upgrading our head restraint standard. See 69 FR 74848.The new standard becomes effective September 1, 2008. In the final rule, we explained that between the date of issuance and September 1, 2008, vehicle manufacturers may comply with the existing NHTSA standard, the upgraded NHTSA standard, or the current European regulations pertaining to head restraints.

In your letter, you explain that Bruno is a manufacturer of motor vehicle devices designed to assist mobility impaired persons. One of your products is "Turning Automotive Seating" (TAS). The TAS is designed to swivel in order to allow easier egress/ingress for mobility impaired persons. The TAS is installed in place of regular seats provided by vehicle manufacturers. You state that vehicles equipped with TAS meet the requirements of the existing FMVSS No. 202, but not the requirements of the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations. With respect to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2008, you ask whether replacing a seat in a vehicle certified to the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations with a seat that enables vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would violate 49 U.S.C. 30122.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

With respect to FMVSSs providing several compliance options, it is our opinion that the "make inoperative provision" does not prohibit substitution of equipment in vehicles certified to one compliance option with equipment enabling vehicles to meet a different option. Thus, until September 1, 2008, the substitution of seats in vehicles certified to the upgraded or European requirements with seats enabling vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would not violate 30122 with respect to our standard on head restraints.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:202
d.4/7/06

ID: 10179

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your follow up request for an interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. I apologize for the delay in our response. We reiterate our position in a July 1, 1994 letter to you, that Volkswagen is required to continue marking replacement parts of the Corrado line, in model year 1995 and thereafter. The reason for this position follows.

In your earlier request for an interpretation, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years (MYs) 1990 through 1994. For MY 1995, NHTSA granted a part 543 exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995.

In a July 1, 1994 interpretation letter to you, we determined that since Volkswagen will not sell the exempted MY 1995 Corrado line with the antitheft device, in the United States, the part 543 exemption would not apply, and Volkswagen must continue to mark the replacement parts for the Corrado line.

In your follow up letter, you wrote that the MY 1994 Corrado line has, as standard equipment, the antitheft device that was the subject of the part 543 exemption for MY 1995. You state that since the Corrado line with the approved antitheft device was sold in the United States, replacement parts for the Corrado line should not be subject to marking in MY 1995 and thereafter.

We do not agree with your position. 49 CFR '543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that: (1) are the subject of the grant; and (2) are equipped with

the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. The MY 1994 Corrado line does not meet the first condition, i.e., it is not the subject of a grant of an exemption from parts marking. The part 543 exemption for the Corrado line begins with MY 1995. (See 58 FR 28434). You have earlier written that no MY 1995 Corrado line with the exempted device, will be sold in the U.S. As stated in our July 1, 1994 letter, since no exempted line, equipped with the antitheft device will be sold in the U.S., Volkswagen must continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, as long as the replacement parts are offered for sale in the U.S.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:541#543 d:2/17/95

ID: aiam1209

Dear Mr. Sundelin: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1973, in which you as whether certain radial passenger car tires may be imported if they are tested to see that they meet DOT requirements (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR S CFR(sic) 571.109), and if the information required pursuant to paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109, which does not presently appear on the tires, is branded with a hot stamp on the tire sidewalls.; The NHTSA does not view with approval the importation into the Unite Stated of passenger car tires that were not originally designed and manufactured for importation into the United States. Although Standard No. 109 as presently written does not prohibit the branding of information required by the standard onto the tire, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material, it is difficult for us to understand how a manufacturer can, in branding the necessary information, readily assume that the information is in fact reflective of the tire's performance capability. To stipulate as you do that the tires will be tested to Standard No. 109 is not responsive to the issue, for in the case of the Standard No. 109 tests, which are destructive in nature, only sample testing is conducted and the tires actually imported are not themselves tested. Consequently, the testing of tires by a manufacturer that he desires to brand and import into the United Stated will only provide reliable evidence of conformity if the manufacturer's testing is of uniform batches or lots.; A similar problem is presented by a manufacturer's branding onto th tire of the identification number required by Part 574. This number is required to be based on certain facts regarding the manufacture of the tire, the week and year of manufacture. Consequently, this information must be known to the manufacturer if his identification number is to be consistent with Part 574.; In summary, the NHTSA's position regarding the branding and subsequen importation of tires not originally manufactured for importation into the United States is that although the practice is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Standard No, 109, or the regulations regarding the importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80), manufacturers who brand tires must base their representation of conformity to the standard and to the identifications requirements on information which, in the exercise of due care, they know to be accurate. Because such conformity is not apparent from an examination of these tires or even from post-production testing you should be aware that the NHTSA may request documentation that supports any manufacturer's representations regarding conformity.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1211

Dear Mr. Sundelin: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1973, in which you as whether certain radial passenger car tires may be imported if they are tested to see that they meet DOT requirements (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109), and if the information required pursuant to paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109, which does not presently appear on the tires, is branded with a hot stamp on the tire sidewalls.; The NHTSA does not view with approval the importation into the Unite States of passenger car tires that were not originally designed and manufactured for importation into the United States. Although Standard No. 109 as presently written does not prohibit the branding of information required by the standard onto the tire, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material, it is difficult for us to understand how a manufacturer can, in branding the necessary information, readily assume that the information is in fact reflective of the tire's performance capability. To stipulate as you do that the tires will be tested to Standard No. 109 is not responsive to the issue, for in the case of the Standard No. 109 tests, which are destructive in nature, only sample testing is conducted, and the tires actually imported are not themselves tested. Consequently, the testing of tires by a manufacturer that he desires to brand and import into the United States will only provide reliable evidence of conformity if the manufacturer's testing is of uniform batches or lots.; A similar problem is presented by a manufacturer's branding onto th tire of the identification number required by Part 574. This number is required to be based on certain facts regarding the manufacture of the tire, the week and year of manufacture. Consequently, this information must be known to the manufacturer if his identification number is to be consistent with Part 574.; In summary, the NHTSA's position regarding the branding and subsequen importation of tires not originally manufactured for importation into the United States is that although the practice is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Standard No. 109, or the regulations regarding the importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80), manufacturers who brand tires must base their representations of conformity to the standard and to the identification requirements on information which, in the exercise of due care, they know to be accurate. Because such conformity is not apparent from an examination of these tires or even from post-production testing you should be aware that the NHTSA may request documentation that supports any manufacturer's representations regarding conformity.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-2.10

DATE: 11/29/78

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

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason of our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978.

Your questions and our answers are:

1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579c with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place "DOT" and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight?

Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded by S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of the option has the effect of allowing the higher maximum candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the "DOT" symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum.

2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamps "be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?"

I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichikoh may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a.

3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the same vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp.

NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply to your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem.

4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade.

The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 20 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

ISEHARA-PLANT

September 22, 1978

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Subject: Motor Vehicle Headlamps

We, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., are an original equipment manufacturer of sealed beam headlamps, signalling lamps, rear view mirrors and other accessories for motor vehicles.

With regard to the recent amendment of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Docket No. 78-5 : Notice 3, issued on July 27, 1978, we would like to confirm you the following matters:

1. All our sealed beam headlamps (circular and rectangular types) have been approved in each States including AAMVA compliance with the applicable (photometric) requirements of FMVSS 108 : that is, SAE Standard J579c.

At the present, the maximum candlepower of each headlamp is maintained as not exceed 37,500 cd, and we have no intention changing to the higher wattage allowed in the above new amendment.

In such a case: Does it permit to indicate "DOT" and new "designation code" defined in new paragraph S4.1.1.21 on each lenses of our headlamps?, and

2. May we interpret that, by the new amendment, the old requirements of the maximum candlepower 37,500 cd to headlamps will be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?

This problem concerns to our quality control system.

3. Besides, according to the amended regulation, it can not install both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on one (1) vehicle.

However, if the above item No. 1 is accepted, it result in allowing to use the different type headlamps with the same code on a vehicle, that is, the lower candlepower headlamp(s) (not more than 37,500 cd) and the higher candlepower headlamp(s) not more than 75,000cd.

This means headlamp users can not select such different type headlamps with the same identification code, and such mixed use of headlamps would give rise to undesirable influence on the visibilities for road users.

Besides, it would lead to substantially allow the use of both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on a vehicle.

We would like to hear your view point on this problem.

4. As you well know, ECE Regulation No. 20, Halogen Headlamps, requires to mark on each headlamp lens severally graded identification indicating the reference of the maximum candlepower. This make easy to know the headlamp grade.

On the other hand, it is impossible to know the headlamp grade (candlepower) with the identification code on the lens under the amended regulation of FMVSS 108.

Do you have the intention to adopt the conception of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future?

With regard to the above matters, your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Suminori EGUCHI, Chief Engineer Technical Department.

ID: 11502.DRN

Mr. Burt Jaquith
Tesa Meters, Inc.
Box 21519
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335

Dear Mr. Jaquith:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA would classify your three wheeled motor vehicle, which is designed for mobility impaired drivers. As explained below, we concur with your opinion that your motor vehicle is a motorcycle.

Your letter explains that you are developing a Aspecialized vehicle for the wheel chair [sic] bound handicapped.@ Because of "the variable medical limitation" of your potential customers, each vehicle must be customized to the driver Aand would be a very limited production.@ The vehicle would have three wheels. Entry into and operation of your vehicle would be from a wheelchair. The vehicle's top speed would be limited to 39 miles per hour.

You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that your vehicle would be electrically powered and would not include a seat for the driver (because it is intended to be driven from a wheelchair). You further stated that although the vehicle will have no handlebars, it will be driven by a steering wheel and by a bar that can be manually pushed forward or back to regulate vehicle speed.

By way of background information, this agency has the authority under Federal law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Once the vehicle or equipment is sold to the first retail customer, the product is no longer subject to the Federal safety standards and instead becomes subject to state law.

For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA defines "motorcycle" as (49 CFR '571.3):

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 contact with the ground.

Your vehicle is a motorcycle because it has not more than three wheels. NHTSA considers the wheelchair seat that the driver sits in to be the functional equivalent of the "seat or saddle for the use of the rider."

Your vehicle must meet all safety standards applicable to motorcycles. However, I note that since your vehicle has no handlebars, it need not meet FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays, which applies to motorcycles equipped with handlebars. There are additional NHTSA requirements your company, the motorcycle manufacturer must meet. I am enclosing a copy of our fact sheet "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," and another sheet that explains how NHTSA's regulations may be ordered.

A new manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). The manufacturer must also meet 49 CFR part 567, Certification, and place on the motorcycle a label with information specified in 49 CFR section 567.4.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571.3 "motorcycle" d:5/3/96