ID: 15810.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, S7.8.3 and S7.8.4.

The first sentence of S7.8.3 states that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall not be less than +/-4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application." To the same effect is the first sentence of S7.8.4 which prescribes a horizonal aim tolerance of +/-2.5 degrees. You state that "there are no provisions that prescribe the aim range formed out of [the] vertical and horizontal axis," and submit four Figures of various aim range possibilities and ask whether they conform to Standard No. 108.

Your Figure 1 represents a literal interpretation of S7.8.3 and S7.8.4, depicting vertical and horizontal aim tolerances. However, these are not meant to be mutually exclusive. At any point within the +/- 4degree vertical aim the horizontal aim must be adjustable +/- 2.5 degrees and vice versa, in order to ensure that headlamp aim is correct over the broadest possible range within both the vertical and horizontal directions. This means that Figure 1, as we interpret it, does not represent the correct interpretation of S7.8.3 and S7.8.4 when these paragraphs are read together.

Figure 4 represents our interpretation of Standard No. 108 describing the full rectangle of aiming possibilities created by the plus and minus aspects of the vertical and horizontal aim tolerances. Because Figures 2 and 3 with their "lozenge" and "ellipse" aiming areas respectively do not cover the full range of horizontal aim over the full vertical range of +/- 4 degrees they do not represent a correct interpretation of Standard No. 108.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.9/11/97

ID: 15823.nhf

John L. Oberdorfer, Esq.
Eric A. Kuwana, Esq.
Patton Boggs, L.L.P.
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1350

Dear Mr. Oberdorfer and Mr. Kuwana:

This responds to your August 22, 1997, inquiry about whether the R-Series Rough Terrain Lift Trucks (lift trucks) manufactured by your client, Eagle-Picher Industries, are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You state that the lift trucks are designed and manufactured to lift heavy loads on rough terrain at off-road sites and are used at industrial and construction locations for that purpose. You also state that the lift trucks operate on public roads in exceptional circumstances only and are generally towed or carried on a flat bed truck when moved over public highways. On the basis of the information you provided, it appears that the lift trucks are not motor vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers the lift trucks to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the lift trucks are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter and the enclosed brochure that the lift trucks spend extended periods of time at construction or work sites and use the public roads in rare circumstances only, such as crossing a public road to reach an off-road area. It is also based on your statement that the lift trucks are generally towed or loaded onto a trailer or flat bed truck when moved between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the lift trucks on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of lift trucks are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that the lift trucks use the public roads on more than an incidental basis, the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the lift trucks were found to be motor vehicles, Eagle-Picher Industries would be a motor vehicle manufacturer, and would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Eagle-Picher would also be required to certify that each vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that some states may require an off-road vehicle to be registered. Thus, you may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which Eagle-Picher's products will be sold or operated about requirements for the use of the lift trucks.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions regarding NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.10/1/97

ID: 15826.ztv

Herr Olaf Schmidt
Hella KG Hueck & Co.
Rixbecker Strabe 75 75
59552 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, concerning the conformity of a new headlamp design to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You report that Hella has designed a headlamp to be visually aimable in accordance with the amendments to Standard No. 108 that were published on March 10, 1997. To facilitate the production of new vehicles on which the headlamp will be installed, the headlamp will incorporate a bubble-vial type of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) which is not required for visually aimable headlamps. The headlamp will be provided "with an initial pre-setting so that the location of the cut-off line [of the beam] corresponds very close (less than one tenth of a degree) to the indication of the bubble scale." You assure us that "The VHAD will not interfere [with] the aiming and performance of the headlamps" and that "[t]his auxiliary vertical VHAD is intended as a production aid and will not be mentioned in the owner's manual of the relevant car."

Paragraph S7.8.5. of Standard No. 108 in pertinent part requires headlighting systems installed on motor vehicles to "be aimable with at least one of the following" methods, which are specified as an externally applied aiming device, an on-vehicle headlamp aiming device, or by visual/optical means, each method to be "as specified" by a cited paragraph of Standard No. 108. This means that a headlamp may be both visually/optically aimable and aimable using a VHAD. However, the VHAD must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108, one of which is that it be capable of horizontal aim adjustment. The Hella "auxiliary VHAD" does not include this feature. Therefore, the headlamp design you contemplate would appear not to conform to Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask us.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/18/98

ID: 15845.ztv

Mr. Jay Townley
Jay Townley & Associates
N1367 Southern Road
Lyndon Station, WI 53944-9708

Dear Mr. Townley:

This is in reply to your letter of August 25, 1997, asking whether ZAP electric bicycles are exempt from NHTSA jurisdiction.

You have enclosed a copy of a ZAP owner's manual for our information.

We have previously corresponded with you on the subject of electric bicycles. At that time (February 16, 1993) we advised you that there was a significant difference between the Yamaha pedal-assisted bicycle and motorized bicycles and mopeds. The propulsion systems of the latter vehicles enable them to operate on power without pedaling. However, the power assist of the Yamaha disengaged when torque at the pedals was less than 11 pounds, which meant that the system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort. We concluded that, in light of the combination of a low maximum speed while operating on power (the power of the Yamaha disengages when speed is more than 15 mph) and the fact that power is only provided if the operator is providing muscular effort (by continuously pedalling), the Yamaha was not a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction. We noted that, even with power assist, the operation of the Yamaha is essentially the same as that of a bicycle, i.e., the operator must pedal under the same circumstances as a traditional bicyclist and the speed of the Yamaha does not differ from the speed of traditional bicycles.

The ZAP presents a different situation. Page 8 of the ZAP manual depicts three modes of "Engagement Lever Operation": "Rider Only," "Motor-Assisted," and "Full-Time Power-Assisted" for the operation of the vehicle. You will note that one of them allows the ZAP to be operated at all times by electric power alone, and without any muscular input of the rider. Page 13 of the ZAP manual depicts two "Performance Optimization Charts." The top chart "indicates the distance the bike will travel while people of various weight are not pedaling." The chart indicates a range of 17 miles for a 75-pound rider at the low speed setting for the electric motor, down to a range of 4 miles for a 245-pound driverat the high speed setting for the electric motor.

Although ZAP does not recommend running the motor without pedaling, its electric bicycle is clearly designed to do so and, without muscular input from the rider, can propel the vehicle at speeds up to 10 mph at distances up to 17 miles. Under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6), a "motor vehicle," is defined in pertinent part, as "any vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." We have concluded that the ZAP meets this definition, and is a motor vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that it can also be operated by pedals alone, or by pedals assisted by the motor.

It therefore appears to be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles and motor driven cycles, notwithstanding any representations to the contrary by its manufacturer.

Your client may wish to be advised that, under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, any person who sells a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation, up to $880,000 for any related series of violation.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.9/11/97

ID: 15847.ztv

Mr. Mitch L. Williams
President & CEO
Hella, Inc.
P.O. Box 2665
Peachtree City, GA 30269

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For your future reference, interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108, are properly addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You write that Hella "is currently working with a vehicle manufacturer to provide a fog lamp kit to be initially offered and installed at the car dealer, or vehicle manufacturer zone level, with a possible introduction later for the assembly line." Some of the vehicles will have daytime running lamps (DRL), and on such vehicles, the manufacturer wants to tie the fog lamps into the DRL circuit so that the fog lamps will illuminate when the vehicle is started and be extinguished when the upper beam of the headlamps are activated (if the fog lamp switch is in the "on" position), or when the ignition is turned off. You ask whether we concur with your conclusion that you see no problem with this arrangement.

I regret to say that we cannot concur with your conclusion. Although Standard No. 108 does not regulate fog lamps, it does regulate DRLs. Paragraph S5.5.11 provides that "Any pair of lamps on the front . . ., whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps, may be wired [as DRLs]. . . ." Therefore, wiring fog lamps to operate as DRLs is expressly forbidden by Standard No. 108. This means that the fog lamps cannot be tied into the DRL circuit on those vehicles equipped with DRLs.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/1/97

ID: 15850.wkm

Mr. Yousef. S. Al - Bahar
Public Authority for Industry
State of Kuwait
Post Office Box Safat No. 4690
Code 13047, Kuwait

ID: 15851.drn

Mr. Dale Thornsberry
Director of Operations
Twin Falls Public Schools
201 Main Avenue, West
Twin Falls, ID 83301

Dear Mr. Thornsberry:

This responds to your request for our views on using fifteen-passenger vans to transport school children for activities sponsored by your school district. As explained below, we strongly urge that you use school buses when transporting school children for school activities.

Some background information may be helpful. More than an "advisory group," the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and to apply those standards to all school buses. Such standards became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to every school bus manufactured on or after that date. The standards are at 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons is a bus. A bus is a school bus if used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities.

NHTSA's statute requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver), to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with our school bus safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Under Federal law, school districts are not prohibited from using vans to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet school bus safety standards. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

Under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, NHTSA has issued guidelines for States to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations on various operational aspects of State school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 (copy enclosed) recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus meet all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Each State determines the extent to which it adopts the recommendations in Guideline 17.

For information on Idaho's requirements on transportation of school children, please contact Idaho's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Rodney McKnight, Coordinator
Pupil Transportation
Idaho Department of Education
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0027

Mr. McKnight's telephone number is: (208) 334-2203.

Finally, it is NHTSA's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards have proven to be the safest way to transport school children. Use of noncomplying vehicles to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since liability would likely be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3

d.9/22/97

ID: 15877.ztv

Mr. Wayne Glenn
Vice President
Glenncorp, Inc.
3211 East Kingshighway
Paragould, AK 72450

Dear Mr. Glenn:

This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1997, to Donald Trilling of the Office of the Secretary. You wrote asking for DOT approval of your lighting kit.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the unit of the Department of Transportation that is responsible for the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These include standards for motor vehicle lighting.

You have told us that your small business involves the occasional towing of equipment. Since "it is not feasible to wire lights on each piece of equipment," you developed a light kit. Your kit appears to consist of lamps that are intended for temporary use on vehicles that are intended to be towed and which otherwise lack lighting equipment. The examples you cite are a trailer used for a hayride, "farm equipment, house trailers, modular homes, or any piece of equipment that needs to be towed."

All trailers that are manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways are "motor vehicles" subject to our jurisdiction, and must be equipped with lamps and reflectors that comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflectors and Associated Equipment. Because the equipment that your business tows appears to lack lighting equipment, we surmise that these are trailers whose use of the public roads is only incidental to their primary use as farm implements or mobile homes, and hence not "motor vehicles." Under this circumstance, your light kit would not be "motor vehicle equipment" because it is not intended for use on a "motor vehicle," and therefore not subject to our regulation.

Even if the kit were considered to be "motor vehicle equipment," NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, we could not grant your request for approval. We do advise, however, as to the relationship of motor vehicle equipment to our regulations. In your case, NHTSA has no safety standards that apply to temporary lighting kits of the nature you have described. The acceptability of these kits is determined by local laws, the laws of the places where the kit is being used. We are unable to tell you how local laws might affect the use of your kit, but local Departments of Motor Vehicles might be able to help.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/14/97

ID: 15899.ztv

Mr. Gary Starr
ZAP Electric Bikes
117 Morris Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Starr:

This is in reply to your letters of August 27, 1997, to Secretary Slater and to myself, seeking a determination that the ZAP electric bicycle is not a "motor vehicle." We deferred responding to your letter in order to receive additional information from Dale Kardos, who provided it to us on September 30, 1997. This letter, then, responds to the arguments you raised in your letters of August 27 and September 30.

Your first argument and third arguments, in essence, are that the agency should exclude from regulation the ZAP, which has a maximum speed of 18 miles per hour, because NHTSA does not regulate vehicles with a top speed of less than 20 miles per hour with "abnormal" configurations.

These arguments are based upon the agency's interpretative policy under which motor vehicles with a top speed of 20 miles per hour or less and with an abnormal configuration have been excluded from regulation. Under this policy, as you note, NHTSA has excluded the TWIP electric scooter (letter of October 6, 1993), and the Trans2 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (letter of April 1, 1994), but included a "super golf car" (letter of January 4, 1995). You also say, without identifying the source, that on April 16, 1995, NHTSA said that the policy would apply to on-road golf carts.

You are correct that NHTSA, by interpretation, has excluded "motor vehicles" from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if they had an "abnormal" configuration and if their maximum speed was no greater than 20 miles per hour. However, NHTSA stated in 1996 that it considered the "abnormal" test subjective and arbitrary, and announced its intent to abandon this line of interpretations. In its place, the agency has proposed a regulation that would apply to all four-wheeled motor vehicles with a maximum speed of up to 25 miles per hour, and for faster golf vehicles with a maximum speed between 15 and 25 miles per hour.

As you note, this rulemaking does not cover two-wheeled vehicles. We have reviewed our letter of October 6, 1997, to Peer Enterprises which you cited. This letter concluded that the TWIP electric scooter was not a motor vehicle because it was not intended to be used on the public roads (i.e., in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes). However, the letter further opined that the TWIP would not be a motor vehicle if the interpretative test was applied to it. It had a maximum speed of 9 miles per hour and the scooter could be folded to make it portable. Thus, the agency concluded that "this configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles." The ZAP with a top speed of 18 miles per hour and a configuration similar to that of small motorcycles and mopeds is not "abnormal" under these interpretations. Therefore, the agency cannot apply this interpretation to excuse the ZAP from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We do not believe that the low-speed vehicle rulemaking unfairly discriminates between two and four-wheeled vehicles. NHTSA has always considered bicycles with full time motors to be "motor vehicles," (specifically, a two-wheeled motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less), regardless of their maximum speed, and required their compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor driven cycles. To grant your request would be to deregulate a category of motor vehicle which to all intents and purposes has had no difficulties in complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your second argument is that, if a state does not license a vehicle for on-road use the vehicle should not be considered a "motor vehicle," in accordance with a NHTSA remark of May 17, 1993 (source not cited). Mr. Kardos informs us that 22 states now do not define motorized bicycles as "motor vehicles" and that 21 of these do not require registration of the operator. Similar legislation is said to be pending in New York and six additional states. You also cite NHTSA's exclusion from regulation of mini-bikes as pertinent to your argument, saying that "it must be presumed . . . that this exclusion was based on the fact that many states do not require licenses for mini-bikes and that they travel at speeds less than 20 mph, and not primarily manufactured for highways."

We do not find this argument persuasive. You cited the State of California as one of those that does not consider a motorized bicycle to be a motor vehicle. For whatever purpose California may have decided to exclude motorized bicycles from registration and licensing requirements (perhaps to be used on trails forbidden to motor vehicles), it does not prohibit their use on the public roads. In fact Cal. Veh, Code Sec. 21200 makes motorized bicycles subject to the rules of the road. Most importantly, motorized bicycles must conform to NHTSA's requirements for motor driven cycles (or those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for bicycles).

Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 24016(a)(1) requires a motorized bicycle to

"Comply with the equipment and manufacturing requirements for bicycles adopted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (18 C.F.R. 1512.1, et seq.) or the requirements adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (49 C.F.R. 571.1, et seq.) in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1381, et seq.) for motor driven cycles."

Under the Safety Act's preemption provisions (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)), a state may not establish or continue in effect a state standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Thus, California law is consistent with NHTSA's present line of interpretations that distinguish between bicycles with a power assist, which are not motor vehicles under Federal law but subject to the regulations of the CPSC, and motorized bicycles which are motor vehicles under Federal law and subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although Sec. 24016(a)(1) is expressed in the disjunctive, it cannot be read as affording manufacturers of motorized bicycles the option of meeting either NHTSA or CPSC standards, since this is inconsistent with NHTSA interpretations of Federal law and is therefore preempted by Sec. 30103(b). This state law must be interpreted as following Federal law, and as requiring motorized bicycles (but not bicycles with power assists) to meet Federal standards applicable to motor driven cycles if they are to be used on California roads, even if they are not motor vehicles for purposes of other California laws.

Further, we do not consider mini-bike safety apposite to the question of the safety of motorized bicycles. Mini-bikes are smaller vehicles driven by younger operators. The agency has cogently expressed its concerns, in a letter of February 23, 1971 to Thomas Ferlito:

"One dilemma this agency faced in formulating its decision on mini-bikes was the possibility that prescribing Federal safety standards would lead to an increased use of these vehicles on the public roads. The imposition of safety standards might create a false sense of security in the vehicle operator, encouraging him to drive his mini-bike on the street. Because of their small size and slow speed mini-bikes are inherently unsafe in a traffic environment which includes heavier and faster vehicles and their use on the public roads is to be discouraged under any circumstances.

It is our conclusion that the problem of mini-bike safety is one which can be best met at the local rather than Federal level, through enactment and strict enforcement of laws prohibiting the registration and use of mini-bikes on the public ways, and through adequate parental supervision."

Your fourth argument is that the ZAP is not a motor vehicle because it is not manufactured for use on highways. According to your letter "they are allowed on some public roads but not highways. And the definition clearly says primarily for public streets, roads and highways." We do not agree with this argument either. It would be contrary to the mission of NHTSA to reduce crashes, deaths, and injuries if NHTSA parsed the statutory definition to exclude from regulation those motor vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the "public streets and roads," but which were not allowed on "highways", particularly since the definition of these terms may vary among the states.

There are other aspects of your letter that deserve a reply. You believe that "it is important to note that most prior sales were ZAP kits, that is motor systems, that the user applied to their own bikes and not complete vehicles." Under the agency's kit car interpretations, if the kit supplier provides all parts necessary for the vehicle, and all parts are new, the kit supplier is regarded as the manufacturer of the kit car and required to ensure that, when assembled, it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Similarly, if ZAP is providing the engine to a purchaser of a bicycle at the time of its sale, for later installation by the purchaser, we would regard ZAP as the manufacturer of a motor driven cycle that must meet Federal requirements. However, if ZAP sells the motor alone and not as part of a transaction involving the sale of a new bicycle, there would be no compliance responsibility imposed by Federal law on ZAP.

You have also commented that the CPSC specifies that bicycles have the rear brake control on the right handlebar "yet motor vehicle standards require the front brake control by the left-hand control." You have been misinformed. If a motorcycle has a front brake control, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 "Motorcycle Controls and Displays" requires it to be on the right handlebar (Item 10, Table 1).

Finally, you argue that "if the government requires pedaling, this will clearly be discrimination against the disabled," in contravention of "The American Disability Act." What the government is requiring is that motorized bicycles be provided the same level of safety performance as motor driven cycles. This protects all citizens, regardless of whether they are or are not disabled.

While this letter was being prepared, we also received your letter of November 3, 1997, to Taylor Vinson, titled "Supplemental information for ZAP indicating that ZAP should not be a motor vehicle." We were interested to learn of the requirements of the CPSC for bicycles but we continue to believe that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are more appropriate for bicycles that are motor driven.

We appreciate the offer of Mr. Kardos to provide a ZAP for our inspection, but it will not be required at this time. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson 202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Senator Feinstein

Rep. Lynn Woolsey
(Lauren Kelly)

Dale Kardos

ref:123#VSA
d.11/20/97

ID: 15926.drn

Mr. Jacques Schalckens
Auto Leasing Lines, Inc., U.S.A.
2717 Seville Blvd.
Clearwater, FL 34624

Dear Mr. Schalckens:

This responds to your request for information on registering as an agent for service of process for a foreign manufacturer that wishes to import motorcycles and buses. You also wish to know about Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements for the imported vehicles. The information you seek is provided below.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the buses to be imported are designed to seat at least nineteen persons. Your letter requested information on "manufacturer status from D.O.T. under the small Volume Manufacturer program," which you explained refers to low volume manufacturers' exemptions from generally applicable CAFE standards.

NHTSA has established CAFE standards only for passenger cars and light trucks. Since there are no CAFE standards for motorcycles or for buses, manufacturers of motorcycles or buses need not meet CAFE standards.

I will now describe how to register as an agent for service of process for a foreign manufacturer. Prior to the assignment of a DOT identification number, the manufacturer must designate in writing, an agent who is a permanent resident of the United States upon whom all processes, notices, orders, decisions and requirements may be made. This designation and its acceptance must comply with 49 C.F.R. 551.45. The required designation should be mailed to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, and must include, in addition to the information already submitted, the following:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which must be a permanent resident of the United States and may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation;

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent; and

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agent.

The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath the signature.

I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 551.45 and a sample of a properly executed designation of agent for your reference. Also included is information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any questions about the requirements for the appointment of an agent, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sharon Vaughn of my staff at (202) 366-1834.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions on motor vehicle matters other than the appointment of an agent, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571# 531
d.10/30/97