ID: 16055.ogm

Mr. Freeman Chen
Associate Counsel
US JVC Corp.
41 Slater Drive
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your letter regarding your company's intention to produce a small flat screen LCD television receiver which would be suitable for use in passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any guidelines or regulations regarding the size of the television, special feature requirements, or any restrictions on where these televisions may be installed in a vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. However, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your television receivers are installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer or dealer would be required to certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

After a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under 49 U.S.C. section 30122 from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

Depending on where and how the device is mounted, the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. For example, standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, establishes requirements for the performance of certain interior areas of a vehicle in protecting occupants from injury if they contact these areas in a crash. The requirements of standard 201 apply to dashboards, seat backs, visors, and other interior sections where a flat panel TV screen might be mounted. Beginning September 1, 1998, new head impact protection requirements will apply to pillars, side rails, roof headers and the roof itself.

Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, contains requirements relating to the location, illumination, and labeling of controls and displays. One section of this standard, section S5.3.5, imposes certain requirements on illuminated devices in the vicinity of the driver. This section provides:

Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin 'H' point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off.

The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the driver. If a television receiver installed in view of the driver is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion, it would be subject to this requirement.

While NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers, the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver which is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion would raise obvious safety concerns related to possible driver distraction.

Finally, I note that state laws may cover the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. You should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used for information on state laws.

I hope that this is information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.1/8/98
ref:201

ID: 16073.drn

Mr. Jerry McNeil
Vice President of Engineering
Pines Trailer Limited Partnership
2555 South Blue Island Avenue
Chicago, IL 60608

Dear Mr. McNeil:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Great Dane Limited Partnership ("G.D. Ltd.") and its two divisions, Pines Trailer Limited Partnership ("Pines Trailer") and Great Dane Trailers, Inc. ("Great Dane Trailers") must be assigned a new WMI (world manufacturer identifier) number. Under the new facts you have provided, the two separate divisions may keep their WMIs.

In your letter, you referred to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) letter of June 4, 1997, to your attorney, Norman Shubert, Esq. that addressed your company's situation at that time. The facts behind the June 4 letter are G.D. Ltd., a holding company (with no WMI), purchased two existing vehicle manufacturers with WMIs, Pines Trailers and Great Dane Trailers, and became their parent. The issue was whether G.D. Ltd. could use the WMIs of its two subsidiaries. In the June 4 letter, NHTSA stated that because the parent itself is not assigned a WMI, but its two divisions have separate WMIs, and will have distinct product lines, G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs assigned to the subsidiaries. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured a particular motor vehicle.

Your September 18, 1997, letter to us states that business plans have changed. Although Great Dane and Pines Trailers will continue to manufacture different types of trailers, the two divisions may now manufacture some trailers that are the same. The letter states that "these common trailers will have the same product markings regardless if they are built by Great Dane Trailers or Pines Trailers." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that G.D. Ltd. no longer intends to keep the Great Dane and Pines Trailers names separate, distinctive trade names, and that the Pines Trailers name will eventually be phased out. However, Great Dane and Pines Trailers will be maintained as separate corporate entities, and each entity will be responsible for certifying the vehicles (pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) it manufactures. For example, the certification label will identify the manufacturer as "Great Dane Trailer, a division of G.D. Ltd." or "Pines Trailer, a division of G.D. Ltd.," as appropriate. G.D. Ltd. will not manufacture any vehicles.

To answer your question, we must apply the regulatory provision of 49 CFR 565.4(a). That section provides that the WMI "shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." NHTSA has previously interpreted "uniquely identify the manufacturer" to preclude the use of a WMI assigned to one manufacturer by any other manufacturer.

The primary difference between your new business plans and the plan described in our letter of June 4 is that Great Dane and Pines Trailers will no longer be advertised as separate trade names. The other facts remain the same; there are no plans for the parent company, G.D. Ltd., to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require obtaining a WMI), and within G.D. Ltd., Great Dane and Pines Trailers will remain separate entities, with each entity responsible for certifying the vehicles it manufactures. Although common vehicles built by either Great Dane or Pines will be identified with the same brand name, the certification label on each vehicle will indicate whether the vehicle was built by Great Dane or Pines.

Because the corporate structure of G.D. Ltd., as the parent company, with two subsidiaries, will remain the same, and G.D. Ltd. itself will not be manufacturing motor vehicles, we believe there would be no confusion if the separate divisions, Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers, continue to retain their own WMIs. Therefore, we agree that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers may continue to use the WMI assigned to each respective entity.

Please note that because each division may continue to use the WMIs assigned to it, G.D. Ltd. must report any new types of trailers that either the Pines Trailer division or the Great Dane Trailers division will manufacture. 49 CFR Part 566 Manufacturer Identification requires manufacturers that have previously submitted identification information to keep their entries current by submitting revised information not later than 30 days after the relevant changes occur. A copy of Part 566 is enclosed for your information.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds

ID: 16075.ogm

Michael D. Witten
President
RW Industries
598 Eaton Ave.
Denuba, CA 93618

Dear Mr. Witten:

This responds to your letter concerning a device you have designed which, as you described, has "the purpose of positioning the cross over section of seat belts in automobiles. Later in the letter you refer to this device as the "Seat Belt Positioner." You request that this office provide you with the legal data regarding the manufacturing and marketing of items used as automobile accessories.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. With a device such as yours, the realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Finally, you should be aware that originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. We encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether it would degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.1/8/98
ref:209

ID: 16119.wkm

Mr. Richard T. Ince
C & J Technology, Inc.
9010 Pillsbury Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55420

Dear Mr. Ince:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Georgia Jupinko, now Georgia Chakiris of this agency's Region 6 office, which was forwarded to this office for reply. You asked in your letter how to go about convincing the Federal government that your product, called the "Brake Alert" system, meets or exceeds applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Based on the information you submitted, the "Brake Alert" neither meets nor exceeds FMVSSs, but could be installed on existing vehicles as an add-on, as discussed below.

You stated that you are marketing a brake monitoring device called "Brake Alert" that applies to all brake systems that use a push rod to activate the brakes. You stated that in your system, each brake has a sensor feeding into a black box that gives the driver a visual readout each time the brakes are applied. A dash-mounted monitor with LED lights for each wheel shows green lights if the brakes are functioning properly and a red light for each wheel on which the brakes malfunction or are not properly adjusted. If the monitoring system itself fails, all lights will turn red. The black box retains the last 64 brake applications in its memory, which can be checked by maintenance or law enforcement personnel by holding a device next to it. The memory can be removed from the black box and put into a computer for a printout showing the applications. Finally, you stated that you believe that your "Brake Alert" system meets or exceeds the requirements of "49 CFR CH.V (10-1-95) SECT.5.2.2(B)," which we assume refers to paragraph S5.2.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems (49 CFR 571.121).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system in which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor certifies compliance of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of replacement equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of that product is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer.

Subsection S5.1 of FMVSS No. 121 specifies brake requirements for trucks and buses, while subsection S5.2 specifies requirements for trailers. It was not clear from your letter that the "Brake Alert" system can be installed on trailers, but since you cited paragraph S5.2.2(b), which applies to trailers, we assume your "Brake Alert" is capable of being installed on trailers as well as single-unit vehicles. Thus, since brake malfunction or maladjustment anywhere in the tractor and trailer brake system is displayed in the cab, both S5.1 and S5.2 would apply. Paragraph S5.2.2(b), which reads essentially the same as paragraph S5.1.8(b), provides as follows:

(b) Brake indicator. For each brake equipped with an external automatic adjustment mechanism and having an exposed pushrod, the condition of service brake under-adjustment shall be displayed by a brake adjustment indicator in a manner that is discernible when viewed with 20/40 vision from a location adjacent to or underneath the vehicle, when inspected pursuant to S5.9.

Pertinent to this discussion, both S5.1.8(b) and S5.2.2(b) require that each service brake system with an exposed pushrod have a brake adjustment indicator viewable from outside the vehicle. Your informational material does not indicate whether the "Brake Alert" has a monitor visible from outside the vehicle. If the "Brake Alert" system displays brake malfunction or maladjustment inside the vehicle only, it does not meet, and therefore does not exceed, the requirements of either S5.1.8(b) or S5.2.2(b). Further, the "Brake Alert" system cannot substitute for the brake adjustment indicator required by S5.1.8(b) and S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 121. However, so long as it does not interfere with the required brake adjustment indicator, it could be installed as an original equipment option or as an add-on to an existing vehicle.

The promotional literature enclosed with your letter indicates that the "Brake Alert" uses a "position sensor" to monitor the brake. It was not clear where or how the position sensor and related components are installed. The installation of these components must not interfere in any way with the operation of the pushrod or the required brake adjustment indicator, which normally consists of an indentation in the pushrod. If it does, that could constitute a violation of Title 49, U.S. Code, 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative (copy enclosed), which prohibits making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with any FMVSS. Violations of this provision can result in substantial civil penalties.

Finally, it is noted that the promotional brochure enclosed with your letter contains a statement that "Meets or exceeds U.S. FMVSS #121 . . . ." As discussed above, that is not a true statement if the "Brake Alert" offers in-cab only brake monitoring. It is requested, therefore, that you remove such statements from your promotional or advertising materials in order to avoid any misrepresentations to or misunderstandings by the public.

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

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have additional questions or need further information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by FAX at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:121
d.5/1/98

ID: 16120.ztv

Mr. Scott Patten
Government Relations Coordinator
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Patten:

This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1997, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to motorcycle headlamps.

You have asked whether the shape of the outer lens of a motorcycle headlamp must be symmetrical in a headlamp design in which "the effective area of the reflector is symmetrical." The bulb, reflector, and lens are centered on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. You believe that an asymmetrical outer headlamp lens is permissible as it is not specifically prohibited. You have also cited in support a letter from the NHTSA Chief Counsel dated January 12, 1987, to Stanley Electric. Co. stating that "the effective area of the reflector is used as the reference for headlamp location, rather than the outer edge of the headlamp lens."

We confirm your belief that an asymmetrtrical outer lens for a motorcycle headlamp is permissible under Standard No. 108. Table IV requires a motorcycle with a single headlamp to have the lamp located on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. As long as the bulb, reflector, and lens are centered on the vertical centerline, as you have indicated, the headlamp outer lens need not be the conventional circular or rectangular shape.

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:108
d.10/20/97

ID: 16136.ztv

Mr. Richard Rawlins
Triumph Homologation
Triumph Designs, Ltd.
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire
LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Rawlins:

This is in reply to your fax of September 24, 1997, to Luke Loy of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. For future reference, the Office of Chief Counsel is the appropriate office to which you should address requests for interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked whether rear side reflex reflectors on motorcycles must be mounted parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, or whether it is permissible to locate them approximately 9 degrees offset from the centerline.

Under Standard No. 108, lighting equipment is photometrically tested in the laboratory but must comply when installed on a motor vehicle. Thus, a reflex reflector should be mounted on the goniometer in the position in which it will be installed on a motor vehicle as well as being mounted in conformance with the specifications of SAE Standard J594f "Reflex Reflectors" January 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If the reflector meets the photometric requirements of SAE J594f when it is approximately 9 degrees offset from a line representing the motorcycle longitudinal centerline, then it would be permissible to mount it in an identical offset fashion on the motorcycle itself.

If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/30/97

ID: 16190.ogm

Mr. Cesar Robles Gonzales
#10282-016
USP Allenwood
P.O. Box 3000
White Deer, PA 17887

Dear Mr. Gonzales:

This is in response to your request regarding seat belts for buses. Specifically, you are interested in seat belt requirements for charter and other buses operated by private bus lines.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

Large buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)over 10,000 pounds, are not required to have seat belts for occupants other than the driver. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. That section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.12/11/97

ID: 16206.drn

Mr. George J. Aumond
President
Intec Industries, Inc.
1025 S. Linwood Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Dear Mr. Aumond:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must assign new vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to used trailer chassis, under the facts described in your letter. If the trailers are modified in accordance with NHTSA's regulations on combining new and used components in trailer manufacture, the trailers would be considered used and the VIN assigned to each trailer may be retained.

Your letter states that Intec Industries is in the process of redesigning 40-foot shipping container chassis to "accommodate new laws pertaining to distribution of weight on bridges." You describe the changes as follows:

The modification is accomplished by modifying an existing 40' straight frame chassis, to accommodate one 20' container, with a 48,000 pound load, or, two empty 20' containers, or one 40' or 45' container with 48,000 pound loads. When completed, only the rear 10' of the 40' frame is not used. The compressed length of finished unit is 30'-0". All braking systems, wheels, tires, accumulation tanks, and fifth wheel components, are essentially left intact, and are incorporated into the new design.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that if possible, your company would like to retain the assigned VIN on the modified trailers. You further stated that after the changes are made, the gross vehicle weight rating and the gross axle weight ratings of each trailer chassis will remain the same. The distance between the wheels (on the same side of the vehicle) will be adjusted, so that the trailer chassis' load distribution will be in line with new bridge weight requirements.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture apply to your company's trailer modifications. That regulation provides:

When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] unless, at the minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer -

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

Thus, if the trailers are modified under the conditions described in Section 571.7(f), the trailers would be considered used, and Intec Industries may continue to use the assigned VINs on the modified trailers.

Please note that in the modification process, your company must ensure that the certification labels (assigned pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) remain on the trailers. Additionally, in order to avoid a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), when modifying the trailers, your company must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [those vehicles] in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..."

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#567
d.2/26/98

ID: 16242.drn

Ms. Kay Howeth
Executive Director
St. Michaels Housing Authority
P. O. Box 296
St. Michaels, MD 21663

Dear Ms. Howeth:

This responds to your October 7, 1997, request for an opinion whether St. Michaels Housing Authority must provide school bus transportation for your children in a drug awareness program. The answer to your question is determined by Maryland State law.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125.

Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider a drug awareness program to be a "school," we would not require that a dealership selling a new vehicle to your Housing Authority sell a school bus. However, each State has authority to regulate the use of vehicles within the State, and Maryland law may specify the type of vehicle your Housing Authority must use to transport the children. You may wish to contact the Maryland State department of motor vehicles to learn whether there are any State requirements applicable to vehicles used to transport children in drug awareness programs.

For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of NHTSA's publication, "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements."

I hope this information is helpful. 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
d.11/5/97

ID: 16250.ztv

Mr. Gene Trobaugh
President
Whizzer Motorbike Company
1915 Orangewood Avenue, Suite 200
Orange, CA 92868-2047

Dear Mr. Trobaugh:

This is in reply to your Petition to the Administrator dated October 2, 1997, on behalf of a "motor-assisted bicycle."

You request "relief from meeting DOT regulations" for two reasons. The "motor-assisted bicycle" requires human power to start from a static position. It will not exceed 25 miles per hour. In addition, it is designed to accommodate only one person and has less than 2 horsepower.

To respond to your petition, we must first decide whether the Whizzer is a "motor vehicle" and required to comply with the regulations from which you seek to be excused. Under our safety law, a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle driven by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets. With respect to bicycles with motors, we use the term "power-assist" to refer to a vehicle that cannot be driven by the motor alone but which requires muscular input at all times when in motion, assisted when needed by the engine. We do not consider this type of vehicle to be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations. If this correctly describes the Whizzer, then your petition is moot. However, if the Whizzer is capable of being propelled by the engine alone with no muscular power required when the engine is engaged, then the Whizzer would be a "motor vehicle", specifically a "motor driven cycle."

The Whizzer's speed capability of 25 miles per hour is somewhat greater than is ordinary for operation by muscular power alone.

Assuming that the Whizzer is a motor vehicle, we cannot by this letter provide blanket relief from DOT regulations. We therefore view your petition as one for rulemaking that would exclude the Whizzer and other vehicles in its class from DOT requirements. The agency's Office of Safety Performance Standards has the responsibility of evaluating and responding to petitions for rulemaking within 120 days of their submission. Accordingly, I am providing them with a copy of your petition for such further action as that Office deems appropriate.

Alternatively, you request relief "from meeting DOT lighting requirements." The reasons for this request is that the Whizzer is best suited for daytime operation and that you do not want to encourage operation at night. In addition, due to its nature, the Whizzer is likely to be used only for casual, recreational riding.

There are two ways to proceed with your petition. We can treat it as a petition for rulemaking to be considered with your primary petition for relief from compliance with all DOT regulations. That is the simplest way to proceed, and we shall do so unless instructed by you to the contrary.

The second way is to treat it as a petition for temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, your petition does not contain the information required by the agency's regulation 49 CFR Part 555. There are four bases on which temporary exemptions are granted. If immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with Standard No. 108, an exemption of up to three years may be granted, provided that the total vehicle production of the manufacturer in the year preceding the filing of its application did not exceed 10,000 units. If an exemption from Standard No. 108 would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle or one with innovative safety features and would not unduly degrade the safety level of the vehicle, or if, in the absence of an exemption from Standard No. 108, a manufacturer would be unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is equal to or exceeds that of a non-exempted vehicle, an exemption of up to two years may be granted which would apply to not more than 2,500 vehicles a year. The exemption process takes three to four months after a petition is received that meets the requirements of Part 555.

If you wish further information on this exemption procedure, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Further correspondence on petitions for rulemaking should be directed to L. Robert Shelton, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.11/17/97