ID: medcoaches3277.cmc

Mr. Dick Mattice
Vice President Engineering
Medical Coaches
399 Co Hwy 58
PO Box 129
Oneonta, NY 13820-0129

Dear Mr. Mattice:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, as they apply to platform lifts and mobile medical units manufactured by your company. I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards are effective December 27, 2004.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g., MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have patient lifts that "fold and store in an under-floor skirt compartment during transit." You further explained that although the lift design "is primarily used for non-ambulatory patients on gurneys, it could just as easily be used for wheelchair-bound patients."You stated that the lifts are designed so that a gurney would be parallel to the trailer when on the platform, and therefore a wheelchair would also be oriented parallel to the trailer when on the platform. You then asked several questions regarding the application of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to the lifts and vehicles manufactured by your company.

1) Platform Dimensions

Your letter explained that:

[The] lifts are designed so that a gurney will be parallel to the trailer when entering or leaving the trailer. The platform itself is 84" wide x 38" deep (inner roll stop to ramp). As a result, a wheelchair would also be parallel to the trailer and not perpendicular.

You then asked if the lift orientation and dimensions would be permitted under the new standards.

Before discussing lift dimension requirements, it is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) must be equipped with a lift certified to all requirements applicable to a public use lift (see S4.1.1). All other lift-equipped motor vehicles must be equipped with a platform lift certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements (see S4.1.2). FMVSS No. 404 does not include trailers as a vehicle type that must be equipped with a public use lift. Therefore, the trailers manufactured by your company may be equipped with lifts certified to the public or private lift requirements.

FMVSS No. 403 does not establish requirements specifying the orientation of a wheelchair during lift operation. For public use lifts, S6.4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 403 does establish a minimum operating platform volume, which is based on the sum of an upper and lower part (see Figure 3; copy enclosed). The lower part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a minimum width of 725 mm (28.5 in) along the platform surface and a minimum height of 50 mm (2 in). The upper part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a base with a minimum dimension of 760 mm (30 in) wide by 1,220 mm (48 in) long and a minimum height of 711 mm (28 in). While the standard specifies that the base of the upper part must be tangent to the top surface of the lower rectangular volume and the centroids of both parts must coincide with the vertical centroidal axis of the platform, the standard does not specify the orientation of the upper part to the lower part. There is nothing preventing the upper part from being rotated in relation to the lower part.

Based on the information provided in your letter, your platform would conform to the minimum operating platform volume requirement for public use lifts. Your platform is 84 inches by 38 inches and would be able to accommodate an upper and a lower rectangular solid of the minimum size required. Further, if you were to certify the lift to the private use lift requirements, you would be required to specify the unobstructed platform operating volume and include it in the lift insert to the vehicle owners manual.

2) Wheelchair retention device impact test

Again, you stated that upon loading, a wheelchair is intended to be oriented parallel to the trailer. You ask if S7.7, Wheelchair retention device impact test, must be performed in this orientation, with the wheelchair accelerated in a direction parallel to the trailer.

The wheelchair retention device impact test verifies the integrity of the inner roll stop and the wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. The test simulates uncontrolled acceleration of a wheelchair or mobility aid when loading a platform. When loading the platform at the vehicle floor level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the wheelchair retention device. When loading the platform at ground level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the inner roll stop. In both instances, the mobility aid has the opportunity to achieve a measure of speed and momentum in a direction perpendicular to the trailer before striking a barrier.

In FMVSS No. 403, S7.7.2.3 requires a test device to be positioned with its plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane. This results in the test device oriented perpendicular to the vehicle. The reference to the orientation of the test device in S7.7 refers to whether a wheelchair is loaded onto the platform in the forward or reverse direction.

On your vehicles, a mobility aid is loaded in a perpendicular direction to the trailer, even though once loaded it is positioned parallel to the trailer. Once the mobility aid is positioned on the platform parallel to the vehicle body, it is stationary. Even if it were to move forward or rearward, because of limited space on the platform, it could not achieve the level of momentum that is possible when rolling onto a platform from the vehicle or ground. However, during loading, an unimpeded mobility aid could heavily impact either a wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. Accordingly, the wheelchair retention device impact test would be performed on the wheelchair retention device/outer barrier and the inner roll stop.

3) Public use verses private use lift

Your letter asked if the lifts installed on the mobile medical units manufactured by your company would be required to be certified as public use lifts. As explained in response #1, because the vehicles manufactured by your company are trailers, the lifts could be certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements.

4) Platform freefall limits

Under S6.6 of FMVSS No. 403, no portion of a platform may fall vertically faster than 305 mm (12 in) per second in the event of any single-point failure of systems for raising, lowering, or supporting the platform. Your letter asked if a failure of a hydraulic line by rupture constitutes a single-point failure.

If a system for raising, lowering, or supporting a platform were to include a hydraulic line, then the rupture of that line would constitute a single-point failure under S6.6. Therefore, if the hydraulic line were to rupture, the platform must not fall vertically faster than permitted by the standard. Additionally, you may need to evaluate other failures, as S6.6 applies to any single-point failure.

I hope that you find our responses helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:403#404
d.6/25/04

ID: mema.ztv

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Christopher H. Grigorian, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger and Mr. Gregorian:

This is in reply to your letter of July 29, 2003, on behalf of your client, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), requesting an interpretation of one provision of NHTSAs early warning reporting (EWR) regulation, 49 CFR 579.27(c).

Section 579.27 requires manufacturers to which the section applies to report information about each incident involving one or more deaths in the United States and in, certain instances, in a foreign country "that is identified in a claim against and received by the manufacturer which notice alleges or proves that the death was caused by a possible defect in the manufacturers vehicle or equipment." (Section 579.27(b)). Among the information that must be provided, the manufacturer must separately report "the number of injuries for incidents occurring in the United States" (Section 579.27(c)).

You stated that "a literal reading of subsection (c) of the final rule indicates that in the event an equipment manufacturer reports an incident involving a death, it should also provide in its report the number of injuries, if any, if the incident occurred in the United States." This is correct. You also noted that the language of the final rule is not the same as that in the NPRM. This, too, is correct. As you know, final rules frequently include changes from the NPRM. We believe that the final rule is within the scope of the statute and the proposed rule.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any questions, please call Andrew DiMarsico (202) -366-5263.

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/9/03

ID: mercedes.rbm

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 13th St., NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109

Re: Mercedes-Benz Air Bag On-off Switch

Dear Mr. Raher:

This letter responds to your correspondence seeking permission to install a button-activated air bag on-off switch for individuals who have received permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to have their passenger-side air bag deactivated. I apologize for the delay in responding to your request. NHTSA will not take any enforcement action against any dealer or repair business under the make inoperable provision of Chapter 301 if it installs a Mercedes-Benz manufactured button-activated switch subject to the conditions outlined in this letter. NHTSA's decision is based on its belief that a button-activated on-off switch is a preferable means of air bag deactivation than disconnection of the air bag.

In your correspondence, you state that Mercedes-Benz would limit the installation of a button-activated device to the 1994 and 1995 model year Mercedes-Benz R-129, which you indicate cannot accommodate a key-operated device due to the vehicles' electrical system. Additionally, you state that the switch would only be installed for individuals who "needed to deactivate the passenger side airbag due to the presence of a child seat or other similar need." The status of the air bag would be indicated by a telltale incorporated into the switch and located on the driver's side of the instrument console. Mercedes-Benz would require the vehicle owner to provide it with a letter from NHTSA authorizing deactivation of the passenger side air bag.

As you are aware, NHTSA issued a final rule on November 18, 1997 allowing for the installation of an on-off switch that can be activated by a key or key-like object. Installation of these switches is limited to individuals who fall within specified risk groups and have received an on-off switch approval from NHTSA. As stated in the rule, NHTSA will continue to grant deactivation requests for individuals who fall within a smaller risk group if no original equipment manufacturer switch is available for their vehicle.

In making its decision to allow for a key-operated switch, NHTSA specifically considered and rejected allowing a switch that was not activated by an external device. The agency was concerned that lesser measures could lead to an inadvertent change in the status of the affected air bag. Accordingly, NHTSA's decision to allow Mercedes-Benz to use a button-activated switch is limited to installation in the vehicles described in your letter and referenced above. NHTSA's decision is also limited to vehicles for which the owner has received permission to deactivate the passenger side air bag. Permission to have an on-off switch installed will not be sufficient. Finally, if Mercedes-Benz is able to resolve problems related to the vehicle electrical system and a key-activated switch, the agency would encourage Mercedes-Benz to produce that switch rather than a button-activated switch.

NHTSA wishes to make it clear that its decision to allow the installation of a button-activated switch is limited to this request and should not be construed as precedent for how we would decide other requests.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.3/23/98

ID: Merritt_letter

Mr. J. Shayne Merritt
Director, Automotive Safety Program
Riley Hospital for Children
575 West Drive, Room 004
Indianapolis, IN 46202




Dear Mr. Merritt:

This responds to your letter asking for permission to use a Britax Two-Way Plus child restraint, a Swedish car seat that is sold in Europe, in the United States for a patient with unique healthcare needs.

In your letter, you state that the patient is a 3-year-old who weighs over 35 pounds (lb), with a diagnosis of Pentalogy of Cantrell. You explain that this condition is a very rare disorder that is characterized by the absence of a sternum and accompanying ribs, resulting in the patients heart and lungs being completely unprotected. The medical staff at Riley Hospital has determined that she must continue to ride rear-facing until after her surgery next year.The child has reached the maximum weight of the rear-facing convertible seat she is currently using. You state that the child fits a Britax Two-Way Plus seat that will allow her to ride rear-facing until she reaches the design limits of the restraint.

Please note that the use of child restraints, the specific subject of your letter, is governed by State law. Thus, your request for permission to use the Two-Way Plus for this patient should be addressed to state officials. However, the importation of child restraints into this country is governed by Federal law and is within the responsibility of this agency. This letter provides assistance in obtaining the child restraint for your patient.

By way of background, we are authorized (46 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.)(the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Child restraint systems must conform to Standard No. 213 to be sold in this country. It is our understanding that the Two-Way Plus does not meet Standard No. 213 because, among other things, it cannot meet the standards performance requirements when attached to the vehicle seat with the seat belt alone. The restraint needs to lean against the vehicles dashboard when used with an older child (when installed at the front passenger seating position) or against the backs of the two front seats (when installed in a rear seating position). When a requirement is specified in a Federal safety standard, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new product that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not explicitly provide for individual medical exemptions from that prohibition.

However, we believe that flexibility is called for to accommodate the special medical condition of your patient. We will not institute enforcement proceedings against the person bringing a Two-Way Plus into this country for the child, subject to the following caveats.

We understand that the instructions for the Two-Way Plus indicate that the restraint must always contact the dashboard when used rear-facing in the front seat. A rear-facing child restraint must not be used in a front passenger seat if there is a passenger-side air bag. A deploying air bag impacting the back of the child restraint could subject the child to severe or fatal head or neck injuries. Thus, if an air bag is present in the front position, it is imperative that the rear-facing restraint be used in a rear seat. The restraint must have a prominent warning, of the type required by S5.5.2(k)(4) of Standard No. 213, not to use the restraint rear-facing in the front seat with a passenger-side air bag. (If a vehicle does not have a rear seat or has a rear seat that is too small to accommodate the installation of a rear-facing child restraint system, the vehicle owner may apply for an on-off switch for the passenger air bag. Enclosed is a brochure that provides information about air bag on-off switches and a request form you can fax or mail to our agency to obtain permission for the installation of a switch.)

In a rear designated seating position, the Two-Way Plus rests against the backs of the front seats, presumably for support against tumbling backwards (relative to the child) in a frontal crash. The manufacturer of the vehicle that the child will be riding in should be consulted to ensure that the vehicle seats would be strong enough to support the child restraint in a crash.

We also ask that the Two-Way Plus be used only for your patient, and that it not be sold or given away when the child outgrows it. There should also be a label on the restraint that the restraint is not certified as meeting Standard No. 213.

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.4/24/06

ID: MIClet.2.wpd

Kathy R. Van Kleeck
Vice President, Government Relations
Motorcycle Industry Council
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202-3261

Dear Ms. Van Kleeck:

This responds to your letter concerning the receipt by some of your off-road vehicle manufacturer members of notices from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), issued at the request of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), rescinding erroneously issued World Manufacturer Identifiers (WMIs). You requested continued availability of WMIs for your members. You stated that they face serious dilemmas from the withdrawal of WMIs, since many States impose reporting requirements on off-road vehicle manufacturers, including ones for vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that comply with NHTSAs regulations. You also stated that newly issued EPA exhaust emissions regulations for recreational vehicles call for motorcycles and ATVs to be marked with a unique identification number, and that members with WMIs would like to use them for this purpose.

Subsequently, you and other Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) staff and members met with NHTSA officials on March 13, 2003 to discuss this issue in further detail. Our response is set forth below.

As you are aware, NHTSA regulates "motor vehicles." That term is defined by statute as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). NHTSA does not regulate vehicles manufactured primarily for off-road use (e.g., ATVs, snowmobiles, dirt bikes). Instead, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over the safety of such vehicles.

Our regulation governing VIN requirements, 49 CFR Part 565, is limited in applicability to motor vehicles. The regulation defines the term "VIN" as "a series of Arabic numbers and Roman letters that is assigned to a motor vehicle for identification purposes." 49 CFR 565.3(o) (emphasis added).

In implementing Part 565, NHTSA contracts with the SAE to generate and assign WMIs, that are required under the VIN regulation, to motor vehicle manufacturers. The SAE is the designated U.S. organization representing the International Standards Organization (ISO) for vehicle-related identification matters.

Approximately six months ago, NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) discovered that the SAE had been issuing WMIs to companies that were not manufacturers of motor vehicles but instead manufacturers of off-road vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, such as motorcycle frames, etc. Because these manufacturers are not motor vehicle manufacturers, they were not eligible to be issued Part 565 WMIs.

This has created a number of problems. Under the existing, ISO-compatible system, there is only a finite and rapidly diminishing number of WMIs available for assignment to motor vehicle manufacturers producing 500 or more vehicles per year. Our current count shows only 604 WMIs available for assignment, and these could be exhausted within the next several years, if current trends continue.

We have also discovered errors in agency data, in which information about off-road vehicles has become improperly comingled with information about motor vehicles. Inclusion of off-road data in on-road statistics could distort the relative importance of vehicle safety problems. Correction of such errors consumes staff time and limited agency resources.

In light of the above, OVSC directed SAE to cease issuing new WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers and to begin to rescind the WMIs erroneously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers and off-road vehicle equipment manufacturers, as those errors were discovered. OVSC took this action to assure the proper functioning of the VIN system for its intended purpose.

After reviewing your letter and meeting with you, we appreciate the situation that off-road vehicle manufacturers face in complying with State requirements We also recognize that the concept of unique vehicle identification numbers is one that crosses State lines and also has international implications. We are aware of several State law provisions which require reporting of a "vehicle identification number" for off-road vehicles. Moreover, we understand from you that while State regulations generally do not reference Part 565, some States are insisting on VINs that comply with that regulation, and in some cases, manufacturers who do not have such VINs have been fined.

While we wish to be cooperative in helping to resolve this problem, NHTSA is not in a position to regulate or coordinate WMIs and VINs for off-road vehicles, since these vehicles are outside our jurisdiction. Your primary concern appears to be with State laws, and we encourage you to work with State officials. We also suggest that you consult with EPA, given your concerns about the newly-issued exhaust emissions regulations. We note that, as we discussed in our meeting, SAE may be able to provide assistance in developing an ISO-compatible system for the generation and assignment of alternate WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers. (A package of materials related to ISO standards in this area is enclosed.) Obviously, any system for developing WMIs and VINs for off-road vehicles should be designed so that it does not cause confusion with Part 565 WMIs and VINs.

To provide time for MIC to resolve these issues, we will instruct the SAE to stay the rescission of WMIs previously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers until January 1, 2005. This should provide sufficient time for the off-road manufacturer community to coordinate with appropriate State officials, and, as necessary, develop a new system for WMIs issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers. However, we will also instruct SAE not to issue any new Part 565 WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers, so as to not exacerbate the existing problem.

We are sending a copy of this letter to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to alert it to this issue. We are also sending copies to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CPSC, and EPA.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:565
d.5/21/03

ID: milazzo.ztv

100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

You have asked for interpretations of two provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30141.

Your first request concerned the meaning of the phrase "substantially similar" in Section 30141(a)(1)(A). In context, the statutory phrase reads "(A) the vehicle is (i) substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for import into and sale in the United States; (ii) certified under section 30115 of this title; (iii) the same model year . . . as the model of the motor vehicle it is being compared to;"

The phrase has been defined through usage. NHTSAs first criterion is whether a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year has been sold in the United States as the vehicle covered by the petition. Even if the manufacturer used a different model designation but both vehicles have "a commonality in construction such as body [and] chassis," NHTSA would regard them as being of the same "model" in a family of vehicles. See definition of "model" in 49 CFR 579.4(c) and its application to a family of vehicles in the enclosed Federal Register notice (67 FR 61378 at 61379).

Your second request concerned the meaning of the phrase "capable of being altered" in Section 30141(a)(1)(B). This section relates to vehicles for which there are no substantially similar counterparts that have been certified for sale in the United States. If a vehicle has no substantially similar counterpart, a petitioner seeking a decision that it is eligible for importation must demonstrate that "the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS. The absence of the word "readily" in paragraph (B) of this section reflects a Congressional awareness that vehicles without U.S.-certified counterparts may require more extensive modifications to bring them into compliance with some of the applicable FMVSS than vehicles that have substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts. We judge "capability" on a factual case-by-case basis; i.e., we consider the FMVSS at issue and the arguments made by the petitioner and any comments on the petition.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:591
d.4/4/03

ID: milazzo1.ztv

Mr. Bryan Milazzo
100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

This is in reply to your e-mails of January 20 and 27, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your second e-mail withdraws the request for confidentiality that you made in your first communication. Your letter seeks clarification of the status of Ameritech of Ridgefield, CT.

Your first question is based upon an article you read in the December 1997 issue of Road and Track magazine which purportedly listed Ameritech as a manufacturer of certain McLaren F1 vehicles. You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of this vehicle," as defined under NHTSA regulations.

Under our basic vehicle safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, "manufacturer" is defined as "a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). At the time of the December 1997 article, Ameritech had imported several McLaren F-1 vehicles for resale. (We have been advised that these vehicles had been completely assembled in Europe, but not certified for sale in the United States.) Therefore, McLaren was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(A) and Ameritech was the "manufacturer" of these vehicles within the meaning of section 30102(a)(5)(B).

You ask whether Ameritech is "a manufacturer of any other automobiles or vehicles listed with NHTSA." We have no information that Ameritech has assembled any other vehicles, but we believe that it has imported other vehicles for resale.

Your next question is whether Ameritech maintains "any facilities for testing their vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards." We have never asked Ameritech, and it has never informed us, whether it maintains "any facilities for testing [its] vehicles for NHTSA and DOT FMVSS standards."

Your fourth question is whether we can supply "any applications of other information specifying that Ameritech meets the definition of manufacturer as referred to under any section of CFR 49."

Enclosed is a copy of a statement that Ameritech filed with us in 1996 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

You next ask whether "Ameritech McLaren F1 vehicles carry an Ameritech vehicle identification number (VIN) or a McLaren VIN." Enclosed is a VIN "Decipher Information" statement that Ameritech filed, indicating that those vehicles it imported import for resale would carry Ameritech VINs. We do not know whether any of the vehicles also carried McLaren VINs.

You express an opinion that "any company or individual would qualify as a manufacturer for the sake of importing a motor vehicle," and ask "what is preventing me from calling myself a manufacturer and importing any number of cars not meeting FMVSS. Please explain how Ameritech qualifies under NHTSA/DOT and I would not."

You may import "any number of cars not meeting FMVSS" provided you are a registered importer (see 49 CFR Part 592) and we have deemed the cars capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 593). As a registered importer importing vehicles for resale, you would be a statutory manufacturer of these vehicles, as discussed above. Your principal obligation would be to certify to us that you had modified the vehicles to comply with the FMVSS, and to attach a certification label to the vehicles.

We recognize that Ameritech did not follow this procedure. Although it certified compliance of the McLaren vehicles after modifying them, it was not a registered importer, and the vehicles had not been found to be capable of being modified to comply with the FMVSSs. We did not know in advance that Ameritech was acting in this way. When we did become aware of Ameritech's actions, we informed Ameritech that it was unacceptable, and Ameritech ceased such importations.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571
d.2/22/00

ID: Miller_tri-cycle 6102

Mr. Marshall V. Miller
Miller & Company P.C.
4929 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64112

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to a letter you sent to Mr. John Lewis of this agency, in which you asked if a three-wheeled, electric work cycle ("work cycle") your client is seeking to import would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, our answer is no.

Title 49 U.S. Code 30112 prohibits the importation of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is not certified to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

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

In previous interpretations we did not consider vehicles designed and sold solely for non-public road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) as motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. [1]

When a vehicle has on-road capabilities, the agency looks at five factors to determine if it a vehicle is a "motor vehicle." [2]These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use;
2. Whether the vehicles manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use;
3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles;
4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is intended for use on the public roads; and
5. Whether States or Foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Taken as a whole, we have concluded that the work cycle is not a motor vehicle. Our conclusion is based on the following analysis of the five factors provided above.

As to the first factor, the vehicle will not be advertised for use on-road. Your clients business is primarily based on the manufacture and sale of work tractors used in industrialized settings. You stated that the work cycle would be solely advertised for use in similar off-road industrial settings.

Second, the work cycles U.S. dealer will not be assisting purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You explained that your client would be the sole dealer of the work cycle and that the company would not provide any certificate of origin or title documents sufficient to register the work cycles in any State.

Third, your client, the sole dealer of the work cycle, does not manufacture or sell any motor vehicles for on-road use.

Fourth, you stated that your client would place a warning label on each work cycle, in a prominent place, stating that the work cycles are not intended for use on public roads.

Fifth, while you did not state if the work cycle is permitted on public roads in China, you did state that to the best of your knowledge, no State has permitted the work cycle to be registered for on-road use. Further, you stated that because the work cycle does not have a VIN number, it is unlikely that any State would allow a work cycle to be registered for on-road use.

While we have concluded at this time that the work cycle is not a motor vehicle, we may re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the work cycles were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis.

You may wish to consult the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to determine which, if any, OSHA regulations may apply to the work cycle.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:591
d.10/7/03





---

[1] See, Letter to Mr. Lane Francis, April 23, 2003 (A grain-vacuum manufactured primarily for use at agricultural sites is not a "motor vehicle."), and Letter to Mr. John L. Oberdorfer and Mr. Eric A. Kuwana, October 1, 1997 (a lift truck designed and manufactured to lift heavy loads on rough terrain and at industrial and construction locations is not a "motor vehicle.") [Enclosed]

[2] See, Letter to Mr. M. James Lester, June 26, 2001.[Enclosed]

ID: Mills.1

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Designs Limited
Normandy Way, Hinckley
Leicestershire LE10 3BZ
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Mills:

This responds to your March 22, 2005, letter in which you requested clarification regarding the proper method for measuring the required edge-to-edge separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether the minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is measured: (1) "In a 2-dimensional plane, viewed directly from the front of the motorcycle, that would only take account of the visible, vertical edge-to-edge distance between the two lamps" or (2) "In a tangential plane that would take account of the upward/downward or forward/rearward separation distance". As discussed below, our interpretation differs from the two you suggest. We interpret Standard No. 108s requirement for the separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp as being the shortest distance between the edges of each lamps effective light-emitting surface as projected onto a two-dimensional vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle (i.e. , the view that would be perceived by oncoming drivers). This projection is defined within FMVSS No. 108 as the "effective projected luminous lens area".

By way of background, Table IV, Location of Required Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires motorcycle front turn signal lamps to have a minimum edge-to-edge separation distance of four inches between these lamps and the headlamp. Our interpretation that the distance is measured with a two-dimensional frame of reference is consistent with both the purpose of the standards separation requirement and at least one prior interpretation.

Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance between headlamps and turn signal lamps to minimize the possibility that an observer will not see the turn signal. A motorist approaching the motorcycle in oncoming traffic will perceive the required four-inch edge-to-edge separation distance in a two-dimensional plane. If measurement along a tangential plane were substituted, as in the second method identified in your letter, the perceived separation distance in this scenario may be reduced to less than four inches, as seen by the driver, and a situation could arise in which the conspicuity of the turn signal is masked by the headlamp beam. If the oncoming driver does not perceive the important information provided by the turn signal, traffic safety could be compromised.

The minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is the shortest distance between the edges of the effective projected luminous lens areas of the two lamps. "Effective projected luminous lens area" is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 108 as "the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference". In this case, the defined direction is the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle.

This same reasoning and result were applied in our interpretation letter of April 23, 1986 to a party whose identity was kept confidential (see enclosure). That letter dealt with the plane of reference for measuring the separation distance between a motorcycles rear turn signals and stop/tail lamp and the view provided to traffic approaching from the rear. However, the principles and reasoning are otherwise identical to the forward-facing situation.

We would also point out an important additional requirement for motorcycle turn signal lamp placement contained in Table IV. That requirement is that the turn signal lamps must not be closer than 16 inches, as measured from their centers.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d/5/3/05

ID: mills.ztv

Mr. Robert G. Mills
Supervisor, Homologation and Publications
Triumph Motorcycles, Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your fax of August 22, 2003, with reference to paragraph S7.9.6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You described a single motorcycle headlamp "with two separate illuminating compartments, one of which contains the lower beam and the other the upper beam." The projectors providing each beam would be mounted at the same height and symmetrically disposed around the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. When only the lower beam is activated, the lighting array would be asymmetric; however, the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is activated, resulting in a symmetric lighting display. You are aware of our 1994 and 1995 interpretations to Jeffrey Shetler of Kawasaki which, in your view, "clearly indicate that an asymmetric lower beam coming from a single headlamp is not considered to comply with the standard." You have asked us to reconsider these interpretations in view of the fact that paragraph S7.9.6.2(c) permits asymmetrical lighting in a two-headlamp motorcycle headlighting system when an upper beam headlamp and a lower beam headlamp are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline.

Our previous letters to Mr. Shetler were based upon Table IV of Standard No. 108 as in effect in 1994 and 1995. Table IV stated that a motorcycle headlamp must be located "On the front, on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The headlamp described by Mr. Shetler would be mounted on the vertical centerline, but, as we informed him, "the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated." We did not consider this a configuration that met Table IV.

However, since the time of those earlier interpretation letters, relevant changes have been made to FMVSS No. 108. Today, as a result of a 1998 final rule (63 FR 42582, August 10, 1998) that specifically allows asymmetrical headlamp beams on motorcycles, a single-headlamp beam configuration as you have described would comply with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a). Furthermore, in this case, we note that all compartments that are wired to illuminate in the upper beam mode must be illuminated when determining compliance with the upper beam photometry requirements.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Mr. Eric Stas of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/26/03