ID: 17028.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Starr:

This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1998, asking for an interpretation that "three devices are not motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for purposes of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

You have described these devices as follows:

"Device 1: ZAP Power System

The Zap power system is a kit that is sold to electrify a bicycle or tricycle. It is sold by ZAP alone and is not part of a transaction involving the sale of a bicycle or tricycle."

We have previously advised you that a bicycle with a power assist is a motor vehicle if the vehicle is capable of traveling without the input of muscular power. On the other hand, if a bicycle with power assist cannot travel without the input of muscular power, it will not be considered a motor vehicle.

The statute that defines "motor vehicle equipment" is 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(7). This definition includes "(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured." If combining the ZAP power system and a bicycle creates a motor vehicle under our previous interpretations, then the ZAP power assist would appear to be "motor vehicle equipment" under the statutory definition. Moreover, in that case, the individual or entity that made the combination would be considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and would be required to assure that the vehicle complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at that time, and issue a certification that the vehicle so complied. On the other hand, the ZAP power system would not be motor vehicle equipment if the bicycle cannot travel without the input of muscular power despite the presence of the power assist.

"Device 2: ZAP Bicycle

Bicycles manufactured by ZAP are similar to the bicycles manufactured by the Electric Transportation Company (ETC). These bicycles are bicycles with a power assist and must be pedaled to activate the motor and therefore the pedal assist system will not operate on its own in the absence of muscular effort."

Your letter is not clear as to whether the power assist system is sufficient to power the bicycle without any further input of muscular power once muscular power has started the power assist system. As we have advised, if the pedal assist system will not operate on its own in the absence of muscular effort (after it may have been started by muscular power), the bicycle on which it is installed will not be deemed to be a "motor vehicle" subject to the regulations of this agency. On the basis of the information you have provided, the ZAP Bicycle would not appear to be a "motor vehicle" since it cannot be driven exclusively by mechanical power.

"Device 3: Zappy

The Zappy is an electric powered device that is similar to the TWIP scooter in which it has a maximum speed of 14 mph, has an abnormal configuration, that is, it has no seat, and folds down flat to make it portable."

We agree that the Zappy appears similar to the TWIP, which was described as having a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour, and a driver's seat that folded down apparently to make the scooter more portable. On October 5, 1993, we advised the prospective importer of the TWIP, Bernhard Peer, that the TWIP met the criteria we use to exclude certain vehicles from regulation, For similar reasons, we do not consider the Zappy to be a "motor vehicle."

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:VSA
d.5/22/98

ID: 1703y

Ms. Theresa Rooney
Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.
l00 North Centre Avenue
Rockville Centre, NY ll570

Dear Ms. Rooney:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that it is your understanding that any car sound system which is factory installed must have light intensities that have two values, a higher one for day and a lower one for night; that these two light intensities do not have to be variable; and that any color may be used to illuminate the system. You asked for confirmation of this understanding. As discussed below, Standard No. l0l's requirements in this area are somewhat more flexible than suggested by your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The requirements of Standard No. l0l that are relevant to car sound systems are set forth in section S5.3.5. That section states:

S5.3.5 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. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

With respect to car sound systems, section S5.3.5's requirements can be summarized as follows. First, the requirements generally apply to any car sound system that is installed in a motor vehicle before its first sale to a consumer and that includes a source of illumination which is forward of the driver. Second, the section requires that any such source of illumination 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. No color requirements are specified for the source of illumination of a car sound system.

I would note that, at the option of the manufacturer, motor vehicles manufactured before September l, l989, may comply with the requirements of Standard No. l00 instead of the requirements of Standard No. l0l. This provision is of relevance for some, but not all, car sound systems, and only for vehicles manufactured before September l, l989. If you desire further information about this provision, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:101 d:3/7/89

ID: 17040.ztv

Mr. Pat Riebalkin
Production Manager
Gorlan Trailer Fairing Inc.
112-A
12827 76th Avenue
Surrey, B.C. V3W 2V3
Canada

Dear Mr. Riebalkin:

This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1997, to this Office requesting "an official letter identifying the national regulations regarding conspicuity marking or lighting for our aerodynamic freight trailer fairing." Your company markets and sells fairings to trailer dealerships, who in turn, install them at their facilities, using their employees. The fairing is suspended one inch below the bottom of the trailer bed. You report that when the fairing is in place, it does not cover conspicuity marking or marker lamps. However, when the fairing is raised, it obscures the marker lamps and some conspicuity tape.

You have asked four specific questions:

"1. Do we need to add lights or conspicuity tape to our fairing?"

The answer is no. Under the applicable law that this agency enforces, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, Gorlan would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, but Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not apply to equipment such as trailer fairings. If the dealer attaches the fairing to the trailer before its first sale, the dealer must ensure that the trailer continues to comply with Standard No. 108 before he sells the trailer. If the dealer installs the fairing on a trailer in use, it must ensure that its modifications do not make inoperative the trailer's original lighting equipment when the installation is completed. In essence, this means that the vehicle must remain in compliance when the installation is completed. Compliance is judged with a motor vehicle in its normal operating configuration (e.g., doors and decklid closed). When the fairing is in its intended operating configuration, you have indicated that the trailer continues to conform to Standard No. 108. Therefore, no additional lamps or tapes appear required for conformance purposes.

Even if a trailer did not conform when the fairing is in use, the responsibility for bringing it into, or retaining, conformity with Standard No. 108 would lie with the trailer dealer who installs the fairing, and not with the fairing manufacturer.

"2. Can we add reflectors for aesthetics?"

A trailer dealer may sell a trailer equipped with a fairing carrying "reflectors for aesthetics" if the reflectors do not impair the effectiveness of equipment required by Standard No. 108. In addition to the red and white segments of conspicuity tape, Standard No. 108 requires amber side marker lamps and reflectors to the front (and in the center if the trailer is 30 feet or more in overall length) and red side marker lamps and reflectors to the rear. We believe that effectiveness of side lighting devices is best preserved if the reflectors which Gorlan is contemplating installing are amber from the trailer midpoint forward, and red to the rear of the midpoint. This will prevent confusion to observers approaching the trailer from the side.

As noted earlier, a dealer may not install a fairing on a trailer in use if it makes inoperative the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because of the possibility of confusion (making the required reflectors and lamps "inoperative"), we believe that Gorlan's fairing reflectors should be amber from the midpoint forward, and red to the rear of the midpoint.

"3. Because this fairing will hang one inch below the trailer floor beams, will we need to replace any side marker lights that get removed? Should the light be then placed onto the trailer or the fairing? If an arrow lamp is removed can it be replaced with a DOT approved reflex side marker lamp?"

Yes, the trailer dealer will have to replace any side marker lamps that are removed in the course of installing the fairing, and the lamp should be installed on the trailer. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that any side marker lamp or reflector required by the standard must "be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle . . . that is not designed to be removed except for repair. . . ." The fairing is an accessory, added to the completed trailer and presumably as easily removed as added. We therefore do not consider the fairing to be a part of the vehicle not designed to be removed except for repair.

We are not sure what an "arrow lamp" is, but if it is a lamp required by Standard No. 108, it may be replaced in the same location and orientation by one performing the same function that bears a DOT certification mark on it (which does not signify "DOT approval" but is a mark of the manufacturer certifying that the lamp meets Standard No. 108's performance requirements).

"4. How do the Federal Motor Carrier Standards govern in respect to this type of product?"

The Motor Carrier Standards of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) apply to trailers in commercial use in interstate commerce. One intent of FHWA's standards is to ensure that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards continue to be met when a vehicle subject to its jurisdiction is in use. Therefore, the FHWA would also permit the fairing under the same performance conditions as we do: although the fairing may obscure lamps and conspicuity marking when a trailer is not being operated, when the trailer is in use, it must continue to show the conspicuity tape and marker lamps and reflectors, and in the same locations, as required by the NHTSA standards.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/8/98

ID: 17056niv.df

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109

Dear Mr. Raher:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Sachs Automotive of America (Sachs), concerning how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with Sachs's "Nivomat" vehicle leveling system to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain that Sachs's Nivomat leveling system is-

a compact, fully enclosed suspension unit that takes the place of a conventional shock absorber and assures a level ride to manufacturer specifications, even when the vehicle is fully loaded. . . . [T]he Nivomat senses the vehicle's load condition and levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specification shortly after the vehicle is loaded and driven for a short distance (at most, 3 miles). . . .

The Nivomat is activated by relative motion between the vehicle's body and axle. Thus, as you state, the vehicle has to be driven (or otherwise bounced to achieve the relative motion between body and axle) to activate the Nivomat, to level the vehicle and to maintain the level height. The Nivomat is designed to maintain the manufacturer's ride height specification for the duration of the trip. When the vehicle is stationary for 4 hours, it will begin to lose its leveled condition. The Nivomat would be activated again when the vehicle is driven for a distance not exceeding 3 miles.

With regard to Standard 214 compliance testing, you believe that NHTSA should test vehicles equipped with Nivomat at "optimal vehicle attitude," i.e., with the Nivomat activated. You state that while testing at optimal vehicle attitude may not be required by the standard, you believe that NHTSA should test at this attitude because that "would ensure that the test vehicle is most reflective of real world situations in conformance with established NHTSA policy."

In asking about Standard 214, you note that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation which you believe supports your position that vehicles should be tested at the optimal vehicle attitude. In an October 2, 1990, letter to Mr. Kadoya of Mazda, NHTSA discussed the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard does not specify a particular test condition. The letter addressed Mazda's questions about how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with an active suspension system that adjusts vehicles to variable heights.⁽¹⁾ At issue were standards that do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance tests. NHTSA stated on page two of the letter:

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of a specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

You believe that the purpose of Standard 214 is to protect occupants during side impact collisions, which occur during operation of the vehicle. You also believe that during vehicle operation, the Nivomat system levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specified optimal operational height. You therefore conclude that vehicle equipped with the Nivomat should be tested with the Nivomat activated to reflect real world situations. You ask (1) whether NHTSA agrees with this position, and (2) for the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of Standard 214, whether your suggested means of maintaining the optimal vehicle attitude would be satisfactory to NHTSA.

Standard 214 specifies requirements for protection of occupants in side impact crashes. The standard requires each vehicle to protect its occupants in a full scale dynamic crash test. Even though the test vehicle is at rest, the test procedure simulates a crash of a vehicle which is traveling at 30 miles per hour (mph) into the side of the test vehicle traveling at 15 mph. There also is a static test that requires doors to resist a piston pressing a rigid steel cylinder inward against the door. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions for these tests, it does not specify vehicle operational height.⁽²⁾

The Mazda letter addressed frontal, side and other impacts, to the extent these are incorporated into Standards 204, 208, 212, 219 and 301. NHTSA concluded that the frontal test requirements of these standards need to be met only at the suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test (generally speeds up to 30 mph), even though the requirements have relevance at higher and lower speeds. The letter also determined that Standard 208's lateral moving barrier crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational, i.e., at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. This is because Standard 208 specifies that the lateral moving barrier test is conducted with the vehicle at rest. Thus, the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance is not limited to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds (e.g., speeds up to 30 mph). For basically the same reason, NHTSA also concluded that Standard 301's side and rear moving barrier crash tests would have to be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.

With respect to your inquiry and Standard 214, applying the language of the standard and the principles and conclusions of the Mazda letter leads us to conclude that crash testing of vehicles equipped with the Nivomat would be performed with the vehicle at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle traveling at a 15 mph vehicle speed. In issuing the dynamic side impact requirements of Standard 214, the agency decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in side impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts between a vehicle traveling 15 mph (the test vehicle) and a striking vehicle traveling 30 mph. A vehicle equipped with the Nivomat could attain a speed of 15 mph before traveling the distance that is needed to activate the Nivomat, and could become involved in a side impact crash before activation of the Nivomat. Thus, while we agree that a vehicle could be tested to Standard 214 with the Nivomat activated, we also conclude that NHTSA should not exclude testing of the vehicle without activating the Nivomat. Testing a vehicle both prior to and after activation best ensures that the vehicle would provide the requisite level of safety protection at all ride heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.⁽³⁾ Thus, manufacturers must assure that the vehicle complies with the standard under both conditions; i.e., when the Nivomat is activated and when it is not.

Your second question relates to testing a vehicle with the Nivomat system in the activated mode.⁽⁴⁾ You suggest a means that NHTSA could take "to ensure that the Nivomat system's leveling action is taken into account during compliance testing."

You state on pp. 2-3 of your letter:

Specifically, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude as follows. Pursuant to FMVSS 214, S6.2, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude in the "as delivered" condition precisely as set forth in the standard. When measuring the test vehicle in the "fully loaded" condition, the test facility would add the appropriate ballast, and then bounce the vehicle up and down on both the front and back ends of the vehicle for several minutes. This bouncing will simulate the action of driving the vehicle on the road and activate the Nivomat system. Once bouncing is completed on both sides, the test facility would immediately measure the test vehicle's attitude. Once these test vehicle attitude parameters are obtained, the test facility may make appropriate adjustments prior to conducting the actual test.

For the dynamic test, FMVSS 214 requires the test vehicle attitude to be at or between the measurements mentioned above. If, due to time delays, the test vehicle is not at the appropriate attitude, the test facility is able to use standard, available means to adjust the test vehicle attitude. For example, the test facility may use after-market spacers placed between coils in the suspension springs as a means to easily maintain the measured attitude.

We understand you to be asking how a test vehicle can be adjusted (raised) to reflect the condition of the vehicle with the Nivomat in the activated mode. NHTSA typically does not specify in an interpretation a particular means for testing a vehicle when that means is not set forth in the standard. We stated in the Mazda letter, however, that the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that it should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained as it would happen in the real world. NHTSA also stated, "For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicle's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested." We believe that the use of spacers could be a suitable way of maintaining the height of a vehicle to replicate an activated Nivomat system. Bouncing the vehicle to activate the Nivomat (and to measure the fully loaded condition) could be acceptable, if the bouncing action would not affect the vehicle being tested or the test devices (e.g., the side impact dummies) that were installed in the vehicle for the dynamic test. NHTSA may or may not use these suggested means in its compliance testing. The suitability of these means would have to be determined in the context of an actual compliance test, for the particular vehicle being tested.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/24/98
ref:214

1. Mazda's vehicle had an active suspension system that was operational only when the vehicle's engine was operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of approximately 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered a certain amount from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the vehicle were not used for several days, the height may be lowered from the nominal or design position even more than the height attained at 35 mph. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine.

2. As you indicate in your letter, the standard does specify that the vehicle attitude during the test must be at or between the "as delivered" and the "fully loaded" attitude (S6.2). Attitude is the vehicle position as measured from the ground to a reference point above each of the four wheels. Thus, attitude is a measure of vehicle position with respect to the ground and is a combination of both height and angle.

3. Further, it is unclear whether the Nivomat would be activated if the driver were alone in the vehicle.

4. Please note that, as stated in the previous paragraph, we could test a Nivomat-equipped vehicle with the Nivomat not activated, as well as with it activated.

ID: 17168.wkm

Mr. Roy Hinz
Marketing Resources
Tire Pressure Control International, Ltd.
15803-121 A Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5V 1B1

Dear Mr. Hinz:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked for "U.S. federal approval" of your REDLINE-ELTEK Tire Pressure Control (TPC) System. Please be advised that this agency cannot give Federal approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, as explained below.

You stated that TPC International, a Canada-based company, manufactures and distributes the TPC system in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. You now want to enter the U.S. market. You stated that your TPC system integrates with the vehicle's existing compressed air supply system. It has five component assemblies: a computer in the cab that lets the driver change pressures and warns of any problems; air priority valves that protect the air brake system; control air valves; air lines to and from the control valves; and axle-end rotary hardware that transmits air into and out of the tires even while the tires are rotating. If the driver wants to open the inflate control valve, air is provided from the wet tank into the TPC system. Air can be exhausted from the tires through the deflate valves. Priority switches ensure that air is available for tire inflation only when air brake pressure in the system is above a safe level, typically 90 psi. A computer continuously monitors tire pressure, thus inflating, deflating, or maintaining a pre-selected tire pressure. The system monitors vehicle speed and if the vehicle is going too fast and risking tire damage, the system warns the driver to slow down or choose another mode. If the driver ignores the warnings, the system is programmed to automatically select a mode more suitable for higher speeds. You indicated an intent to make your system available both as original equipment on new vehicles and as aftermarket add-ons, and asked how individual states within the U.S. would view our Federal recommendations.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency enforces the FMVSSs after the fact by purchasing vehicles and equipment at retail and testing them for compliance with the standards. If the vehicles or equipment pass, no further action is taken. If they do not pass, or if the manufacturer or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines that a noncompliance or defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem at no expense to the customer. This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your TPC system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle. If the TPC system is marketed in the U.S. as an aftermarket item, the notification and remedy responsibilities would be borne by the TPC system manufacturer, which is defined to include the importer of equipment produced outside the United States. Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to substantial civil penalties.

Because of the self-certification system established by the Safety Act, this agency cannot approve, disapprove, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of your TPC system prior to its introduction into the U.S. retail market. If your TPC system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs with the device installed. If the TPC system is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person or business is prohibited from making inoperative any device or element of design that was originally installed on or in the vehicle pursuant to any FMVSS.

We do not have an FMVSS applicable to a system such as the TPC system. However, FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121) (copy enclosed) specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles that are equipped with air brake systems. That standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply to operate other items of equipment, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the brake standard.

The hoses connected to the TPC system could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses (49 CFR 571.106) (copy enclosed). Such hoses would be subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, or stated another way, if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this were the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used so that the braking system is not affected by a leakage failure in your TPC system, then the hose would not be considered to contain or transmit brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 106.

With respect to your question about how the various states would view Federal recommendations, the Safety Act provides that states and political subdivisions thereof may specify a motor vehicle safety standard only if that standard is identical to the Federal standard. In other words, the FMVSSs preempt any state motor vehicle safety requirements that address the same aspects of motor vehicle performance, except that the U.S. and state governments may require a higher standard of performance on vehicles or equipment procured for their own use, such as school buses.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, should you market your TPC system in the U.S., you would be required by 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed) to submit to NHTSA your name, address, and a brief description of the item or items of equipment that you manufacture. This requirement applies to the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment (any vehicle or item of equipment, except tires, to which an FMVSS applies) supplying its products to a domestic or foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the U.S. (See enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. Virve Airola, dated May 31, 1990).

Finally, if you market your TPC system in the U.S., you would be required by 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D (copy enclosed) to designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as your resident agent for the service of legal process. Such agent can be a person, a firm, or a domestic corporation. Subsection 551.45(b) specifies the form and contents of the designation. However, you would not be required to designate a resident agent if you only supplied your TPC system to a foreign vehicle manufacturer, even if that foreign manufacturer installed your TPC system in vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S.

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

We are forwarding your letter with its enclosed product overview to the U. S. Federal Highway Administration for its review. That agency issues the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations which establish safety standards applicable to vehicles-in-use in interstate commerce.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref:106#121
d.4/29/98

ID: 17170.volvo

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your January 30, 1998, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) following up on an earlier interpretation to you concerning Volvo's manufacture of a rear-facing toddler restraint. The restraint would be used rear-facing only, and recommended for children weighing between 20 and 40 pounds (lb.). I regret the delay in responding.

Your earlier letter asked about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a rear-facing restraint that would be recommended only for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. You did not describe the restraint in detail. Your present letter provides the following description:

[T]he Volvo CRS [child restraint system] is secured by a Type I seat belt assembly (as defined by in FMVSS 209). Additionally, the Volvo CRS is secured by a bar which is attached to the back of the Volvo CRS, the other end of the bar resting against the vehicle (certification platform) floor. This same configuration and installation procedure would be used in a vehicle during normal, i.e., "everyday," use.

You specifically ask about the "installation" requirement in S5.3.2 of the standard, as it would apply to your restraint. S5.3.2 states, in pertinent part:

When installed on a vehicle seat, each add-on child restraint system . . .shall be capable of being restrained against forward movement solely by means of a Type I seat belt assembly (defined in 571.209) that meets Standard No. 208 (571.208), or by means of a Type I seat belt assembly plus one additional anchorage strap that is supplied with the system and conforms to S5.4. . . .

You ask for confirmation that the term "additional anchorage strap" would include the bar you would use in your system. We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it. We interpret a "strap" to consist of flexible material. S5.3.2 specifies that a strap may be provided so long as the strap conforms to S5.4. Because S5.4 sets forth requirements for belts, belt buckles and belt webbing, it is clear that any "strap" provided must be of belt webbing. Further, S5.3.2 is meant to support the standardization of the means of attaching child restraints to increase the likelihood that child seats are properly installed.  The reference to the "additional anchorage strap" made allowances for the provision of a top tether anchorage strap, which was at one time provided on most, if not all, forward-facing child restraints. The bar you ask about would be unique to your system and inconsistent with the standardized method of attaching a child restraint.

It should be noted that determining conformance with S5.3.2 is made when the child restraint seat is "on a vehicle seat." Due in part to the quoted language, the agency will assess the performance of the child seat using just the vehicle seat and not the floor. Also, under S6.1.2 of Standard 213, your type of child restraint system must meet performance requirements when "secured to the standard vehicle seat using only the standard vehicle lap belt." The quoted phrase means that NHTSA will not use a means supplemental to the lap belt, such as a bar, of securing a child seat to the vehicle seat in the agency's compliance test. The lap belt alone is used because the agency found that a very high percentage of parents did not use the supplemental tether strap to secure their child seats even when they knew the strap was needed to provide their child protection. Your bar would be supplemental to the lap belt attachment, similar to a tether on a child seat. Similar to a tether, there is a strong likelihood that the bar would be misused with the seat. Accordingly, for the same reasons that a tether is not used in the compliance test, the bar could also not be used in the compliance test.

I hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:213
d.7/6/98

ID: 17173.wkm

Mr. Jimmie D. Gowen, Jr.
President/General Manager
Big John Trailers
Route 3, Box 950
Folkston, GA 31537

Dear Mr. Gowen:

This responds to your letter of January 26, 1998, as supplemented by your letter of March 12, 1998, in which you asked whether your knuckle boom loader trailers and your self-propelled loader carriers are subject to the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You explained that the two vehicles in question are primarily utilized at logging sites, but are capable of being towed to different job sites from time to time by use of highway tractors. Based on the information you provided, the answer is no, as discussed below.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, through this agency, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" 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.

49 U.S. Code 30102(6)).

In your March letter you referred to and enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to Mr. John N. Swearingen of Viking Trailers dated September 3, 1997. In that letter we determined that a knuckle boom loader trailer similar to yours is not a motor vehicle. We made that determination based on the intended use of the vehicle. Similarly, it is our opinion that your knuckle boom loader trailer and your self-propelled loader carrier are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition quoted above. They are utilized primarily off-road in logging operations but are occasionally transported over the public roadways from one job site to another at which they typically spend extended periods of time. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. This is in contrast to instances in which vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the public roadways going to and from job sites, but stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-highway use is more than "incidental."

In summary, it is our opinion that your knuckle boom loader trailers and your self-propelled loader carriers are not motor vehicles, and therefore are not subject to the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121. However, if we were to receive information that your trailers were used on the roads more than on an incidental basis, then we would have to reassess this opinion. If we determined that your trailers are motor vehicles after all, then your newly-manufactured trailers and carriers would be required to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:121#VSA
d.4/23/98

ID: 17174.wkm

Mr. Celso G. Longhi
Mr. Alfredo C. Filho
Product Development
SABO
Rua Gino Cesaro 210
Sao Paulo, S.P., Brazil 05038

Dear Messrs. Longhi and Filho:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter faxed to Mr. Marvin Shaw, formerly of this office. You state that you are developing a vacuum hose for Ford and that you were advised that you must identify the hose with "DOT" in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses (copy enclosed). You also state that you understand that this symbol identifies your company. You ask us to let you know what is necessary in order to mark your product.

For your general information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under U. S. law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The law establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of that product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer). Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation.

Standard No. 106, to which you alluded in your letter, specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. With respect to vacuum hoses, please refer to subsection S9, Requirements - vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings beginning on page 216. Subparagraph S9.1.1(a) requires hoses to be marked with the symbol "DOT" to represent the manufacturer's certification that the hoses comply with all applicable FMVSSs. A separate marking identifying the manufacturer is required by S9.1.1(b). The manufacturer's marking may consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a symbol, and must be filed in writing with the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed), if Ford sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" - in this case, brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted that regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. Virve Airola, dated May 31, 1990; and enclosed Brake Hose Application).

Please note also that under 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D (copy enclosed), SABO must designate an agent if SABO decides to offer its equipment for importation into the U.S.

Also enclosed for your information are 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 an questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:106
d.5/1/98

ID: 17175.drn

Mr. Vincent P. Schulze, Chief
Commercial Bus Inspection and Investigation
Motor Vehicle Services
New Jersey Department of Transportation
CN 160
Trenton, NJ 08666
Ref: MC#26-98

Dear Mr. Schulze:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, bus⁽¹⁾ emergency exit windows may be designated with international symbols and have operating instructions labeled with international symbols instead of English instructions. You state that a bus manufacturer, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), "presented four buses in New Jersey for inspection using international symbols in lieu of English language on the emergency exit window." You provide no description or other information about the "international symbols."

Standard 217 includes S5.5, Emergency exit identification, which specifies in S5.5.1 that each emergency exit door shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," and every other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit," followed by "concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 16 centimeters of the release mechanism." Examples of operating instructions are provided in S5.5.1, as follows: (1) Lift to Unlatch, Push to Open; and (2) Lift Handle and Push out to Open.

With regard to designating the exits, S5.5.1 is explicit with regard to how emergency exit doors or other types of emergency exits must be designated. "[E]ach emergency exit door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit,' and every other emergency exit shall have the designation 'Emergency Exit'. . . ." Use of the quotations in S5.5.1 indicates that the exact words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" are what are required to designate these emergency exits. We are unable to conclude by interpretation alone that a symbol is commensurate with the quoted language. Thus, a symbol cannot be provided in lieu of the words.

With regard to the operating instructions, S5.5 does not set forth explicit language that must be used to provide the required operating instructions (unlike the provision relating to the designation of an exit), nor does it otherwise expressly prohibit the use of symbols to provide the required information. However, the section requires that "concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit" must be provided. Since we do not know what the international symbols look like, we are unable to provide an opinion at this time as to whether the symbols at issue are explicit enough to instruct a frightened passenger how to open the emergency exit. Our Safety Assurance office will be contacting your office to obtain further information to help the agency decide whether to commence an enforcement proceeding regarding a possible noncompliance with Standard 217.

If you have any questions, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/22/98

1. For purposes of your inquiry, I will assume that you ask about buses other than school buses, and thus the sections in Standard 217 that apply to non-school buses are the relevant requirements.

ID: 17176.ztv

Ms. Erika Polltzer
Director of Marketing
Resort Vehicles International Ltd.
83-85 Queen's Gate
London SW7 5JX
England

Dear Ms. Polltzer:

This replies to your fax of January 16, 1998, with respect to three-wheeled electric vehicles.

You have asked for information on the safety standards required for three-wheeled vehicles. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, establishes manufacturing standards for motor vehicles. These are known as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and must be met by all vehicles that are imported and sold in the United States. All vehicles with two and three wheels are defined as "motorcycles" for purposes of the Federal safety standards. If a vehicle with two or three wheels develops five horsepower or less, as mopeds do, it may also be known as a "motor driven cycle" for compliance with certain aspects of the "motorcycle" safety standards.

I enclose an information package, "Requirements for Motorcycle Manufacturers" that lists the Federal safety standards that apply to "motorcycles" and tells you how you may obtain copies.

The individual states in the United States, such as Florida, may prescribe state safety standards that are identical to the Federal standards, and additional state standards for aspects of performance not covered by the Federal safety standards, such as horns. We do not require seat belts for three-wheeled vehicles.

There are no Federal requirements on how a vehicle is to be used. Use of a vehicle is a matter of state law. Thus, a state has the authority to require that its operator and passengers wear helmets. We regret that we are unable to advise you on the laws of each of our states, such as Florida, California, and Arizona, and recommend that you write the Department of Motor Vehicles in each of these states for assistance.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98