ID: aiam4773

Dear Herr Westermann: This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett o this agency with respect to 'multi bulb devices', specifically 'how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . .' You have asked this question because 'Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb.' Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps. We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. Your question relates to 'signalling devices' for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for 'Multiple Compartment Lamp'. Such a lamp is 'a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens.' The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition. SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments. However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three 'lighted sections'. Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4759

"Dear Mr. Eanes: This is in response to your letter asking whether ver darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glazing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be 'rendering inoperative' the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car. Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards after such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CHMSL is obscured. The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware 'allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires.' While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the 'render inoperative' provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and operate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Delaware. Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle safety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4336

Dear Mr.: Thank your for your letter requesting an interpretation of how Standar No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, would apply to your proposed 'head-up display.' You described your head-up display as a system consisting of components located in the instrument panel and windshield that are capable of optically projecting instrument readings so that they appear forward of the lower part of the windshield. You stated that having the readings projected in this manner places them closer to the driver's line of sight and thus allows the driver to view the information more readily and clearly than if the driver had to look for the information on the instrument panel. As discussed below, the agency has conclude that the standard does not prohibit the use of your proposed display.; Before discussing the substantive question you asked, I want to addres your request that the agency not publicly release two types of information contained in your letter. First, you requested the agency to provide confidential treatment to the detailed description of the technology used in your head-up display. Second, you requested that the agency not disclose the name of your company. You explained in your letter requesting confidential treatment that while the device has been installed on a car displayed at a public automobile show, the technical details of the device are not a matter of public knowledge. You subsequently provided the agency with a copy of your letter in which the proprietary technical details have been deleted. Because the technical details of your proprietary device have not been publicly disclosed, we will treat the technical details as confidential. In addition, we will not disclose the name of your company. However, since all for the agency's interpretations are a matter of pubic record, we will place a copy of your letter, which has been purged of the confidential information and your company name, and our response in the agency's public interpretation file.; In the copy of your letter that has been purged of confidentia information, you explain that your head-up display uses a small membrane that is attached to the windshield to reflect certain information from the instrument panel. You explained that the area of the windshield on which the membrane is attached can meet all of the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205 set for glazing materials used in a windshield, except the requirement that the light transmittance through the glazing material be at least 70 percent. You further explained that the membrane is not opaque, but does have a light transmittance that is less than 70 percent.; Based on your analysis of the requirements of Standard No. 205 and th requirements of the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' (ANS Z26) incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205, you stated that the 70 percent transmittance requirement does not apply to all window areas. You noted that ANS Z26, a manufacturer can place a shade band on the upper edge of a windshield that has a light transmittance of less than 70 percent. You further noted that Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 do not define the boundaries of the shadeband or set a minimum light transmittance level for the glazing materials used in the shadeband. Futhermore, you pointed out that Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 do not specifically define what areas of the glazing are requisite for driving visibility.; In support of your position that the area of the windshield affected b your head-up display is not requisite for driving visibility, you noted that the membrane used in the display system covers a small area of the glazing that is located toward the lower left edge of the windshield. To demonstrate that the membrane is not within an area requisite for driving visibility, you examined the effect of the membrane's location on the ability of the car to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 103, *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging*, and 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing*. Standards No. 103 and 104 define three different areas on the windshield and require the wiping system and the defrosting/defogging system of a car to wipe or defrost/defog a prescribed minimum percentage of each of the three areas. Based on your evaluation of a windshield that has a head-up display membrane, you demonstrated that the area of the windshield covered by the membrane represent only a minimal portion of the three areas of the windshield that are required by those standards to be wiped or defrosted/defogged. You further demonstrated that a car could comply with the requirements of Standard Nos. 1-3 and 104 even though the membrane slightly projects into the areas regulated by those standards.; In further support of your position that the head-up display is no located in an area requisite for driving visibility, you provided a comparison of the effects of the head- up display versus the effects of a vehicle's hood design or unretracted head lamp on a driver's forward and downward visibility. In this comparison, you presented information that measure, from the driver's eyepoint, the locations and amount of the driver's forward visibility that would be obstructed by portions of the hood design and by an unretracted head lamp. You then compared the obstruction caused by those design features with the effects of the head-up display on the driver's visibility. The information you provided shows that a vehicle's hood design or an unretracted head lamp can extend as far up in the driver's field of view as the head-up display and provide more obstruction to a driver's forward visibility than the head- up display.; You are correct that while Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 apply a 7 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of the glazing that are 'requisite for driving visibility,' neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 specifically defines what areas of the glazing are requisite for driving visibility. In fact, as you pointed out in your letter ANS Z26 specifically defines what areas of the glazing are requisite for driving visibility. In fact, as you pointed out in your letter, ANS Z26 specifically provides, in a footnote to S4.2 of ANS Z26, an exception to the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The footnote explains that a manufacturer can provide an area on the glazing, such as a shade band, that has a light transmittance of less than 70 percent as long as the areas requisite for driving visibility have a light transmittance of 70 percent. In interpreting the requisite for driving visibility requirement, the agency has not specified a minimum area of the windshield that is requisite for driving visibility. Instead, the agency has said, such as in a letter of February 15, 1974, to Mr. George Nield, that in determining what areas are requisite for driving visibility, the agency will use an approach of determining those areas by reference to vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes.; (I believe it is important to note that the agency's decision, in th context of shade bands, not to adopt proposed specific size limits on areas of the windshield which could have less than 70 percent transmittance, was based on the conclusion that such a requirement was not necessary because of the voluntary practices of the industry. Thus, although the agency has not adopted a specific requirement, it has been relying on the good faith adherence of the industry to that voluntary practice on shade bands. The agency first proposed a limit on the size and light transmittance of shade bands in a notice published in November 1978(43 FR 51677). In commenting on the notice, several vehicle manufacturers said that such a requirement was not needed since the industry was voluntarily following a Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice (SAE J100, 'Passenger Car Glazing Shade Bands') that established boundaries for shade bands used on glazed surfaces in passenger cars. As NHTSA explained in a notice published in January 1981 (46 FR 40), the agency decided to defer further action on the proposed shade band limit until it gathered additional data on the adequacy of the voluntary industry practice.); After reviewing the information you have submitted, the agency ha concluded that the membrane used in your system is located in an area of the glazing that is not requisite for driving visibility. The agency reached this conclusion based on the specific fact of your particular design and the following considerations. The membrane used in your system is small in size, is located near the bottom edge of the glazing area and toward the corner of the glazing area, and although the membrane has a light transmittance that is less than 70 percent, it is not opaque.; In determining that your head-up display is not located in an are requisite for driving visibility, the agency also considered the effect of the display on a car's ability to meet the requirements of Standard Nos. 103 and 104. Although Standard Nos. 103 and 104 do not define the limits of what areas are requisite for driving visibility, the areas of the windshield covered by the performance requirement of those standards do indicate the agency's concern that, at a minimum, specified portions of those areas of the windshield be clear during inclement weather inclement weather to provide the driver with a view of the road. The information provided with your letter shows that a small portion of the head-up display in your vehicle partially falls within the defined areas, but the vehicle still meets the performance requirements of the standards.; Another factor in the agency's decision was the information in you letter showing a comparison of the effects of the membrane versus the effects of a vehicle's hood design or unretracted head lamp on a driver's forward visibility. The information you provided shows that a vehicle's hood design or an unretracted head lamp can intrude as far up into the driver's field of view as the head-up display and provide more obstruction to a driver's forward visibility than head-up display. This information is an additional indication that the head-up display is not located within an area that is requisite for driving visibility.; Although the agency has concluded that in your particular case you head-up display is not in an area requisite for driving visibility, the agency believes that with the advent of new glazing and other technologies using the windshield, such as the head-up display, it is appropriate to again re-examine the issue for whether to specify the size of the area of the windshield that are requisite for driving visibility. It is apparent that there will be a number of new technologies using the windshield. For example, the March 30, 1987 issue of *Automotive News* carried a news article announcing the development, by PPG Industries and Flight Dynamics, of a 6 inch square holographic display on the windshield.; NHTSA believes that the issues associated with these devices should b addressed in a comprehensive manner. In particular, the agency believes that it needs further information on such issues as whether the areas on the windshield used by these display devices need to have a lower light transmittance value and, if so, what that value should be, where on the windshield the devices can be located, and what limitations should be placed on their size. Addressing these issues in a comprehensive manner by setting general performance requirements applicable to all such devices, regardless of the technology used, will avoid the inconsistencies and possible design specific limitations that might arise if the agency attempts to provide case-by-case interpretations for each specific design. For all these reasons, NHTSA has concluded that it will address these issues through a comprehensive rulemaking action.; You raised one final issue in your letter. You asked that if the agenc concluded that your head-up display does not comply with Standard No. 205, it should regard the noncompliance as a technical one which does not warrant enforcement. Since the agency has concluded that your head-up display does not violate the requirements of Standard No. 205, it should regard the noncompliance as a technical one which does not warrant enforcement. Since the agency has concluded that your head-up display does not violate the requirements of Standard No. 205, the issue is moot.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carl R. Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales and Service P.T. Brake Lining Company, Inc. P.O. Box 329 Lawrence, Ma 01842

Dear Mr. Walker:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Richard Radlinski, concerning a statement by International Transquip alleging that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) "agree" that the Mini-Max brake system produced by that company complies with Federal standards. You noted that International Transquip has referenced a June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS.

NHTSA 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 vehicles or equipment complies with applicable safety standards. I would emphasize that NHTSA has not issued any statement that could be read as "agreement" that the Mini-Max brake complies with FMVSS No. 121.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Navistar which discusses NHTSA's position concerning the June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS. The letter also notes that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number of issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and two related interpretation letters, to International Transquip and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 24, 1985

Mr. Richard Radlinski Manager, Brake Research NHSTA P. O. BOX 37 East Liberty, OH 43319

Subject: Mini-Max Brake

Dear Dick:

As per our discussion, please find a complete folder and cover letter from International Transquip Industries, Inc., manufacturers of the subject brake. Of particular concern to me is their reference to "compliance to the brake standards", by NHSTA and BMCS. "All agree that it complies to the standards."

In their literature, they make reference to a letter from BMCS (on US DOT stationary), dated June 6, 1984, which seemingly meets the parking requirements of NHSTA. All is attached for your information and reference. Even though this response from BMCS is related to a change notice, it is being interpreted as "full compliance" to FMVSS 121.

Your written clarification of this matter would be most helpful.

Very truly yours,

P.T. BRAKE LINING COMPANY, INC.

Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales & Service

CRW/mdp

Enclosure

cc: Steven Doyle Jim Rabith

ID: nht69-2.11

DATE: 02/07/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Tanaka and Walders

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 19, I attach an interpretation of the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to the Heads Mini-Trail and other similar vehicles ("mini-bikes"), which has been prepared for publication in the Federal Register.

This interpretation reiterates the opinion rendered American Honda Motor Co. Inc. on August 8 that mini-bikes are motor vehicles subject to the Act, must comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and must bear an appropriate certification of compliance.

Publication of this interpretations will insure that the Federal requirements will be understood equally by all manufacturers of mini-bikes, domestic and foreign.

ID: 15899.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Starr:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Senator Feinstein

Rep. Lynn Woolsey
(Lauren Kelly)

Dale Kardos

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

ID: aiam3021

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your May 18, 1979, letter asking to what extent th parallelepiped device required by Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, must fit inside a school bus in order to provide the mandated 'unobstructed passage.'; The agency responded to a request similar to yours in 1976. A copy o that interpretation is included for your information. The essence of that interpretation is that while conducting the test in accordance with S5.4.2.1(a) of the standard, the parallelepiped device must, at a minimum, fit inside a bus so that the device's outside edge is flush with the lower outside edge of the bus body. If your bus complies with this interpretation of the standard, it would be in compliance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5389

Dear Mr. Greiff: This responds to your letter of April 19, 1994 requesting an interpretation of the 500 foot minimum runway length in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Federal motor vehicle safety standards Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301. Laboratory Test Procedures are provided to contracted laboratories as guidelines for conducting compliance tests. The Laboratory Test Procedures do not limit the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. None of the standards referenced in your letter include any requirement for minimum runway length. Instead, the standards specify that the collision into the fixed barrier will occur at any speed up to and including 30 mph. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1453

Dear Mr. Sundelin: This responds to your February 20, 1974 request for a determination o whether two of your motorcycle treadwear indicator designs conform to the S6.4 requirements of Standard 119 *New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.*; The treadwear indicator requirements have been amended by deleting al of the portio of S6.4 that begins 'The indicators shall, as a minimum'. this means that the manufacturer determines for himself the location and design of the six treadwear indicators requires (three in the case of motorcycle tires). He must assure himself that when the indicator is reached, the tread at that point o the tire is worn to a depth of on-sixteenth of an inch (or one-thirty-second of an inch in the case of motorcycle tires).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 86-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry H. McEntire -- Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Dept of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32301

I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office asking whether certain "mini-vans" designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of a particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements, (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Information we have received regarding manufacturer certification discloses that manufacturers classify cargo-carrying models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as "trucks". A "truck" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We understand that passenger models of mini- vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified by the "MVP" classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.

On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department's recommendation to their school boards that they not condone parent's use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986 response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 9, 1986

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing in regards to an earlier letter written to you on December 9, 1985 requesting your assistance in clarifying whether mini-vans are defined as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose vehicles".

Attached is a copy of the earlier correspondence for your information. Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

LHM/cs

attachment

December 9, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Your assistance is needed in responding to a concern being expressed by various school districts in Florida.

Florida currently has a law, Section 234.051, Florida Statutes, which requires the local school districts to use school buses meeting all state and federal requirements for transporting children to school or school related activities. The same law also specifically exempts passenger cars from having to meet school bus specifications.

Based upon the above law, Florida does not permit local school boards to use conventional vans for transporting students. Only those units which have been converted to meet all federal and state school bus requirements and for which a letter of certification is on file from the manufacturer are permitted to be used by the school districts.

Lately, a number of school districts have inquired to the Department concerning the use of the new "mini-vans" for transporting students. Specifically, the Chrysler mini-vans, Ford Aerostar, General Motors Astro and Safari, Toyota Van and Volkswagon Vanagon which transport a maximum of eight people including the driver.

My specific request to you is how are these units defined under the federal definitions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Are they defined as "passenger cars" or "multi- purpose vehicles"?

Along these same lines, the Florida Department of Education has taken the position recommending to school boards that when parents volunteer to transport children to activities which are condoned, sponsored, or under the authority of the school board, they should not permit the transportation of these students in conventional vans. This position is based upon the fact these units do not meet school bus specifications or standards; are not specifically exempt as with passenger cars; and, the risk of liability to the school board becomes highly magnified.

Any comments you may provide regarding this position is also appreciated.

Your assistance in addressing the above issues would be very helpful in my responding to the local school boards in Florida.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation