ID: 1982-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the identification requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether it is permissible for a manufacturer to identify a certain manual control with the symbol specified by the European Economic Community (EEC) for the cold start control. According to your letter, the control resets injection timing and actuates cylinder warming.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that each manufacturer assure that its products are in compliance with all applicable standards. The following only represents the agency's opinion based on the specific facts provided in your letter.

The answer to your question is yes, since Standard No. 101 does not include any identification requirements applicable to that specific type of control.

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires each passenger car manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table I to meet the requirements of the standard for the location, identification and illumination of such control.

Neither section S5.1 nor column 1 of Table I list or include a single control which operates the two functions noted above.

Since Standard No. 101 does not include any identification requirements applicable to that type of control, identification is at the discretion of the manufacturer. It is therefore permissible, under that standard, to identify that type of control with the symbol specified by the EEC.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

May 27, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

One of our member companies would like an interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays, as it applies to a specific design.

This passenger car is equipped with a diesel engine but the cold-starting control is not an automatic device linked to the ignition switch as are many designs. This particular model uses a manual control which resets injection timing and actuates cylinder warning.

European authorities require that the cold-start control symbol (Figure 19 of EEC Directive 78/316) be used to identify this control for those vehicles sold in Europe. Is it permissible for this symbol to be used for vehicles sold in the United States?

FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays, calls for any control item which is listed in Table I of the standard to be identified as shown in that Table. The diesel cold start control is not listed in Table I; the only similar controls required to be labeled are an engine choke and hand throttle, neither of which pertain to this device.

Does this mean that this device is not required to be identified by words and that the symbol control identification may be used on U.S. cars? If this is the case, the manufacturer will be able to commonize controls with European models and save unnecessary expense.

Bruce Henderson

ID: 1982-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wonder Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whether Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the "Illuminated Wonder Panel." This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to "personalize" his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.

Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.

We hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

November 22, 1982

Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise

Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Burndt:

I am a distributor that is interested in marketing a special type of lighting device for use on motor vehicles. This device is basically an illuminated personalized auto tag that is affixed to the front bumper of a car (for those states with single license plates). The tag, 6" x 12", will have personalized names or numbers on it, and only these letters or numbers will be illuminated; the rest of the tag will not emit light. This tag, registered in the U.S. Patent Office as the "Illuminated Wonder Panel", is no different than the current personalized automobile tags used in those states with single license plates, except that on this tag the personalized characters are illuminated.

The tag consists of a channel light housing that produces the incandescent light, an amber colored acylic panel thru which the light is emitted, and a clear cover plate. A prototype panel with the name "WONDER" in standard 2 inch letters, was submitted to a testing laboratory to measure the intensity of light produced (attached is the laboratory worksheet). The results showed an average of .0365 candela per letter or less than .25 candela total. With a maximum of seven characters on a tag, the intensity would never exceed .50 candela. Even though this is relatively minimal candlepower, I have enclosed two photographs taken of a vehicle at approximately 50 feet at night with the "WONDER" panel on the bumper, to illustrate the relative light intensities. Since the tag is designed to operate in conjunction with the lights, one picture is taken with the low beam headlights on, the other is taken with only the parking lights on.

The "Illuminated Wonder Panel" as described here, would be available as an automobile accessory; it is a form of ornamental lighting that to my knowledge is not defined by any SAE lighting standards or tests and may therefore not be regulated federally.

I believe this tag can be of value to the user and that the minimal light produced from the tag will not interfere with the intended operation of the existing vehicle's lights, or degrade the level of traffic safety while in its use. After speaking with Mr. Taylor Vinson and upon his suggestion, I am presenting this information to your Administration so that you may review it and advise me by providing a statement or opinion, in regards to its use prior to its production and distribution. Please let me know whether or not this would be in conflict with any safety standards and what subsequent procedures if any, need to be followed on a State level.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Robert Munoz President

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WORK REQUEST OMITTED.

ID: 1982-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS (CONFIDENTIAL)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked if that standard allows a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims.

Standard No. 120 permits a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger car tires and rims, provided that those tires and rims meet all the requirements of the standard. Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 requires all motorcycles equipped with tires that meet either the requirements of Standard No. 109, which applies to new passenger car tires, or Standard No. 119, which applies to new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Thus, passenger car tires can be used on new motorcycles, as long as those passenger car tires are certified as complying with Standard No. 109.

Motorcycle rims are subject to two requirements. First, section S5.1.1 requires that the rims be listed by the manufacturer of the tires installed on the motorcycle as suitable for use with those tires. If you use rims which are the proper size for the passenger car tires to by used, this requirement is easily met by passenger car rims. Second, rims used on motorcycles must meet the rim marking requirements, because the rim manufacturers do not mold the required information onto passenger car rims. However, if you can obtain passenger car rims marked with the information set forth in section S5.2 and listed by the passenger car tire manufacturer as appropriate for use with the passenger car tires, those rims could be used on new motorcycles.

A copy of this letter with your name and address deleted, along with your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, has been placed in the public docket under interpretations of Standard No. 120. Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

This request for interpretation is with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. We would like to confirm that Standard No. 120 permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorcycle.

We believe that the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorycle is permitted because Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 states that "...each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 ( 571.109) or Standard No. 119 ( 571.119), and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires...". In our opinion, this permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on motorcycles, provided the tires comply with Standard No. 109 and the rims are an appropriate match for the tires and also comply with Standard No. 110.

ID: 1982-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/82 EST

FROM: KATHLEEN M. BENNETT -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION - EPA

TO: SLADE GORTON -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO OCTOBER 29, 1982 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO CAMPBELL

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 30, 1982 concerning suggestions made to you by Mr. Lane Campbell of Kirkland, Washington.

I can comment only on the second and third of Mr. Campbell's three suggestions, which deal with EPA emission standards for highway vehicles and EPA noise standards for motorcycles. By copy of this letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I am suggesting that they comment directly to you concerning Mr. Campbell's first suggestion, which deals with two NHTSA standards.

His second suggestion is that waivers or exemptions from EPA's emission standards be established for several defined categories of light, high fuel economy vehicles and for vehicles produced only in small quantities. Because the Clean Air Act itself establishes the basic emission reductions required for highway vehicles other than motorcycles, EPA is empowered only to allow temporary waivers from certain requirements of these standards for which this is specifically permitted by the Act. We do not have broad authority to grant the types of waivers proposed by Mr. Campbell. We do permit a substantially less detailed certification procedure for manufacturers of low production vehicles, defined as vehicles produced in quantities less than 10,000 units per year, but not a complete exemption from certification. Also, motorcycles powered by engines of less than 50cc in displacement are not required to comply with EPA emission standards.

Accordingly, I believe the Clean Air Act itself would have to be amended to provide waivers or exemptions for at least some of the categories of vehicles identified by Mr. Campbell. As you know, committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives are considering Clean Air Act amendments at the present time. H.R. 5252 contains a proposed change to section 202(b) of the Clean Air Act, which reads: "Upon the petition of any manufacturer, the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, shall waive any standard established under this part for any model (as determined by the Administrator) of vehicles or vehicle engines of such manufacturer for a period of up to four model years if the manufacturer

demonstrates that such waiver is necessary for the use of an innovative power train technology, innovative emission control device or system, or alternative fuel (other than any fuel or fuel additive registered pursuant to section 211 before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1982) or power source in such model. The Administrator may review annually the actions taken by the manufacturer during the period for which the waiver is in effect and take appropriate action to insure conformance with the waiver." This amendment, if adopted, would appear to grant the necessary authority to the EPA Administrator to consider and respond to suggestions such as Mr. Campbell's.

His third suggestion concerns changes to noise standards applicable to certain specified categories of motorcycles. EPA promulgated motorcycle standards on December 31, 1980 which become effective on January 1, 1983. The issuance of these standards followed the evaluation of over 2,000 comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, plus extensive interactions with all segments of the motorcycle industry relative to the technological feasibility of compliance by all categories of motorcycles. In view of this extensive public involvement, we are not convinced that new amendments should be considered at this time.

I hope these comments will be helpful. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

ID: 1982-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/82 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked several questions concerning informational readout displays. The answers to your questions are as follows.

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

The answer to this question is yes. Section S4 of Standard No. 101 defines informational readout display as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." [Emphasis added.] Thus, the type of system you describe comes within Standard No. 101's definition of informational readout display. In reference to the specific wording of your question, I would note that it is the definition in the standard, rather than a particular characterization by the manufacturer, that is determinative as to whether a display is an informational readout display.

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

The answer to this question is no. The requirements applicable to informational readout displays are an exception to the usual requirements for displays, which ordinarily use normal electric bulbs. The preamble to the final rule establishing the requirements of the present Standard No. 101 explained that the reason for the exception was to "permit the continued development of informational readout displays." 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. This was necessary since current technology does not enable manufacturers to produce informational readout displays which can exhibit symbols (as opposed to words) or certain colors. Thus, while section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 makes the use of certain symbols and colors mandatory for traditional displays, the use of symbols and colors is optional for informational readout displays.

If "other electro illuminating device" was interpreted to include normal electric bulbs, traditional displays would come within the definition of informational readout display. Such an interpretation would render meaningless Standard No. 101's requirements for the mandatory use of certain symbols and colors for displays. It is thus clear that the term "other electro illuminating device" does not include normal electric bulbs. Rather, the term was included within the definition of informational readout display, along with light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals, to avoid preventing the use of new electronic technology other than light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals.

Your third and fourth questions both contemplate that the answer to your second question is yes, rather than no. In reference to your question as to why the agency amended Standard No. 101 to permit the use of green as an alternative to blue or blue-green for the headlamp high beam telltale, the reason is that the agency does not interpret the standard's definition of informational readout display to include a mere colored light using light-emitting diode technology. To be an informational readout display, it must include information in the form of words or symbols. Since such a colored light is not an informational readout display, it must meet the color requirements of Standard No. 101. On February 1, 1982, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register (47 FR 4541) which proposed, among other things, an interpretive amendment to the definition of informational readout display to make that point clear. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.

Your fourth question suggests that the definition of informational readout display should be interpreted to include only displays providing more than one type of information. As explained in the answer to your first question, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the wording of the standard's definition of informational readout display. The agency recognizes, however, that it is likely that most if not all informational readout displays will include more than one type of information, though it is possible that some manufacturers might use LED or similar technology for displays providing only one type. In any event, the agency is not aware of a need to revise the standard's requirements to exclude displays presenting only one type of information from the definition of informational readout display.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an informational readout display?

The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section specifies that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

We would note, however, that the notice of proposed rulemaking referred to above proposes an amendment to Standard No. 101 that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. The agency is in the process of analyzing the comments received in response to that notice.

Our answer to your fifth question also covers your sixth question. I hope this fully responds to your inquiry.

ENC.

QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING "INFORMATIONAL READOUT DISPLAY"

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro-illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

3. If yes, we don't know the reason why NHTSA amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to use the color green as an alternative to blue for the headlamp high beam indicator. -- According to S5.3.2, the color of each telltale is designated. However, as as the color for the IRD is at the manufacturer's option, I think the color green can be used as the headlamp high beam indicator by the original regulation. Therefore, I think it not necessary to change the rule.

4. And if yes, we think that we can select a symbol or word designated in Table 2 for the IRD which shows one type of information (ex., Fuel Level), although normal displays have to use symbols designated in Table 2 (S.5.2.3.). -- I think if the definition of IRD is interpreted as more than one, we wouldn't have such a problem.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an Informational Readout Display?

6. In this case, is it sufficient that the light intensities for the informational readout systems shall have at least two values prescribed in S.5.3.3? -- According to S.5.3.3, the light intensity of such telltales shall not be variable.

ID: 1982-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: New York City Transit Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald J. Cameron Director - Technical Support New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11207

Dear Mr. Cameron:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the driver's side window and the front entrance door window of a bus may be equipped with plastic glazing. You desire to use plastics because of the high operating cost of replacing broken glass windows.

The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, was amended in 1977 to permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in all doors and windows of buses, except windshields or windows to the immediate right or left of the driver(42 FR 61465). The reason for this exception is that windows to the immediate right and left of the driver are necessary for driving visibility and typical plastic material used alone is not sufficiently resistant to abrasion. Plastic glazing would not be allowed in a bus entrance door since this would constitute a "window to the immediate right" of the driver. Plastic glazing would be allowed in the rear emergency door, however, if that door was not necessary for driving visibility.

You also ask whether material other than safety glass may be used in either of these locations. I am not sure that I correctly understand your question. If by "other materials" you mean, for example, sheet metal, the answer to your question would be yes. There are no Federal requirements specifying that a vehicle have windows in a certain location. Thus, theoretically, there would be nothing to preclude the installation of a solid metal entrance door in a bus. (Obviously, no manufacturer would likely do this because it would compromise driver vision.) If, however, there is a window and it is equipped with traditional glazing materials, the glazing must be in compliance with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. If I have misunderstood your last question, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff and he will clarify the requirements for you (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Council 400 Seventh Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

Greetings:

Reviewed of the Automotive Safety Glazing Materials Standard #205 and the 2-25 document, has caused the Technical Support Department some confusion in its interpretation. Your assistance in clarifying the following points would be greatly appreciated.

Replacement of glass on New York Transit Coaches is a major item in our operating costs. My questions are in regard to the driver's side window (immediate left of driver), and the front entrance door glass. Can either of the above-mentioned items be replaced with plexiglass (plastic)? Can material other than safety glass be used in either of these locations?

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Cameron Director - Technical Support

ID: 1982-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter concerning the application of several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to mopeds. You asked whether Standard No. 108 and Standard No. 127 would preempt State statutes or regulations on the same subjects.

Your specific question on Standard No. 127 was whether section 3 of the standard, which excluded mopeds from the coverage of the standard, would preempt State laws that require all motor vehicles operated on the highways to be equipped with a speedometer. Subsequent to your letter, the agency rescinded Standard No. 127 (47 FR 7250). In rescinding the standard, the agency stated that it recognized that there is a nexus between having a speedometer and motor vehicle safety. Based on available information, however, the agency concluded that the specific requirements of the standard concerning the markings on a speedometer, such as the highlighting of the numeral "55", were not yielding and could not be expected to yield significant safety benefits. Because the marking requirements were not yielding safety benefits, the agency stated that it intended that other levels of government be preempted from establishing similar requirements. In preempting States from establishing marking requirements, the agency did not intend to preempt States from enforcing laws or regulations which only require the presence of a speedometer and do not set marking requirements for the speedometer.

Your final question concerned section 4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108, which exempts motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement that motor vehicles be equipped with turn signal lamps. You asked if that provision preempts State laws to the extent they require all motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps. The answer is yes.

In adopting section 4.1.1.26, the agency specifically addressed the issue of what turn signal requirements are necessary and appropriate for mopeds. The agency determined that the speed and weight characteristics of mopeds made the problems associated with hand signaling less significant than they are for larger motorcycles. The agency concluded that exempting mopeds from the turn signal requirement would ease the burden of compliance for moped manufacturers without jeopardizing safety. Since Standard No. 108 specifically addresses the issue of what turn signal requirements are applicable to mopeds, States are preempted from establishing or enforcing a safety standard on that aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ID: 1982-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 12, 1982 NOA-30

Mr. Darnley M. Howard Director, Office of Safety and Health United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20260

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your August 18 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, regarding the use of cross-view mirrors on certain Postal Service vehicles. These mirrors are convex and have a non-uniform radius of curvature. They would be used to assist drivers in viewing the area immediately in front of the vehicle.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 sets forth rear view mirror requirements for new motor vehicles. Vehicles such as Postal Service trucks are required to comply with one of three specified alternative sets of requirements for mirror systems. The first alternative requires a plane inside mirror providing a specified field of view and a plane exterior driver side mirror, also providing a specified field of view. The second alternative is the same as the first, except that it permits the interior mirror to have a more narrow field of view as long as the vehicle also uses an exterior mirror on the passenger side. The third alternative requires two plane exterior mirrors of at least 19.5 square inches surface area each, with one placed on the driver's side and the other on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

The agency has taken the position that mirrors used on a vehicle in addition to the required mirrors are not subject to any requirements of FMVSS 111. If the cross-view mirrors you wish to use would supplement mirrors which fully comply with one of the alternatives in the standard, the installation of the cross-view mirrors on new Postal Service trucks is in no way prohibited by our standard.

Further, our requirements do not apply to aftermarket modifications to the original equipment mirror system, when those modifications are performed by the vehicle owner. Modifications to the required system would be deemed unlawful only if done by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. Thus, the use of the cross-view mirrors is permissible in any case, so long as one of these designated businesses does not Perform the modification. However, we recommend that the cross-view mirror be used in addition to the original equipment mirrors, and not as a substitute for those mirrors. Based on our experience with non-uniform radius mirrors, these mirrors should not be used when the vehicle is in motion, since the mirror produces an image which can distort distances. Rather, the mirror should be used to detect people in front of the vehicle while the vehicle is stopped.

NHTSA would appreciate the opportunity to review the results of your test program once it is completed. If we can be of assistance to you in evaluating the mirrors, please, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 18, 1982

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 111 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Room 5219 U.S. Department of Transportation 400-7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The U.S. Postal Service is considering the testing of an "eyeball" type mirror on certain postal vehicles to provide the driver with a view of the area immediately in front of the vehicle. Currently, for this purpose, we are using convex mirrors, which meet Federal requirements.

The "eyeball" mirror has a nonuniform radius of curvature and, as such, may be in violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 111. We understand, however, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is considering a revision to the standard which would eliminate a design restriction and allow the use of mirrors that do not have a uniform radius of curvature.

Since we wish to fully comply with the NHTSA standards and also evaluate methods that may enhance our efforts to prevent accidents involving children, we are seeking U.S. Department of Transportation approval to allow the Postal Service to conduct a limited test of the "eyeball" type mirror. Approximately 10 postal vehicles would be involved and would include the use of the K-10 "Eyeball" Truck/Bus Mirror, manufactured by K-10 Enterprises Incorporated of Mission, Texas, or an equivalent mirror. Information concerning the K-10 mirror is enclosed for your review and consideration.

The matter has been previously discussed with Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA. Mr. Cavey was most helpful and suggested we address our inquiry to your office.

Should you need additional information, please feel free to call Mr. Jerry A. Jones, General Manager, Safety Compliance Division, Office of Safety and Health, at 245-4686.

Sincerely,

Darnley M. Howard Director, Office of Safety and Health Employee Relations Department

Enclosure

ID: 1982-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmissions Braking Effect. You asked whether a 5-speed automatic transmission which you are considering producing meets the requirement of section S3.1.1 that a neutral position be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

In reference to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the relevant question is whether, in accordance with the above requirement, there is a neutral position between the HD (highway drive) and R (reverse) positions. As explained below, it is our opinion that the answer to that question is yes.

Your letter states that "the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark 'N' is shown." Further, your letter indicates that "the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ('N' position) whenever the lever is left free on that line."

In shifting between HD and R, the lever must cross the horizontal line. We understand that if the lever is merely held on the horizontal line at the crossing point, i.e., the extreme right, the transmission will be in neutral.

Further, we understand that if the lever is left free in that position, it will return to the center of the horizontal line where it will remain in neutral. Based on these two understandings, it is our opinion that the extreme right crossing point constitutes a neutral position between the HD and R positions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DET82-134

May 18, 1982

Mr. George L. Parker Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Parker,

This letter is intended to seek your advice on the interpretation of the requirement in FMVSS 102 on the location of automatic transmission shift lever positions.

Show in the attached sheet is the shift lever pattern of a 5-speed automatic transmission we are planning to use on our passenger car. As far as you see on the pattern, it looks one can shift from "HD" (highway drive) to "R" or vice versa without passing a neutral position. But the fact is that the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark "N" is shown. Therefore, we think arrangement meets the requirement of FMVSS 102, S3.1.1 which says: "A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions."

For additional information, the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ("N" position) whenever the lever is left free on that line. The lever can be moved from "HD" to "R" and vice versa at any time but a built-in transmission control unit works to prevent gear engagement unless the vehicle speed is suitable for the intended shift.

We would like to receive NHTSA's interpretation about the compliance of this system with FMVSS 102. Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

ID: 19824.ztv

Mr. Ralph F. Ivey
45 East Oak Street
Willlits, CA 95490

Dear Mr. Ivey:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking whether Acting Chief Counsel Womack's interpretation of February 20, 1997, addressed to Brian Kimmel and regarding the Rotary Zodiac (RZ) motorized bicycle, applies to your unit, which has a smaller cubic capacity engine of 33cc.

We are frequently asked whether a bicycle equipped with a power assist is a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction, or simply a bicycle, regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We answer this question by examining the extent to which the power source assists the operator. Our letter to Mr. Kimmel (as is the case with all our interpretations) was based on the information that he presented to us in his request, and not on our actual inspection of or experience with the RZ. On this basis, we informed Mr. Kimmel that the RZ was not a "motor vehicle" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This opinion was not based on the cubic capacity of the power source, but on the conditions under which power was supplied. As we understood it, the power supplied by the RZ's motor assisted the bicycle operator in certain driving conditions, but was insufficient to propel the bicycle alone in the absence of muscular input by the operator. In other words, if the operator stops pedaling, the RZ will come to a halt.

You have enclosed a photocopy of an ad by Acimex USA, Inc., for a "bicycle assist." This appears to be aftermarket equipment for installation by the bike owner, consisting of a motor and a handlebar mounted throttle. When installed, the maximum speed of the bicycle is 40 km/h. The ad indicates that the unit "starts automatically and still allows normal pedaling."

Upon our review of this ad, we have concluded that a bicycle equipped with the Acimex system is a "motor vehicle." We further conclude that it is a "motorcycle" and that the person installing the motor is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal requirements.

Specifically, the Acimex system appears designed for full-time operation. Further, the fact that the system will "still allow pedaling" indicates that it is intended to propel the vehicle in the absence of muscular input by the operator. In other words, it appears that it is the operator who assists the power unit rather than the opposite. Under these circumstances, the bicycle will become a "motor vehicle" when the owner installs the Acimex system. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for any person to introduce a motor vehicle into interstate commerce unless it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The standards that appear to apply to an Acimex-equipped bicycle are those for "motorcycles," and "motor driven cycles," a subcategory of motorcycle. We regard the initial operation of a motor vehicle on the public streets as an introduction into interstate commerce.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/10/99