ID: aiam5364

"Dear Dr. Sackoff: This responds to your letter to this agency wit reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. Your specific question addressed S4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: 'Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S5.3.' You asked for an interpretation of the term 'breaking,' whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard. The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen: 1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim, or 2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The 'breaking' of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a 'breaking.' The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0790

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In you letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).; The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. 'Designated seating capacity' is defined to mean 'the number of designated seating positions provided,' while 'designated seating position' means 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats' (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of 'intent,' is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).; Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in complianc with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).; We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirement for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4022

Dear Mr. Walsh: Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.; If you need further information, please lt me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0791

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In you letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).; The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. 'Designated seating capacity' is defined to mean 'the number of designated seating positions provided,' while 'designated seating position' means 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats' (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of 'intent,' is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).; Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in complianc with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).; We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirement for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4245

Dear Mr. Jensen: Your letter of September 10, 1986, has been forwarded to this offic for reply. You have devised a way 'to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck taillights so that when the brakes are applied the lettering is seen.' You asked if there are any laws that apply to this concept.; Because you wish to produce this concept we shall consider it as bot original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer, and as equipment available in the aftermarket, for purchase by a vehicle owner. The Federal regulation governing vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It requires a manufacturer to produce vehicles with certain specified lighting devices meeting specific requirements. Further, under it, additional lighting devices and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible provided they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The requirements for stop lamps (you called them 'tail lights', but taillamps are the rear lights that are on when the headlamps are on, and are not brake activated) are those of SAE Standard J586c, August 1970. It specifies photometric requirements to be met at specific test points, and a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for lamps.; With respect to compliance with the stop lamp requirements of Standar No. 108, the lettering must not prevent the lamp from meeting photometrics at the applicable test points, or from complying with the minimum area requirements. As to whether the concept would nevertheless impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, this is a decision to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, though it is subject to review by this agency. Anything that distracts the observer of a stop lamp from instantaneously perceiving its message could be considered an impairment.; As an aftermarket device, it is not subject to Standard No. 108, bu only to the restriction imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that manufacturers, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses must not render inoperative in whole or in part devices such as stop lamps that are installed as original safety equipment. If your device created a noncompliance in the stop lamp, or impaired the effectiveness of it, we would consider this the equivalent of rendering the stop lamp partially inoperative.; Your concept would also be subject to the laws of any State in which device embodying it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you as to these laws, but you must consider them as well.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5005

"Dear Mr. Mario: This letter responds to your inquiry about recen amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 1984-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. R. Kittle -- Director, Vehicle Safety and Emissions, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated July 20, 1984, for a determination that the noncompliance therein described with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of this standard requires that the specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Chrysler has provided labels on 11,500 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "P215-7OR15" but the correct information is "P205-75R15." However, Chrysler is mailing correct placards "on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Chrysler has remedied the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance no longer exists, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moct. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Chrysler has provided owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

SINCERELY,

July 20, 1984

Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

In accordance with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance, Chrysler Corporation herewith submits a Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of Section 151 of the Act and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, on the grounds that the subject condition is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation was initially notified of this condition and Chrysler's intention to petition for exemption through our submission of a Noncompliance Information Report dated May 23, 1984.

Sincerely,

W. R. Kittle -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Enclosure

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

Applicant

Chrysler Corporation, located in Detroit, Michigan 48288 and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Affected Vehicles

Exemption is sought for a total of approximately 11,500 vehicles produced by Chrysler Corporation for sale in the United States. The involved vehicles are 1984 Dodge Diplomat and Plymouth Gran Fury passenger cars produced from mid-September, 1983 through late-April, 1984.

Noncompliance for Which Exemption Is Sought

Chrysler Corporation petitions to be exempted from the notification, remedy, and further reporting requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a discrepancy in the minimum tire size designation exhibited by the tire placard provided on the subject vehicles as required by S4.3 of FMVSS 110, Tire Selection and Rims, on the basis that the discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety.

Specifically, the discrepancy is that the provided tire placard displays the recommended minimum tire size as P215/70R15, whereas it should designate P205/75R15 which is the actual size of the tire installed on these vehicles. All other information shown on the placard is correct. The enclosure shows copies of both the improper and proper placards for the subject vehicles.

Data, Views, and Arguments Supporting This Petition for Exemption

Chrysler's position that the subject discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety is based on the following evaluation factors:

1) The installed P205/75R15 tire is adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. Its load rating exceeds the maximum vehicle capacity loading on the tire by a substantial margin -- 21%.

2) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is also adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. It is listed in the Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles as an allowable tire, and is in fact specified as the minimum size tire for fleet versions of these vehicles.

3) The load carrying capacity of the placard designated P215/70R15 tire is greater than that of the installed P205/75R15 tire.

4) The subject placard information creates no concern regarding potential improper tire selection because: a) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is available and suitable for use on these vehicles.

b) Sidewalls of the installed tires display the intended P205/75R15 minimum size designation.

c) The Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles properly specifies the P205/75R15 tire as the minimum size tire.

5) Chrysler is not aware of any owner complaints, field reports, or allegations of hazardous circumstances relating to tire placard information on the subject vehicles.

6) Application of the incorrect placard to the subject vehicles was the result of an inadvertent design release error. A placard intended only for fleet vehicles was mistakenly also released for non-fleet vehicles.

7) Existence of the subject condition was detected during routine evaluation of a production vehicle. Chrysler then took immediate, expedited action to institute use of the correct placards for vehicle assembly plant installation.

8) Chrysler is mailing correct placards on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles shipped prior to production correction. This is to avoid confusing or misleading an owner who may rely on the placard information when selecting replacement tires.

Summary

We believe that the information provided herein clearly demonstrates that the effect of the subject discrepancy in tire placard information on the subject vehicles is inconsequential with respect to motor vehicle safety. It is Chrysler's evaluation that the discrepant information creates no safety-related concern with respect to either tire loading or replacement tire selection.

Existence of the discrepant tire placard information was totally inadvertant and not a deliberate attempt to evade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. Upon discovery of the condition, Chrysler Corporation took immediate action to correct it in production and minimize the number of vehicles produced with the discrepant tire placard information.

Therefore, in spite of good faith and due care efforts by Chrysler Corporation, a number of production vehicles were manufactured and shipped with the discrepant tire placard information. Chrysler Corporation is notifying affected owners of the condition and providing them replacement placards on a customer satisfaction basis. We respectfully request that this Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act relative to these vehicles be granted.

[Illustrations Omitted]

Correct Placard

Wrong Placard Enclosure

ID: nht88-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1988

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES, -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: PART 571.3 VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GM 200

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 21, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BALL

TEXT: On November 21, 1988, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with you and other NHTSA personnel to review GM's bases for classifying the passenger van versions of its GM 200 minivan family as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under 4 9 C.F.R. Part 571.3. The purpose of this letter is to summarize that presentation and to seek your concurrence with our determination. You will recall that "GM 200" is the program designation for the entire minivan family, and that the cargo van version of that family will be classified as a truck under Part 571.3.

Pre-introduction publicity relating to this vehicle family has made reference to the GM 200 being launched from the GM "A" car platform. Although the GM 200 will share some of the "A" car front wheel drive components, the common chassis used in the carg o and passenger van versions of the GM 200 is unique from the "A" car chassis and its unique features make it more suitable for commercial usage than a passenger car chassis. In this regard, the GM 200 cargo van version and the passenger van with its re ar seats removed will have approximately 95 percent greater cargo-carrying volume than an "A" car station wagon.

With respect to pertinent definitions in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NHTSA interpretations, the definition of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in Part 571.3 provides that an MPV is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." As we indicated during our meeting; the focus of our vehicle classification was based on the "truck chassis" alternative of the definition.

2

Although "truck chassis" is not defined in the regulations, the NHTSA indicated in the December 1, 1983 interpretation letter to Mazda that:

The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck att ributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis.

With these criteria in mind, GM concluded that the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan are appropriately classified as MPVs because the GM 200 minivan family is constructed on a "truck chassis." In this regard, "truck attributes" of the GM 200 c hassis which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis include:

1. An integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members;

2. An extended width rear axle;

3. A specific truck family powertrain certified to comply with light-duty truck emission standards, including the 11-year, 120,000 mile "useful life" requirements; and

4. A flat load floor.

As further evidence that the GM 200 chassis is a "truck chassis," a cargo van version will be marketed and sold by Chevrolet to compete in the commercial truck market. As we demonstrated during our presentation and through the review of a prototype of t he cargo van, this truck version of the GM 200 minivan family has commercial use characteristics not available in a passenger car.

3

We also showed at the November 21 meeting through an analysis performed by Failure Analysis Associates, that minivans classified as MPVs have certain similar chassis and body characteristics. In this connection, Failure Analysis Associates concluded fro m its review of the GM 200 and nine competitive MPVs that the GM 200 has a frame construction similar to these MPVs and falls within the range of chassis and body measurements exhibited by such competitive vehicles.

In summary, the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan family are constructed on a "truck chassis," and are, therefore, appropriately classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 571.3, inasmuch as: (1) the GM 200 fami ly of vehicles uses a common chassis which has "truck attributes" which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis; (2) a cargo van version will be produced to compete in the commercial truck market; and (3) the physical chassi s and body characteristics of the GM 200 fall within the range exhibited by competitive MPVs.

Due to the confidential and proprietary nature of the future product information and the product comparisons included in certain slides presented at the November 21 meeting and attached to this letter, GM requests that they be afforded confidential treat ment by the NHTSA and Department of Transportation until the GM 200 family of vehicles is made available for sale to the public.

Future product plans, descriptions and comparisons of future products with competitive vehicles are "trade secrets" within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code, entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The specific slides for which confidential treatment is being requested have been labeled "GM CONFIDENTIAL". The information contained in these slides is not customarily made public by GM. The disclosure to the public of GM's future product plans, desc riptions and comparisons with competitive vehicles is likely to result in significant competitive harm to GM. Furthermore, GM believes that this information falls within the "Class Determinations" in Appendix B to 49 C.F.R. Part 512 which the NHTSA has concluded would presumptively result in significant competitive damage to the submitter.

4

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 512.4(e), an affidavit in support of this assertion of confidentiality is also attached. If you should disagree with our position that these documents are entitled to confidential treatment, we would appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a further explanation and to address any concerns you may have.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented at the November 21 meeting will provide a sufficient basis for the NHTSA to concur with GM's determination regarding the vehicle classification of the GM 200. However, please contact m e if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

Attachments

(Affidavit Omitted.)

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: 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