ID: aiam4556

"Dear Mr. Ivie: This responds to your letter seeking information abou the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol 'DOT' as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218. Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject. We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard. With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a 'DOT sticker' because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker 'fell off' or was removed. However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . .' with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals. You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a 'sticker' and it 'fell off.' Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a 'sticker,' provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A 'sticker' that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that 'stickers' are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions. The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'knowingly render ing inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions. Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label. You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said: With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391) You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: NCC-231121-001 Autoliv (Veoneer) Spotlight Interpretation 1

June 27, 2024

Richard Seoane 

VP Operations and Business Development 

Thermal Product Area 

Veoneer 

420 South Fairview Avenue Goleta, CA 93117 

Dear Mr. Seoane: 

This responds to your request dated October 10, 2016, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, to a lighting system you describe in your letter. As I explain below, based on your description of the system we agree that it is supplemental lighting, but disagree with your assertion that it would not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting equipment. 

In responding to this request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Description of the Marking Light and the Request for Interpretation 

In your letter, you request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as applied to an auxiliary light designed to prevent nighttime crashes (the Marking Light). As you describe it, the Marking Light consists of two auxiliary spotlights operated independently of the headlighting system. The spotlights are mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline of the vehicle, below the headlamps, and pointed down at a fixed angle. The Marking Light operates independently of the upper and lower beam headlamps to produce a narrow, white-light beam pointed down to highlight the path to an object (such as a pedestrian) in or near the forward roadway so that the driver can see it. The Marking Light is activated and controlled by Autoliv’s Night Vision System, which has an infrared camera that detects pedestrian, bicyclist, and animal hazards up to 100 meters in front of the vehicle. The Night Vision System alerts the driver with in-vehicle 

Page 2
Richard Seoane 

visual (e.g., head-up display icon and/or dash icon) and audible signals indicating activation of the Marking Light and directs the Marking Light to illuminate the path over the ground to the hazard to visually alert the driver of the presence and location of the hazard. The system does not engage vehicle steering or brakes. The Marking Light cannot be activated manually by the driver or continuously operated; it is activated only by the night vision system when a hazard is detected to assist the driver in seeing the hazard but does not assist the driver in seeing the roadway. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding traffic so that it does not glare drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. 

You explain your position that the Marking Light is a supplemental lamp, not a required lamp such as a headlamp. You then make a variety of different arguments (and provide data) to support your view that the Marking Light does not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting. We summarize these arguments in more detail where relevant in the discussion below. 

Applicable Requirements 

FMVSS No. 108, which is codified at 49 C.F.R. § 571.108, sets requirements for vehicle lighting. The standard requires a variety of types of lighting, depending on vehicle type and size, and specifies requirements for these required lighting elements. The standard also sets requirements (referred to as “if equipped” requirements) for some non-mandatory lighting devices, such as daytime running lamps. 

Lighting devices that FMVSS No. 108 does not require or regulate as “if equipped” lighting devices are considered supplemental (or auxiliary) lighting devices. Supplemental lighting is generally permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by the standard. See FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 (also referred to as the “impairment” provision). 

FMVSS No. 108 applies only to original equipment and lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108. The standard does not directly apply to supplemental lighting devices sold in the aftermarket. Instead, supplemental lighting offered as an aftermarket accessory is subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. § 301222), which prohibits certain specified commercial entities (such as dealers or repair shops) from taking a vehicle out of compliance with an FMVSS. In applying the “make inoperative” prohibition to aftermarket accessory lighting, NHTSA typically asks whether the accessory lighting would impair the effectiveness of any required lighting. Generally, if an item of accessory lighting would not be permitted as original equipment, commercial entities will not be permitted to install the lighting as an aftermarket accessory for a vehicle in use. 

While the vehicle manufacturer has the legal responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108 and all other applicable FMVSS, as a practical matter, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet federal standards. The judgment of impairment is one made, in the first instance, by the person installing the device. That decision, however, may be questioned by NHTSA if it appears clearly erroneous. 

Page 3
Richard Seoane 

Discussion 

The threshold issue presented by your request is whether the Marking Light is part of the required headlighting system and thus subject to the requirements applicable to headlighting systems, or supplemental lighting that is regulated by FMVSS No. 108’s impairment provision. We agree with you that the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting. 

FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting systems.1 Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The purpose of headlamps is primarily to provide forward illumination.2 In determining whether lighting equipment that provides forward illumination is part of the required headlighting system or supplemental lighting, NHTSA looks at several factors. These factors have included, among other things: (1) where the lamp directs its light; (2) whether it uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps; (3) whether the lamp is intended to be used regularly, or is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; or (4) whether there is a manual on/off switch.3 

None of our previous interpretations appear to have addressed a frontal lighting concept precisely like the Marking Light. We agree with you, based on the information you have provided us, that it is supplemental lighting because it is not intended to be used regularly, but is instead a narrow beam that is activated only when there is a hazard forward of the vehicle such as a pedestrian or animal near the roadway. 

Because the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting, it is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by the standard. In its previous interpretation letters, NHTSA has identified a number of different ways that a supplemental lamp could impair the effectiveness of the required lighting.4 

With respect to the Marking Light, there are two types of impairment that are potentially relevant. One is the potential to confuse other drivers arising from the Marking Light’s color, location, or activation pattern.5 The other potentially relevant type of impairment is the potential for glare to other road users due to the intensity of the Marking Light. We address each of these potential types of impairment below. 

1 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a; S10.
2 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (“Headlamp means a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle.”).
3 See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to [Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004). Prior to the 2004 interpretation letter, NHTSA issued several interpretations concerning auxiliary driving beams in which the agency treated those lamps as supplemental lighting without expressly considering the issue. See, e.g., Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to P. Soardo, Instituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale (May 22, 1987). If the lamps in question in those earlier interpretations would be considered supplemental lighting under the factors set forth in the 2004 interpretation, they may be consistent with that later interpretation. There is not, however, sufficient information about the lighting systems at issue in those earlier interpretation letters to allow application of the factors from the 2004 interpretation. In any case, the 2004 interpretation has been, to date, NHTSA’s view of the issue.
4 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
5 See id. 

Page 4
Richard Seoane 

Color and Location 

The impairment provision prohibits auxiliary lamp colors that are likely to confuse other road users.6 For auxiliary lamps located on the front of the vehicle, colors that could cause confusion include red (which could be confused with a tail lamp), green (which could be confused with a traffic signal), and blue (which could be confused with a law enforcement vehicle).7 

You state that because the Marking Light is white, it cannot be confused with a turn signal and would not conflict with the emergency (hazard) lamps or parking lamps. 

We agree that because the Marking Light is white and mounted below the headlamps, it would not likely be confused with the front turn signal (which is amber8) and would not conflict with the vehicle hazard warning (which consists of all required turn signal lamps flashing simultaneously9) or the parking lamps (which must be white or amber10). I therefore agree that the color and location of the Marking Light would not cause confusion with the vehicle’s signal lamps. 

Activation Pattern 

FMVSS No. 108 requires that all auxiliary lamps be steady burning except for auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.11 This requirement means that the lamp must be steady burning when activated, not that it is prohibited from being activated or deactivated automatically.12 However, the (de)activation of the lamp cannot be so frequent or random that the lamp would distract or confuse other road users. For example, a lamp that activates and deactivates on an extremely short time interval due to sensitivity to slight changes in conditions would not be considered steady-burning.13 NHTSA has also interpreted the steady- 

6 Id.
7 Id.
8 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a.
9 Id. S6.6.2; S4 (definition of vehicle hazard warning signal flasher).
10 Id. Table I-a.
11 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019); Letter from Anthony Cooke, Chief Counsel, to Kerry Legg, New Flyer, Inc. (Feb. 21, 2008). Before 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with certain exceptions (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning. In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, converted the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp. See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.” Id. Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users.
12 See Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
13 See id. 

Page 5
Richard Seoane 

burning requirement to mean that headlamp intensity may modulate, but only if the changes in intensity are not detectable by the human eye.14 

You state that the Marking Light is steady burning in that it does not flash (cycle on and off). You state that the Marking Light is activated when the night vision system identifies a pedestrian, bicyclist, or large animal in or near the forward roadway as a hazard. When the object is no longer deemed a hazard, the night vision system switches off the Marking Light. We also understand that the intensity of the Marking Light does not modulate. 

We agree that, based on the facts represented to us in your letter, the Marking Light is steady burning and would therefore not violate the impairment provision in this respect. This conclusion assumes that the Marking Light does not activate and deactivate frequently (which could confuse or distract other road users) or change intensity while activated in a way that is detectable to the human eye. 

Brightness (Photometric Intensity) 

Supplemental lighting can also impair the effectiveness of the required lighting if it is so intense that it glares other road users15 or, relatedly, masks any of the required signal lighting.16 As a point of reference, we note that FMVSS No. 108 specifies two upper beam (or high beam) maxima, at H-V and 4D-V.17 The magnitude of the specified maxima depends on the type of upper beam system; for the purposes of this letter, we will compare the Marking Light to the highest specified maxima at each test point, which are 75,000 candela (cd) at H-V and 12,000 cd 

14 See, e.g., Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, to Kiminori Hyodo, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Nov. 5, 2005); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Joe De Sousa (Mar. 10, 1994) (stating, in the context of a modulating motorcycle headlamp, that “there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam”).
15 See, e.g., Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Yoshiaki Matsui, Stanley Elec. Co., Ltd. (Sept. 20, 1995) (fog lamp supplementing lower beam) (“Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.”). Cf. Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to Rusty Riggin, Willow Development (Aug. 2, 2002) (explaining that a supplemental rear cornering lamp could violate the impairment provision if it was so intense that it “create[d] distracting glare”).
16 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019) (“NHTSA has in the past stated that auxiliary lamps that were so bright as to ‘mask’ adjacent required turning signal lamps would be prohibited due to impairment.”); Letter From Samuel Dubbin, Chief Counsel, to Richard Russell (Dec. 22, 1995) (“[W]e would regard the vehicle manufacturer’s certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals.”).
17 FMVSS 108 Table XVIII. The photometry requirements specified in Table XVIII consist of test points at which the intensity of the light is measured. The requirements at each test point consist of minima and/or maxima. The test points are defined with respect to an angular coordinate system relative to the headlamp. Thus, H-V identifies a test point zero degrees up and zero degrees down relative to the headlamp, and 4D-V identifies a test point 4 degrees down relative to the headlamp. See also Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to Byung Soh, Target Marketing Systems (Sept. 13, 1988) (“Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard.”); Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to George Ziolo (Sept. 12, 1988) (vehicle equipped with two upper beam headlamp systems would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed the upper beam maxima at H-V and 4D-V). 

Page 6
Richard Seoane 

at 4D-V. We consider the upper beam maxima as proper comparators because the Marking Light, like the upper beam, is designed to activate when no other cars are nearby.18 Just as upper beam headlamps are subject to maximum intensity limits, even though they are designed to turn off in the presence of oncoming traffic, the same concerns apply to forward-facing auxiliary lighting. 

You argue in your letter that the Marking Light will not glare other road users or mask any of the required signal lighting. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming traffic, so that its downward angle does not glare other drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. You also state that because the Marking Light is low to the ground and produces very little light above the horizontal plane of the headlamps, it cannot glare another driver or pedestrians. You state that because of these features, the Marking Light does not impair an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals. In a meeting with our office, you also indicated that the spotlamps on each side of the vehicle are generally not additive (combined). 

You also provided data on the intensity of the Marking Light (an iso-candela plot) based on on-vehicle measurements at a test laboratory. The photometric testing indicates that the Marking Light’s maximum intensity is 113,440 cd (at approximately four degrees down). You noted that the test setup resulted in higher estimated light intensities than what would be more accurately estimated by a goniometric component test conducted in a properly designed component lamp goniometry facility with appropriate stray light control. 

We believe that the Marking Light would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed—dramatically—the maximum permissible brightness of upper beams at 4D-V. This extreme intensity is a concern even if the Marking Light beam is aimed at a downward angle and the system is designed so that the light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding vehicles, because it could still glare other motorists if the vision system does not correctly detect an oncoming or preceding vehicle and prevent the Marking Light from activating. This glare could happen, for example, if the vehicle crests the top of a hill when another vehicle is approaching, the vehicle encounters another vehicle at an intersection without detecting the other vehicle approaching from the side, or if the Marking Light reflects off wet pavement. 

We recognize that the photometric test setup led to overestimates of the Marking Light’s intensity. Nevertheless, the Marking Light is so intense that a more accurate estimate would likely still greatly exceed the upper beam maximum. We also note that the Marking Light’s intensity dramatically exceeds not only the upper beam maximum at 4D-V (12,000 cd), but also the maximum allowed for any individual upper beam headlamp (75,000 cd at H-V). This intensity presents a risk that other road users could be subject to significant glare. 

Conclusion 

I conclude that the Marking Light would be prohibited by the impairment provision in FMVSS No. 108 with respect to the Marking Light’s intensity at 4D-V.
18 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (upper beam defined as “beam intended primarily for distance illumination and for use when not meeting or closely following other vehicles”). 

Page 7
Richard Seoane 

If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/27/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: 15-004254 WayRay Glazing_sb_3

ID: 571-208--low risk deployment--Toyota

ID: 08-001297

ID: 08_004614 209

ID: 10-003161 Honda 110 label march 16 df

ID: 10821-6

Mr. Andrew Grubb
Steve's Moped & Bicycle World
40 Park Avenue
Dumont, NJ 07628

Dear Mr. Grubb:

This responds to your letter asking whether this agency's requirements apply to several products you are selling. One is called the "California Go-Ped," a small push scooter with non-pneumatic tires, a 2-cycle motor mounted above the rear wheel, and a top speed of 20 mph. Another is called the "Tsi Power Scooter," and resembles a scooter in frame style, but has larger pneumatic tires and can be outfitted with a seat. The Power Scooter has a top speed of 15 mph. You cited a previous interpretation stating that a scooter (similar to the Go-Ped) is not a motor vehicle, and thus not subject to our requirements, so I assume that you are asking whether the products you sell are motor vehicles. You also asked about motorized "skateboards" and motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle.

The short answer to your question is that the Go-Ped is not a motor vehicle but the Power Scooter may be, depending on whether it is sold with a seat. Motorized "skateboards" are not motor vehicles, but motors for mounting on bicycles are "motor vehicle equipment."

You indicated that you have a copy of a letter dated April 1, 1991, in which we discussed whether a small push scooter called a "Walk Machine" is considered a motor vehicle for purposes of our standards. In that letter, we discussed the general principles for determining whether a product is a motor vehicle.

As discussed in that letter, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that are or can be operated off-road, but are also used on the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle will spend a substantial amount of time on- road, even though its greatest use will be off-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

In discussing whether the Walk Machine is considered a motor vehicle, we noted that NHTSA has stated in previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. We concluded that the Walk Machine is not a motor vehicle since it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

I will now apply these principles to the products you ask about in your letter. First, the California Go-Ped has an almost identical configuration to that of the Walk Machine and a maximum speed of 20 mph. Therefore, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle, for the same reasons that apply to the Walk Machine.

Second, the Power Scooter has a maximum speed of 15 mph and, when sold without a seat, has a configuration similar to that of the Walk Machine. In that configuration, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle.

When equipped with a seat, however, the Power Scooter is considered to be a motor vehicle. Although the advertising literature states that the Power Scooter is "not for in-street use," NHTSA believes that it is indistinguishable from a moped, which is an on-street vehicle that we have long interpreted as a motor vehicle. Although most mopeds have chain drives, pedal starters, and lower-mounted engines, we do not think that these distinctions are important. The seated rider on the power scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use.

Further, we consider the Power Scooter, when equipped with a seat, to be a type of motorcycle. A motorcycle is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground" (Title 49, section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)). Motorcycles are subject to our regulations in 49 CFR Part 571, including Standards for lights (No. 108), rear view mirrors (111), brakes (122), and controls and displays (123). The materials you sent do not disclose the horsepower of the 21 cc engine, but we assume that it is less than 5 brake horsepower. If that assumption is correct, the vehicle would be a "motor-driven cycle," a type of motorcycle that is subject to less stringent requirements under our regulations. However, the Power Scooter does not appear to meet even the less stringent requirements. For example, the Scooter lacks lights, dual braking systems, and rear view mirrors.

The motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle are designed specifically to convert the bicycle into a motorcycle. Therefore, they are motor vehicle equipment. Despite the notation "not for in-street use" in the advertising brochure, bicycles are predominantly used in the streets. Merely adding a motor does not change this fact.

The motorized "skateboard" is not a motor vehicle because it was not manufactured for in-street use and is also not used on the public roads.

You stated in your letter that you want to clarify the application of our motor vehicle requirements to your products so that you can advise your customers exactly where they can and cannot operate them. We strongly encourage you to read the enclosed information sheet on your responsibilities under Federal law as a retailer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, while the location of use of particular vehicles can affect our determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle, the actual regulation of the operation of vehicles and motor vehicles is a matter of State law. For information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA d:6/12/95

ID: 16-002814 Chrysler_VIN_interp_clean_1

ID: 11409.MLS

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the thermal performance requirements in FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your specific question is what pedal force may or must be used during cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles for purposes of establishing allowable pedal force for thermal testing. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a vehicle must meet thermal test requirements at or below the average pedal force that achieves the shortest stopping distance during cold effectiveness tests conducted in accordance with the standard's test procedures.

The provisions in S7.5 set forth the cold effectiveness test for passenger car braking. That provision requires that the vehicle be capable of stopping within 70 meters from a speed of 100 kph with a brake pedal force that does not exceed 500 Newtons. Pursuant to S6.5.3.2, unless otherwise specified, the vehicle is to be stopped in the shortest distance achievable (best effort) on all stops.

As you correctly stated, the average pedal force used during the cold effectiveness test establishes the allowable average pedal force (and thus the stringency) for the hot performance test in S7.14 and the recovery performance test in S7.16. Specifically, S7.14 requires a vehicle with heated brakes to be capable of achieving at least 60% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force recorded during that cold effectiveness stop, while S7.16 requires the vehicle to be capable of achieving between 70% and 150% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force used during that cold effectiveness stop.

According to your letter, this test protocol is straightforward for testing non-ABS- equipped vehicles, but may be unclear with respect to testing ABS equipped vehicles. You stated that in testing ABS-equipped vehicles, GM rapidly applies and holds a constant 500 Newton pedal force throughout the cold effectiveness stop. You further stated that the presence of ABS allows the driver to apply a constant 500 Newton pedal force, stay within the standard=s wheel lock constraints, and meet the 70 meter stopping distance requirement. You stated that a problem arises because a lower pedal force could be used to match or possibly improve the stopping distance compared to a constant 500 Newton pedal force. This is so because at the 500 Newton level, the ABS would cycle to prevent excessive wheel lock, whereas a 400 Newton average level could result in an equivalent stopping distance if the driver modulated the braking force to avoid wheel lock and ABS cycling. You claimed that the pedal force difference would be unimportant for the cold effectiveness test since any force at or under 500 Newtons could be used to meet those requirements. However, it would be crucial in establishing the allowable pedal force and associated stringency for the hot performance and recovery performance tests. You stated that this could lead to compliance disputes between NHTSA and a vehicle manufacturer.

You suggested three alternatives to clarify the pedal force that may or must be used when conducting cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles:

(1) Allow a constant 500 Newton pedal force for cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles, notwithstanding the requirement in S6.5.3.2 to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance;

(2) Rewrite the thermal assessment provision of FMVSS No. 135 to use constant pedal force stops at the onset of the thermal sequence, rather than the pedal force obtained in the cold effectiveness stops, as the baseline for thermal performance assessment; or

(3) Stipulate that the pedal force used during cold effectiveness testing can exceed neither 500 Newtons nor the pedal force necessary to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance.

You recommended that NHTSA adopt Option #1 for a near term solution of this testing issue, and Option #2 as the longer term solution. You believe that Option #1 is practical, objective, repeatable, and provides a well defined pedal force constraint for the subsequent thermal tests. You acknowledged that there is a drawback to this option, i.e., that it may not result in a comparison of braking performance based upon the lowest possible average pedal force for the cold effectiveness stop. You stated that Option #2 would require rulemaking and the associated delay to implement. You stated that Option #3 would provide the intended "apples-to-apples" comparison of cold versus hot brake performance. You stated, however, that this option is not practical from a testing standpoint, since, for an ABS-equipped vehicle, a test driver could not be expected in the allowed six cold effectiveness stops to determine the minimum pedal force yielding the shortest possible stopping distance.

We anticipate that test drivers will utilize a variety of pedal forces during the six cold effectiveness stops in an effort to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance consistent with the test procedures. The average pedal force that resulted in the shortest stopping distance of

these six tests would be used to ascertain compliance with the thermal and recovery performance requirements under S7.14 and S7.16. If, as you suggest, the shortest distance can be achieved at more than one average pedal force level (e.g., if the ABS cycles at a variety of pedal forces below 500 Newtons, or the test driver is able to modulate braking forces to avoid wheel lock while matching the stopping performance of the ABS system), the vehicle must be capable of satisfying the thermal and recovery performance requirements at all such average pedal force levels.

This is consistent with the agency=s long-standing view that, as a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit the unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. However, nothing about Standard No. 135 or its purposes provides a reason to limit the range of average pedal forces.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:135 d:5/16/96