ID: nht87-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John R. Niemela -- President, Ranger International Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John R. Niemela, President Ranger International Inc. P.O. BOX 311 Peterborough, NH 03458

This responds to your letter asking whether a "Mototractor" you may import into the United States would be considered a motor vehicle. The vehicle looks like a conventional motorcycle, except tractor tires are mounted on wheels that enclose auxiliary fue l storage tanks. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Based on the information provided with, your letter, it appears that your Mototractor would not be a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(31) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, ex cept any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use 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-roa d operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted 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 we re to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to a motorcycle and a top speed that would allow it to keep up with the flow of traffic on low speed roads. The se factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you state repeatedly that this vehicle is intended to be used as a two-wheeled tractor, it comes equipped with tires and wheels that are suited to off-road us e, your advertising shows it pulling and powering a number of off-road attachments, and there is no evidence that it has been or will be substantially used on-road in this country. This suggests that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicl e. In past instances where the agency was asked whether a vehicle Has a motor vehicle when it had both off-road and on-road operating capabilities and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, we have appli ed five factors in offering our advice.

These factors Here:

1. whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The vehicle shown in your brochures does not have lights, mirrors, or a speedometer. we are not aware of any State that would license a vehicle without this equipment for on-road use. Further, the Canadian Tax Court has ruled that the vehicle should be c lassified as a tractor, which presumably means that the vehicle will not be licensed for use on public roads. Hence, this factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use-on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

Your brochure shows that one of the functions the Mototractor can perform is "road and trail maintenance." Additionally, your advertising shows an attachment that is described "ATT Transport, On/Off Road" (Part No. 1043301. We generally consider such adv ertising to be evidence that the vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle, since purchasers have reason to believe the vehicle is intended to be used on the public roads.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers Hill assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that the Chinese manufacturer will provide a certificate of origin/title document. However, this is not the sort of action to which we were referring. Assuming that neither your company nor the Chinese manufacturer assist purchasers in registe ring Mototractors. for on-road use, this would tend to indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that ace classified as motor vehicles.

You did not provide any information on U.S. dealers for this vehicle. However, you stated that the foreign dealers of Mototractors are agricultural equipment dealers. Assuming this is also true in the United States, this fact would indicate that the vehi cle is not a motor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.

You stated in your letter that a label limiting the vehicle's use will be placed on the Mototractors. Assuming that this label states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads, this would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

At this time and after considering the available information, he believe that the Mototractor does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKO LL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equip ped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are pa rallel to the seat and covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety b ar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the lati tudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the

requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety b elt. S4.1.2 gives manufactures the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection syste m that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purpose of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bar" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bar" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety b ar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "saf ety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emerg ency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bar," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibili ties, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect

related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 005431rls

ID: 05-005754drn

Scott Molinari, Service Coordinator
North and South America
Terex-Demag GmbH & Co. KG
Dinglerstr. 24
D-66482 Zweibrcken
GERMANY




Dear Mr. Molinari:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether Terex-Demag products that your company imports into the United States are "motor vehicles". You asked four questions, which are addressed below.

You specifically asked that we address whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is a "motor vehicle". You have enclosed brochures (with photographs and diagrams) describing the AC 80-2, as well as brochures for a number of other products.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated.

You first question was whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is considered a "motor vehicle". In response, we note that NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle". We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in order to be imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)).

Based on the brochure provided with your letter, we believe the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is substantially similar to the mobile cranes that were the subject of our interpretation letters of March 11, 1999, to Mr. Chun Jo and of October 20, 2003, to Mr. Michael E. Ogle. As in the cases of the products at issue in these letters, for the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane, the use of the highway appears to be merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 to be a "motor vehicle".

I note that while you indicated in your letter that you were particularly concerned about the AC 80-2, you enclosed literature about other products. For the same reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, it is our opinion that the other cranes for which you provided individual brochures, specifically, the AC 500-2, AC 250-1, AC 140, AC 200-1, AC 55, AC 40 City, and AC 30 City are not considered to be "motor vehicles".

Your second question was whether, if the Terex-Demag products are not motor vehicles, they can legally operate on the highway or any other road without "DOT stamps". I note that you stated in your letter that you are having difficulty obtaining 20.5" tires that have the DOT stamp on them. I will therefore assume that you are asking whether your products may legally operate on the highway if they have tires that are not marked "DOT". The marking of "DOT" on a tire constitutes certification by the manufacturer that the tire meets applicable FMVSSs. If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, our regulations would not apply to the vehicle, and it would not be required to have tires that met the FMVSSs. The vehicle could, however, be subject to state regulations.

Your third question concerned our October 20, 2003, letter to Mr. Ogle. You ask if there has been a change in the legal position taken in our interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle.

As you are aware, we noted to Mr. Ogle that our interpretations on mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision issued in 1978. We further stated:

Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

As of this writing, we have not revisited the issue of whether mobile construction equipment such as that manufactured by Terex-Demag should be considered motor vehicles. Thus, the October 20, 2003 interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle remains unchanged.

Your fourth question is whether there are State laws that "could also warrant the need for DOT stamps on tires of non-motor vehicles". I will assume that in this question, you ask whether there are State laws that require non-motor vehicles to have tires that are certified as meeting NHTSA FMVSSs for tires. You would need to consult the State laws of each of the fifty states to determine the answer to this question.

The enclosed letter of August 16, 2004, to Kelly A. Freeman, Esq. provides additional guidance in determining when products used in construction may be "motor vehicles".

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/23/05

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: 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

ID: nht80-4.16

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Ogata Branch Manager Mazda Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

Thank you for your July 24, 1980, letter concerning your efforts to improve defogging performance. We share your concern about providing optimum driving visibility and are pleased with your efforts to improve this safety feature.

Your letter requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103, asking whether it is permissible to designate an intermediate blower fan speed (instead of the maximum speed) as the speed to be used when defrosting, if some caution or direction about the necessity for using that intermediate speed for defrosting purposes is provided in the Owner's Manual. The purpose of taking that step would be to cause the intermediate speed instead of the maximum blower speed to be used in testing the performance of the defrosting system under the standard. If this was permis- sible, you could increase the speed of the fan at the maximum position, thereby improving performance of the defogging function, while still being able to meet the performance requirements of the defrosting function at the intermediate speed (but not at the new maximum speed).

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard states that "the passenger car windshield defrosting and defogginq system shall be tested in accordance with the portions of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 1967, applicable to that system," with certain exceptions not applicable to your question.

Section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902 specifies as one of the testing conditions that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high." Similarly, section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902a specifies that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high speed." We therefore conclude that it would not be permissible under the standard as currently drafted to install a defrosting system which fails to meet the standard when the blower is set to its highest speed even if the system meets the standard at a lower blower speed and that lower blower speed is labeled as the maximum defrosting position. This conclusion would not be changed by the inclusion of directions in the Owner's Manual or words or symbols on the control panel.

If you are unable to resolve the problem in another way, i.e., improving the performance of the heating element, you may wish to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an amendment to FMVSS 103. It is our inclination, however, that a defrosting system which operated optimally at a lower blower speed would cause considerable consumer confusion. Drivers would normally expect to obtain both optimum defrosting performance and optimum defogging performance at the highest blower speed. Even if the system was clearly labeled to indicate that the blower speed should be set to medium for defrosting and high for defogging, many consumers do not know the difference between defrosting and defogging. We would also have to consider the amendment's effect on Standard 101, since there is only one symbol for the defrosting and defogging system. If you should decide to petition for an amendment to Standard 103, we would like to see these issues addressed.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 24, 1980 Our Ref. No.: DS-001

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 103

After having a meeting with Mr. S. Oesch and Mr. G. Parker, they have requested that I should submit my questions to the chief counsel. These questions pertain to the testing condition of FMVSS 103. Your response would be appreciated before the end of August.

QUESTION

When we conduct the test to measure the defrosting performance which is required by FMVSS 103, is it permissible to designate the switch position of the blower fan motor to other than the maximum blower speed under the condition that we provide some caution or direction in the Owner's Manual?

BACKGROUND

1. Our current defrosting and defogging systems fan switch has four positions shown below.

*Insert Diagram

Generally speaking, there are relations between the volume of hot air and temperature of the hot air described below.

POSITION VOLUME OF AIR TEMP. OF AIR

HI Maximum Lowest

M less than HI higher than HI position position

L Minimum Highest

In addition, the defrosting performance depends on the temperature of the air rather than the volume of the air and the defogging performance depends on the volume of the air rather than the temperature of the air.

Therefore, we gave the defrosting performance which complies with FMVSS 103 with the fan switch in the HI position for all current vehicles.

However, we have customer complaints from the market that the defogging performance is relatively poor in the HI position. So, we are now considering to give more volume in the HI position to resolve this complaint which is very important performance while driving the car to receive the best visibility.

However, unfortunately, we can not comply with the requirement if we increase the volume of the air because of the decrease of the air temperature which is mentioned above.

Now we are considering to designate the position of the fan switch in the Owner's Manual such as:

"Turn the FAN SWITCH on M position to get the maximum defrosting performance"

This means that we increase the air volume on both the M and HI positions and we can comply the requirement in the M position instead of the HI position.

2. There are three documents concerning the testing condition for FMVSS 103. They are FMVSS 103, SAE J902 and the Laboratory Test Procedure (TP-103-09). There are some differences between these documents regarding the fan position shown below:

FMVSS 103: There is no definition concerning the position

SAE J903, Sec.J.4.2.7: On Full. Blower on high speed.

TP-103-09, 4(g): ...in the manufacturer's designated positions for optimum defroster performance.

So, please interpret this matter on whether our designation of the fan switch position is acceptable.

In addition, please give us the information as to what kind of statement is acceptable in the Owner's Manual and whether we have to provide some words or symbols on the control panel from the point of FMVSS 101.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager

cc: Mr. G. Parker Office of Vehicle Standards Crash Avoidance Division