ID: 11378JEG

Roger C. Fairchild, Esq.
Shutler & Low
14500 Avion Parkway
Suite 300
Chantilly, VA 22021-1101

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the "one-truck credit" provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested our concurrence that a multipurpose passenger vehicle equipped with an air bag and automatic seat belt at the driver's seating position, and a Type 2 manual belt at the right front passenger seating position, would count as a complying vehicle under the automatic restraint phase-in (through model year 1998), and asked how such a vehicle should be tested to comply with Standard No. 208.

The answer to your question differs depending on the model year. This difference relates to the fact that NHTSA is phasing in two separate requirements during this time period: (1) the requirement for light trucks to be equipped with automatic restraints (the phase-in for this requirement takes place during model years 1995-1997) and (2) the ISTEA requirement for light trucks to be equipped with air bags and manual lap/shoulder belts (the phase-in for this requirement takes place during model year 1998).

As discussed below, for purposes of the light truck automatic restraint phase-in, a vehicle with an air bag and automatic belt at the driver position would count as a complying vehicle under the "one-truck credit" provisions, provided that it met Standard No. 208's dynamic crash test requirements with the automatic seat belt detached. However, such a vehicle would not count toward the ISTEA requirement that 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. Thus, a manufacturer could produce such vehicles during model year 1998 only to the extent that such vehicles comprised 20 percent or less of the manufacturer's light truck fleet.

Under the "one-truck credit" provisions, a vehicle equipped with an air bag for the driver position and a manual safety belt for the right front passenger position is generally counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements (for both the driver and passenger). The option was limited in duration so as not to delay the introduction of automatic crash protection for the right front passenger. See 56 FR 12480-81, March 26, 1991.

The specific language implementing the "one-truck credit" provisions, for the light truck automatic restraint phase-in, states that each vehicle "whose driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type of seat belt and whose right front passenger's seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this standard" is counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements. (S4.2.5.4(c) and S4.2.5.5(a)(2); emphasis added.)

In order for a vehicle with a driver side air bag and automatic seat belt to qualify under this provision, it would be necessary for the vehicle to comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) with the automatic belt detached. This follows from the language specifying that the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) must be met "by means not including any type of seat belt." Of course, the vehicle would also need to comply with Standard No. 208's crash test requirements with the dummy belted. See S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.5.3.

A vehicle with an air bag and automatic belt at the driver position would not count toward the ISTEA requirement that 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. As you correctly note, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 generally permits automatic belts to be used in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required under section 4 of the standard. However, S4.5.3.1 provides that an automatic belt may not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 to meet the requirements for "a Type 2 seat belt assembly at any seating position equipped with an inflatable restraint system pursuant to," among other references, S4.2.6.1. (Emphasis added.) S4.2.6.1 is the section which implements ISTEA's requirement that at least 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. While vehicles coming within the "one-truck credit" provisions generally could be used to meet the 80 percent requirement, S4.5.3.1 would preclude such vehicles from having an automatic belt at the driver position (the seating position that would be "equipped with an inflatable restraint pursuant to . . . S4.2.6.1").

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: 208 d:4/24/96

Like your letter, our letter uses the term "model year" for purposes of simplicity. Standard No. 208's phase-in requirements are expressed in terms of production periods, which do not always correspond to model years.

ID: 11379ADRN

Mr. Jon R. Jacobson, Claims Investigator
Risk Management & Insurance Department
Pinellas County Schools
301 Fourth St., S.W., Box 2942
Largo, FL 34649-2942

Dear Mr. Jacobson:

This responds to your letter concerning the transportation of students in school buses and other vehicles and the safety standards which apply to these vehicles. You asked for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA) definition of "passenger car," and in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you also asked for NHTSA's definition of an MPV. You further inquired how one can determine whether an MPV meets the passenger car safety standards.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety , NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles. We require any person selling a new vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is certified to all applicable FMVSSs. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS specifies the motor vehicles to which it applies.

The vehicle definitions we use for purposes of applying the FMVSSs are set forth at Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.3. "Passenger car" is defined in that section as:

a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is also defined in that section as:

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.

Under Chapter 301, a motor vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. If the vehicle is an MPV, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle

meets the FMVSSs applicable to MPVs, but it need not certify compliance with FMVSSs, or portions of FMVSSs, that apply only to passenger cars. In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. Examples are Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, and Standard No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems.

There is no easy way to determine the extent to which a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer for information about a particular MPV's conformance with the passenger car standards.

You asked for "a list of the present vehicles that conform to [Federal] standards." NHTSA does not keep such a list. The law requires each new vehicle to meet all applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, a manufacturer who sells new passenger cars or MPVs in the United States must ensure that its vehicles conform to all applicable FMVSSs or be subject to substantial legal penalties, including the responsibility to recall the vehicle and remedy the nonconformance free of charge.

You also ask whether there are differences between the State's definition of "passenger car" and NHTSA's definition. While the State may choose to define "passenger cars" differently than NHTSA, it cannot thereby alter the applicability of the FMVSSs to a particular vehicle. It is NHTSA's definition that determines whether a vehicle will be subject to the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars or to those applicable to MPVs.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our December 26, 1995 letter to Ms. Jane Thornton Mastrucci, attorney for the Dade County School Board, which addresses issues similar to those you have raised. Further, because you asked about requirements for pupil transportation, I have enclosed a question-and- answer information sheet on frequently asked questions about NHTSA=s school bus requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:vsa#571.3 D:2/26/96

ID: 11381MLS

Sergeant Stephan C. Turner
Bus Inspection Unit
Motor Carrier Division
Department of State Police
300 North Clippert
Lansing, MI 48913

Dear Sergeant Turner:

This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems applies to school buses. You stated that during a recent inspection, you observed that a fan clutch had twisted off the air line, thereby depleting the secondary air system supply that provides air for the front brakes. You asked about the effect of adding an accessory to the split braking system required by Standard No. 121. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the authorizing law was the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has now been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303.) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

I note that, under Standard No. 121, school buses equipped with air braked systems are effectively required to have a dual braking system that is commonly called a Asplit braking system@ as the result of the requirements in S5.7.1 and S5.7.2. Section S5.7.1, which is referred to as AEmergency brake system performance,@ requires such school buses to comply with a performance requirement that sets forth the distances in which they must stop if there is a leakage failure in the brake system. Section S5.7.2, AEmergency brake system operation,@ requires the emergency brake system to be operated by a service brake control.

You first ask whether Federal requirements address the installation of accessories, such as a fan clutch, to an existing air brake system. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations addressing the installation of a fan clutch that is connected to an air tank. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121.

If an auxiliary device such as a fan clutch is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the

requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Please note that an auxiliary device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a pressure protection valve (i.e., check valve) in such way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device.

You then ask to which system or side should an accessory be connected for best overall protection. The agency does not typically offer specific guidance with respect to vehicle or equipment design. Nevertheless, we do note that the location of the accessory generally does not matter, provided such an installation does not make the air brake system inoperative. One way to protect the air brake system is to install a check valve between the air source and the accessory.

In response to your next question about why experts differ on whether a check valve should be installed, our technical staff advises that it is a judgment call as to whether such a redundant feature is necessary or worthwhile for a particular air brake system. Since such a failure is already addressed by using a split braking system, some manufacturers apparently believe that it is not cost effective to add such an additional valve. As for cost, the addition of a check valve would increase costs by about $12 to $15 per vehicle.

You also ask whether there is a safety concern that the front brakes of a school bus weighing over 17,000 pounds fail due to a malfunction in an accessory connected to the system. Such a failure is a highly unusual event. Nevertheless, the agency has decided to address the possibility of such a failure in section S.5.7.1 of Standard No. 121. Under this provision, all air braked vehicles are required to meet stopping distance requirements with a leakage failure in their air brake systems.

In response to your final question, NHTSA has never had a requirement prohibiting accessories from being connected to the air brake system or requiring a separate air tank or source of air to power accessories.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:121 d:3/19/96

ID: 11385-1.PJA

Mr. Keith L. Taul
QA Manager
AP Technoglass Co.
1 Auto Glass Drive
P.O. Box 5000
Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42702-5000

Dear Mr. Taul:

This responds to your requests for two interpretations regarding printing a label and an antenna on vehicle glazing. I apologize for the delay in responding. The short answer to your questions is that you may not emboss or otherwise affix these items to any window, unless a light transmittance requirement is met.

Your first letter requests information on whether you may print a one inch by two and a half inch anti-theft label directly on the glass near the bottom of the driver=s side window. The manufacturer is currently applying stick-on labels to accomplish this but wants to start using a black ceramic material. Your second letter asks a similar question, whether an antenna could be printed in silver on a quarter window behind the C-pillar of a Saturn station wagon. You reason that this should be allowed because antenna and heat lines are allowed in the rear window, which is used more than the quarter window for driver visibility. However, you acknowledge that your proposed antenna lines are thicker than most rear window lines.

In both letters, you enclosed illustrations with proposed locations for these items and ask, if the items were not allowed in the proposed locations, if there were any alternative

locations where the label or antenna would be allowed. As a final alternative, each letter proposes marking the glazing with an arrow indicating that the area of the window containing the item is not intended to meet the light transmittance requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, has a light transmittance requirement of 70 percent that applies to all windows Arequisite for driving visibility.@ Z26 section 4.2, Footnote 1. This agency has a longstanding interpretation that all windows in passenger vehicles are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, both the driver=s side window and the rear quarter window behind the C-pillar would both have to meet the requirements.

NHTSA presumes that all areas of the window are requisite for driving visibility and have to meet the transmittance requirements. NHTSA has in the past excluded some portions of the windshield based on the fact that they are not required for driving visibility. For example, in the November 3, 1988 letter to Volkswagen of America that Paul Atelsek of my staff sent you, we determined that it would be permissible to apply ceramic dots in a shade band along the bottom of the windshield only in those portions through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicle he or she is driving, because seeing these parts of the vehicle is not requisite for driving visibility. We have also determined that sunroofs and the shade band at the top of the windshield are not necessary for driving visibility. NHTSA is not aware of any other areas of windows that the driver could see through that are not requisite for driving visibility.

You have not established that the portion of the driver=s side window to which you propose to affix the anti-theft label would provide the shortest driver with a view only of his or her own vehicle. Therefore, the presumption is that that portion of the driver=s side window would have to meet the transmittance requirements. You have also not shown that the rear quarter window behind the C-pillar, to which you propose to affix the antenna, would provide such a view, so the same conclusion applies.

Without conducting a test, we cannot tell you whether your proposed label or antenna would cause the glazing to fail test number 2 of Z26. We note that the transmittance requirements apply even to stick on labels that are not readily removable by hand. However, if the glazing did meet the test, as well as all the other required tests, then there is nothing in the standard to prevent you from printing the label or antenna directly on the glazing.

Regarding your question of whether the label would be permitted on any other window glass, the answer is that the same considerations apply to the other windows you mentioned (i.e., front door glass, rear door glass, rear quarter door glass window, or rear window glass). The requirement to be able to see adequately through the window is not diminished, as your second letter suggested, merely because the rear quarter window is less used for driving visibility than some other window.

Regarding your suggestion that you could merely mark the glass with an arrow to indicate that the portion of the window encompassing the label is not intended to meet the transmittance requirements, that would not be permitted. Section 6 of Z26 merely explains marking requirements, and does not by itself exempt portions of the glazing from having to meet requirements defined elsewhere. This provision was added to the marking requirements to clearly delineate, prior to testing, the shade bands that Z26 permits at the upper edge of the windshield. To allow a vehicle manufacturer to do this in other areas would be tantamount to eviscerating the transmittance requirement. For example, a manufacturer could mark the windows such that all of the window, except perhaps for a thin strip at the top, was designated as not intended to meet the requirement.

You asked about the mention in the November 3, 1988 letter of a rulemaking action the agency intended to initiate to better define what areas are Arequisite for driving visibility.@ NHTSA did not initiate such a rulemaking action and currently has no plans to do so.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:205 d:5/1/96

You are referring to a paragraph in the marking requirements in section 6 of ANSI Z-26.1-1977 (Z26), incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205, that states AGlazing materials, which in a single sheet of material are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% (Test No. 2), adjoining an area that has less than 70% luminous transmittance, shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test No. 2.@ The area is to be marked with an arrow indicating the part of the sheet that complies.

ID: 11390ZTV

Mr. Tommy Reeder
Loadcraft Manufacturing Corp.
P.O. Box 431
Brady, TX 76285

Dear Mr. Reeder:

This responds to your FAX of November 13, 1995, to Dave Coleman of this agency, with questions relating to rear lights on trailers, and a schematic drawing of the tilt bed trailer that is your concern.

Your first question is this: if the lights are placed on the extreme end of the tilt bed trailer, you say that they will be damaged when the trailer bed is tilted. In its original configuration as a farm trailer, the lamps were mounted on the furthermost crossmember facing the rear of the trailer. You have asked whether the lamps have to be mounted at the extreme end of the trailer.

Standard No. 108, the Federal standard governing lighting requirements, specifies that lamps and reflectors at the back of a trailer shall be located "on the rear". This generally means at the end of the trailer body or bed, or of the rear fender if the trailer is so equipped. It is not necessary to locate lamps literally on the extreme end provided that the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 for rear lamps are met in the location chosen. We deem it highly unlikely that the lamps mounted on the rearmost crossmember as shown in your drawing would comply with the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108.

You have also informed us that you "have started using a drop bar in addition to the lights on the crossmember to increase visibility of the taillights in traffic", and have asked whether this is permissible. The drop bar location for all rear lighting equipment (reflex reflectors, stop lamps, taillamps, and turn signal lamps) would be an improvement, but it is still not certain that such a location would bring the rear lighting array into compliance. There is a 10-degree upward visibility requirement in Standard No. 108, and, depending on the exact mounting angles, the rear edge of the trailer could restrict compliance with this requirement.

There would be a greater likelihood of compliance if the drop bar could be moved rearward to the approximate area where one structural member of the bed begins to angle upward (in your sketch, at the left of the 16 3/4-inch dimension).

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/29/96

ID: 11391MLV

Ms. Gwen Fichtner
Compliance Engineer
Western Star Trucks, Inc.
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y6H8

Dear Ms. Fichtner:

This responds to your fax of November 21, 1995, in which you asked how many seat belts would be required on a box base seat. You stated that the seat had the following dimensions:

Box width - 29.71 inches Width of flat area between foam bolsters on seat back - 24 inches Overall width at the widest part of the foam - 31 inches

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies occupant protection requirements (seat belts or air bags) based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. The requirements apply to "designated seating positions," defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat ... having greater than 50 inches of hip room ... shall have not less than three designated seating positions... In a May 22, 1978, notification to vehicle manufacturers, the agency stated that manufacturers are responsible for determining the number of seating positions that are in the vehicle. The agency also stated:

This does not mean, however, that the manufacturer's designation will be accepted by the agency if there are additional, obvious seating positions that are likely to be used by occupants while the vehicle is in motion. The agency unquestionably intends to require protection for all vehicle occupants.

Thus, while it is your responsibility to determine the number of seat belts required, we can provide some guidance to help you determine whether more than one belt would be required on this seat.

The agency has previously stated that the definition of "designated seating position" should not be read to mean that vehicles with less than 50 inches of hip room are never required to have three seat belts, but rather that this amount is "conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions." On seats with slightly less than 50 inches, the agency said "the seat design should be such that it is obviously to be used by only two persons if the manufacturer only designates two positions." Your seat has significantly less than 50 inches of hip room, and therefore, you would not have to designate three positions.

The definition of designated seating position does not include an amount that is conclusive evidence that there should be at least two designated seating positions. The information you provided indicates that the seat would have 31 inches of hip room. The sitting hip breadth of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches. Because your seat has more than 25.6 inches of hip room, it could be possible for more than one 5th percentile adult female to use the seat. However, we also note that the amount that is conclusive evidence of three positions is greater than 38.4 inches (the amount of hip room of three 5th percentile females). Therefore, we believe that this situation is analogous to the situation of a seat with slightly less than 50 inches of hip room, and would look to see whether the seat design is such that it is obvious that the seat is only for one person.

The seat appears in the drawings to be generally flat, similar to a bench seat that would be used for more than one occupant. Therefore, if you wish to designate only one seating position, you should modify the seat design to make it clear that the seat is intended for one occupant. For example, you could sculpt the foam similar to bucket seats or captain's chairs.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:3/4/96

On January 16, 1996, you faxed additional drawings to our office. Those drawings indicate that, except for some narrowing at the upper corners of the seat back, the seat bottom and seat back are 31 inches wide. 43 FR 21893. 44 FR 23229, 23232. 44 FR 23229, 23232.

ID: 11392

Terence J. Kann, P.A.
115 N.E. Seventh Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32601

Dear Mr. Kann:

This responds to your letter of November 14, 1995, to Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have asked whether "pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, [are] required to have retro- reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination?" If not, you asked whether NHTSA issued "any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole trailers."

As you noted, Section S3(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 applies to "trailers (except pole trailers) . . . ." This means that pole trailers, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) are exempted from all the requirements of Standard No. 108 including those of Section S5.7 which specifies conspicuity requirements for "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds".

Pole trailers have always been excluded from Standard No. 108 (see 23 CFR 255.51, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section S2, effective January 1, 1968). Thus, the agency never proposed in the first instance that conspicuity requirements apply to pole trailers, and there was no discussion of pole trailers in the preambles to the proposal and final rule. Apparently, pole trailers were defined and excluded on the basis of comments to Standard No. 108 as originally proposed late in 1966 that a standardized lighting scheme might be impracticable for this category of vehicle.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/22/95

ID: 11393JEG

Dr. Aled Williams
Vehicle Engineering
Transport Research Laboratory
Old Wokingham Road
Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6AU
United Kingdom

Dear Dr. Williams:

This responds to your letter concerning shoes for the Hybrid III dummy. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 references certain drawing numbers for the shoe specification, and asked whether there are shoes available in the U.S. which conform to these specifications. You also asked us two additional questions in the event that such shoes are not available: What shoes does NHTSA use for compliance testing, and what are the essential characteristics that should be identified for the shoes used for the Hybrid III dummy. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, section S8.1.9.2 of FMVSS 208 specifies, for the Hybrid III dummy, that "(a) size 11EE shoe specified in drawings 78051-294 (left) and 78051-295 (right) or their equivalents is placed on each foot of the test dummy." These drawings specify gray suede leather safety shoes, size 11EE, made by Lehigh Safety Shoe Co, "or equivalent." Lehigh Safety Shoe Co. no longer makes this particular shoe.

Question 1: Are there shoes available in the U.S. which conform to Standard 208's specifications?

S8.1.9.2 specifies the use of the Lehigh shoe Aor equivalent.@ Although the Lehigh shoe is not available, we use an "equivalent" shoe, as further explained in answer to Question 2, below.

Question 2: What shoes does NHTSA use for compliance testing?

NHTSA=s Laboratory Test Procedure manual for FMVSS 208 addresses your question. Section 12.9 of the manual specifies, for both Hybrid II and Hybrid III dummies, that "(e)ach foot of the dummy shall be equipped with a size 11EE shoe which meets the configuration, size, sole, and heel thickness specifications of MIL-S-13192 and weighs 1.05 pounds to 1.45 pounds."

Question 3: What are the essential characteristics that should be identified for the shoes used for the Hybrid III dummy.

The dictionary defines "equivalent" as "equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc." In determining whether a particular shoe is equivalent to the one specified in FMVSS 208, we consider whether use of the shoe would have any effect on the dummy readings that are used to calculate the standard's injury criteria. We have found the MIL-S-13192 shoe to be satisfactory in testing for the current injury criteria of FMVSS 208.

I also note that the Society of Automotive Engineers is in the process of developing a new shoe specification for the Hybrid III dummy. After that organization completes its work, NHTSA may decide whether to incorporate that specification in FMVSS 208.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208#572 d:3/29/96

ID: 11394

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter of November 27, 1995 concerning the requirement in S4.4 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. That section provides that:

Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

You requested confirmation that this requirement would not apply to a seat that was equipped with a folding seat back to convert the seat to a bed.

You are correct. NHTSA interprets this requirement as applying only to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. Therefore, "designated seating positions" that convert to a non-seating use do not have to comply with the labeling requirement of S4.4.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:207 d:1/4/96

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