ID: nht95-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Edward J. Googins (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: The question has been raised as to whether our DARE bus needs to have seat belts installed. This bus was given to us by the school department for use by the DARE officer to transport DARE students to activities. These activities occur for the most part outside of the regular school day.

The bus is a 1982, International - Model #S1700 with a GVWR of 20,200. It has stated seated capacity of 35 but due to the size of the students involved, it is difficult to get that many seated. The bus, in accordance to state law, had the flashing r ed and yellow lights removed.

I would appreciate a response from you as to whether this bus in its present use requires the installation of seat belts.

Thank you for your time.

Abuse Resistance Education Drug = DARE

5th & 6th grades

Bus was manufactured as a school bus.

ID: nht95-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995

FROM: Patrick Holmes

TO: To Whom it May Concern

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Patrick Holmes (Std. 218; A43)

TEXT: To whom it may concern.

Due to the high cost of buying a helmet from any shops. I have decided to manufacture a helmet for my own use. What I would like to know is if I follow all specifications that the Dept. of Transportation says I must in order to certify the helmet as D.O.T. approved may I than certify my homemade helmet?

I would appreciate an answer to this question at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

ID: nht95-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122)

TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Veh icle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC.

Confidentiality

Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, t he very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets.

We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. W hereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantil ever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals

The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist m otor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.)

Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.]

A. License Plate Attachment

CONFIDENTIAL

[We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS ar e silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.]

B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps"

This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that:

"Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that:

1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment."

CONFIDENTIAL

One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.]

We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requiremen ts) need not be adjustable.

C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids".

CONFIDENTIAL

[Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation.

The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloropren e (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that:

"Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inn er tube stock or natural rubber (NR).",

and,

"Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR."

The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based.

"S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic sys tem mineral oils . . ."

CONFIDENTIAL

[The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretat ion that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.]

D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2

CONFIDENTIAL

[The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requ ires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, mu ch easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.]

Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that:

"Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2."

S5.1.2.1 States that:

"Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL

[Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero.

Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies t o an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system.

If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.]

E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the mot or is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-s top distances contemplated by Standard No. 119]

Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours.

Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes.

CONFIDENTIAL

Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that sp eed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior.

We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution.

ID: nht95-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Bob Clement -- Member of Congress

TO: The Honorable Richardo Martinez, M.D. -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/14/95 Letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Bob Clement (VSA 11316; A43; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

I recently received the attached information from my constituent, Mr. Dale Allen Pommer, regarding the regulations governing a third seat belt in the back seat. According to Mr. Pommer, federal rules prohibit a third seat belt from being installed in his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.

I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a response so that I might properly reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jay Hansen of my staff at (202) 225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide. I look forward to hearing from you.

Attachment

Representative Bob Clement U.S. House of Representatives 2229 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 205-20515-4205

Representative Clement:

I am writing to you regarding my automobile and safety regulations. We recently had a new baby and I want to put a third seat belt in the back of my 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. I keep getting told that no one will do it because of safety laws. This strikes me as absurd! What is more dangerous? A post-factory-installed seat belt or no seat belt at all? Or two kids in one seat belt? My wife's Hyundai Excel which is considerably smaller than my Blazer has three seat belts in the rear. So my tiny foreign-made car is safe for five, but my much larger, American-made Blazer is not. Is that the conclusion?

I would like to know what, if anything you know about the safety laws and whether or not there is anything that can be done in a case like mine. I sure as Hell can't afford a new truck and don't want to get rid of mine anyway. I would also like to b e able to put my whole family in it.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dale Allen Pommer Nashville, TN 615/262-9736

ID: nht95-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Tom Byrne (Redbook (2); Std. 106)

TEXT: Goodridge (UK) Ltd. has been awarded approval/certification for its Brakelines by the TUV Manheim, Germany. The test procedures and requirements were those of FMVSS 106. We are therefore now able to offer Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines that are leg al for Street and Highway use in Europe and we believe the United States. We have completed the necessary paperwork and have filed for a USA DOT Manufacturers number.

In order to avoid any possible confusion or irregularity, can you please confirm: * an independent laboratory certification that the line meets the requirements of FMVSS 106 is valid for the United States. * that such a brakeline can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper (for example, where pipe thread has been used). * are there any special marking requirements for the United States? We are required to tag with our manufacturers nam e, type of assembly and date of manufacture.

I am submitting to you a copy of our TUV Certificate and an English translation. This is confidential material and I ask that you please give it confidential treatment. I thank you for your consideration of my request and look forward to your timely res ponse. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 452-1664.

ID: nht95-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Ken Van Sciver -- President, Sciver Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Ken Van Sciver (A43; Std. 206; VSA 102)

TEXT: Safety Administration:

The Sciver Corporation has developed a new product, the Auto Bib, hereafter known as product. We have already began the development and marketing of this new product. The reason for this letter is to familiarize ourselves to any local, state, or govern ing agency with regards to the consumers safety standards if applicable with this product.

After speaking with Walter Meyers in one of your departments, he suggested we submit drawings and describe our product to the New Product Safety Committee for review. We have enclosed a promotional sheet that gives detailed instructions of it's uses and installation of this product. The intentions of this product are to provide the consumer a way of protecting their vehicle's door from the abuse caused by their small pets, the sun, and children.

If you could please forward any information and findings at your earliest convenience it will be appreciated.

Enclosures: product description product installation instructions

(Enclosures omitted.)

ID: nht95-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 4, 1995

FROM: Donald B. Karner -- Electric Transportation Applications

TO: Mary Versailles -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/24/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Donald B. Karner (A44; Part 567; Part 571.3)

TEXT: Electric Transportation Applications has been contracted to conduct electric vehicle performance testing. During our listing, we encountered an issue concerning FMVSS Certification of a converted vehicle. Mr. Jude Clark of our staff spoke with you last week, and understood that your office was willing to provide NHTSA's opinion on this issue. We are writing to obtain this opinion.

Our questions center on changes made to a vehicle's seating capacity:

1. When a converter recertifies a vehicle with fewer designated seating positions than the number specified on the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) FMVSS Certification label, what actions must the converter take to prevent the seat from being occ upied?

2. Must the payload of the vehicle (GVWR less curb weight) be greater than the number of certified seating positions times 150 pounds (or some other number representing the weight of a typical passenger)?

3. What vehicle options, if any, must be considered in determinate of the curb weight used in question 2?

Thank you for your help in this matter. We are looking forward to your reply.

ID: nht95-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager Valeo

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/29/95 letter from Guy Dorleans to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear M. Dorleans:

This responds to your letter of September 29, 1995, with respect to the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to fulfill the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108.

You have enclosed a design for a lamp incorporating tail, stop, and rear turn signal functions, the illumination for which will be provided by red LEDs. At night, the LEDs will provide sufficient illumination to meet taillamp photometrics, with increase d illumination when the brake pedal is applied, "so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled." When the turn signal is activated, "all the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn sign al (and) the sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp is then fulfilled. . . ." You ask for "confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct."

We consider this lamp, as you have more fully described it in your letter, to be an acceptable design for meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108.

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

ID: nht95-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipemnt, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: Accessory Lamp with LEDs

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/18/95 letter from Yoshiaki Matsui to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 1995, describing a combination tail, stop, and rear turn signal lamp which incorporates incandescent bulbs to perform assigned functions, and which contains light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a compartment along the outboard side.

With respect to red LEDs adjacent to the tail and stop lamp, you state that the lamp is designed to conform to Standard No. 108 using the incandescent bulbs only, and that your regard the LEDs as an "accessory" acceptable to NHTSA (Your Question 1).

We agree. Because the LEDs are not necessary to conformance with Standard No. 108, they are considered supplemental lighting equipment. Such equipment is permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if it does not impair the effectiveness of light ing equipment required by Standard No. 108. You state that when the taillamp and LEDs are lit simultaneously, the total intensity does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for a one-section taillamp. It would therefore appear that the presence of the LEDs does not impair the effectiveness of the taillamp (or the stop lamp, which will have a higher intensity).

The red LEDs will provide a red color through the amber lens that covers the turn signal lamp, and will remain on when the turn signal is activated (Your Question 2). This design also appears permissible. We have never considered contiguous rear steady -burning red and flashing amber lamps to be prohibited by Standard No. 108 (the basic design of your lamp), and we do not believe that the supplemental red LEDs will impair the effectiveness of the amber turn signal lamp.

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

ID: nht95-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Rita Cola Carroll, M.A. -- Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee, Great Valley School District, Paoli, PA

TO: Office of Chief Council for the NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Rita Cola Carroll (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam,

I represent the Bus Safety Committee from Great Valley School District in Southeastern Pennsylvania. I would like to request a formal written response to the following question. If a child is not sitting fully in a school bus seat, that is, a child's b ody is partially extending into the aisle, is the child afforded the protection of the bus compartment in accordance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222? A rapid response to this question would be most welcome.

Sincerely,