ID: 05-002791drn

Cesar H. Cozzi Gainza, Esq.
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Comercio Internatcional y Culto
Direccion General de Asuntos Jurisdicos
Esmeralda 1212. 4 piso (1007)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

RE: "Miranda Guillermo Jorge y otros c/Centro Naval y otros s/daos y perjuicios" (expte. No. 13.445/02)

Dear Seor Gainza:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning any United States "safety standard or legal, ruling or administrative provisions in force to compel the manufacturers and/or importers of automobiles with manual transmission to include a mechanism to block the ignition and thus avoid accidents".It is our understanding that that there is civil lawsuit before your court resulting from a car crash which is described as follows:

In Olivos, Province of Buenos Aires, on January first, two thousand, when the automobile of the Plaintiff, occupied by a minor child and a dog fell into the River Plate.The Plaintiff states that the cause of the casualty was due to the fact that the vehicle has no ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear, because the automobile which was involved in the accident was activated when the minor child started the ignition while the vehicle was in gear.The Defendant states that it is not compulsory to provide vehicles with said systems, and the lack thereof implies no design error.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America.(See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

There is nothing in the FMVSSs that require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear".The FMVSS most relevant to your case is FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A copy of FMVSS No. 102 is enclosed for your information.

FMVSS No. 102 has only the following requirement for motor vehicles with manual transmissions:

S3.2 Manual transmissions.Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

As you can see, S3.2 does not require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear."

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.

Enclosure

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:102#VSA
d.6/23/05

ID: nht91-3.36

DATE: May 1, 1991

FROM: Cliff Chuang -- Chief Design Engineering, Prospects Corporation

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Require Confirmation For The Interpretation Of New FMVSS Standard number 118

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Cliff Chuang (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

We have received the new FMVSS #118 published on April 16, 1991. Our company is currently developing advanced power window and power sunroof control systems for the automotive industry. Several of our interpretations to the new standard #118 need to be confirmed in writing by your office.

First, the new FMVSS #118 section S5 (a) says: "Notwithstanding S4, power window, partition or roof panel systems which, while closing, reverse direction when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more from a solid cylinder of 4 to 200 mm in diameter and open to at least 200 mm, may close: ... "

Our interpretation of "22 pounds or more" is that 22 pounds is set as the MINIMUM level of the resistive force for the control system to reverse the window moving direction from closing to opening. Most motors that are currently used in the vehicle power window systems have a maximum force of around 65 pounds. Assume the motor has to give X pounds of force to move the window upward in a normal closing, if an obstruction occurs, naturally the motor will provide more force in order to continue to move the window upward. The force level can change very rapidly when the obstruction occurs. When the total force reaches the minimum level of (X + 22) pounds, or exceeds the minimum level and reaches anywhere between (X + 22) pounds and the maximum force (i.e., 65 pounds), if the control system has the capability to immediately reverse the window moving direction from closing to opening to at least 200 mm, then this control system complies with FMVSS #118 S5.

Second, the new FMVSS #118 section S5 (b) says: "The 4 to '200 mm dimension cited in S5 (a) is measured from the window or panel's leading edge to the daylight opening."

Our interpretation is that this 4 mm daylight opening can-be seen from inside the passenger compartment. We attached diagram Fig.-l (for window), Fig.-2 and Fig.-3 (for sunroof) to explain our understanding.

Please examine our interpretations and confirm them in writing as soon as possible. Your confirmation will have significant impact on our system development. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Fig.-1 -- Window Diagram (graphics omitted) Fig.-2 -- Sunroof Diagram (graphics omitted)

Fig.-3 -- Sunroof Diagram (graphics omitted)

ID: 1810y

Ms. Karen E. Finkel
Executive Director
National School Transportation Association
P.O. Box 2639
Springfield, VA 22152

Dear Ms. Finkel:

This responds to your recent letter to my office asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school transportation.

The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-out windows.

Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as "school buses," i.e., for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR /571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the "school bus contractors." Any person selling the new buses to the contractors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., "school buses"), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying school bus.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by selecting the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window.

Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025; August 15, 1970), but decided against such a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394; May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 217.

For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623; November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirability of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed.

In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally require push-out windows.

We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:217 d:4/27/89

ID: nht89-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KAREN E. FINKEL -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/14/89 FROM KAREN E. FINKEL TO JOHN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA, OCC 3163

TEXT: Dear Ms. Finkel:

This responds to your recent letter to my office asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school t ransportation.

The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-o ut windows.

Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as "school buses," i.e., for purposes that include carryin g students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR S571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the "school bus contractors." Any person selling the new buses to the contrac tors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., "school buses"), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying s chool bus.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by select ing the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window.

Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025; August 15, 1970), but decided against su ch a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394; May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 21 7.

For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623; November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirabi lity of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed.

In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally requ ire push-out windows.

We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht92-4.22

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER, FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEM

TO: PAUL RICE -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-19-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PAUL GOULD (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: I have recently been conducting dynamometer tests to FMVSS 121, here at Cwmbran, and I have some questions which I would like to pose to you as a matter of clarification on the actual meaning of "Average deceleration Rate" and its tolerance.

Taking the Brake Power Test, as an example, the FMVSS states: S5.4.2 "shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average of 9fpsps".

When conducting such tests on our dynamometers, we would carry these out in Constant Torque Mode. The dynamometer is given a deceleration to achieve, and the pressure is modulated around that figure depending on the frictional variations during the stop.

For the Brake Power Test, the dynamometer would attempt to achieve 2.7 m/s2 (in SI units) or 26.49%g.

A typical result obtained from out tests is: Stop 1 26.55%g Stop 2 26.17%g Stop 3 25.93%g Stop 4 26.10%g Stop 5 26.13%g Stop 6 26.05%g Stop 7 25.85%g Stop 8 25.96%g Stop 9 25.94%g Stop 10 25.63%g

This represents a control capability to within 5% (although on the low side).

The FMVSS does not however state this either as a minimum or maximum deceleration.

The points on which I require clarification are:

1) Results presented in this way appear to be lower than required for FMVSS, however, given that only a 5% shift exists are these acceptable, bearing in mind that the more crucial requirements are the pressure limitations and the Hot Stop deceleration rate.

2) It is my interpretation that the deceleration rate is only a Target in order to fade the Linings, and to within an error of 5%, our method is acceptable, rather than aim for a higher deceleration rate, which may mean much higher average deceleration than that stated in the FMVSS. This is also not strictly correct. I also wish to add that during the testing, the pressure utilised was well within the FMVSS demands.

I am sure that it is just a matter of interpretation, but it is vital to clear this up for future testing commitments.

ID: 10-001612_Hansen_motorcycle_crs

ID: 9590

Mr. Donald F. Lett
Lett Electronics Company
410 North Plum
Hutchinson, KS 67501

Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre- necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:109#110#575 d:5/18/94

ID: Koito.2followup

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting further clarification of our August 1, 2005, letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma of Koito Manufacturing Co. (Koito), in which we stated that your companys proposed intensity-reducing headlamps would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As described in Koitos earlier letter, the proposed headlamp would automatically and perceptibly reduce intensity (with approximately a 20-40% reduction in wattage) when the vehicle is stopped, thereafter returning to full intensity once vehicle motion resumed. Your latest letter asked whether a headlamp would be permitted to change in intensity, so long as the light is "perceived to be a steady beam and essentially unvarying in intensity, as well as occurring gradually (e.g. by setting some phase period) such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers". Presuming that this new design, consistent with your earlier design, would be such that "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," the answer to your question is yes.

To reiterate the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S5.5.10 provides:

S5.5.10   The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)   Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)   Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)   A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)   All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g. , February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall).

We further clarified the requirement in S5.5.10(d) in our March 10, 1994 letter of interpretation to Mr. Joe de Sousa. That letter involved the permissibility of daytime running lamps (DRLs) that operated by using the vehicles lower beam headlamps at less than full intensity through "pulse width modulation," a technique which cycles the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect". In our response to Mr. de Sousa, we stated that although a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement under S5.5.10(d), we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be "steady-burning. "

In our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein, we stated that "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions, are permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that letter, we stated, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified. "

In sum, if an intensity-reducing headlamp operates in a manner that meets all of the other applicable requirements of the standard and is perceived as being steady-burning, we believe that such a design would be permissible under the standard, and we would not expect it to be a source of distraction to other drivers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/5/05

ID: 1985-04.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R.A. Bynum

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Associate Director, Pupil Transportation Service Virginia Department of Education P.O. Box 6Q Richmond, Virginia 25216-2060 Dear Mr. Bynum:

Thank you for your July 31, 1985 letter to Administrator Steed concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength to your school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

In a telephone call with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that Virginia wants to purchase new school buses for deaf and blind school children and plans to equip those buses with bathrooms. The bathrooms will be installed by a commercial shop after the State receives the vehicles from a dealer. You explained that the joints of the body panels enclosing the passenger compartment would comply with FMVSS No. 221. However, you asked us whether the panels covering the inside of the bathroom, comprising a "Formica-type" material, must comply with the standard. As explained below, the answer is no.

Our safety standards and regulations are not applicable to modifications of motor vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles for purposes other than resale, with one exception. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

In your situation, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires the commercial business adding the bathroom to ensure that any device or element of design which was installed in compliance with Federal safety standards continues to comply with those standards after the work has been completed. For example, the installation of the bathroom compartment must not render inoperative the compliance of the school bus seats with FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection or the emergency exits with FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. However, the joints of the panels would not have to comply with Standard No. 221 since the panels are being placed in a used vehicle. The agency does, however, urge persons making modifications to follow voluntarily our safety standards.

We would note that this agency has a set of different requirements that would apply if the bathroom were added to a new school bus before its sale to you. In that situation, the person who installs the bathroom would be an alterer under our regulations, and required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards, including FMVSS No. 221. (49 CFR Part 567.7.)

Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. BOX 6Q RICHMOND 23216-2060 July 31, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S,W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Steed:

The Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind for children operating under the auspices or the State Board of Education, need to purchase school buses which contain a bathroom similar to those round in Charter buses. We are not aware or any school buses so equipped which meet April 1, 1977 federal school vehicle regulations.

It would appear that the joint strength standard and possibly others, will be involved. We have contacted several or the major school bus body manufacturers for assistance with development or this project in order that it can be bid as required by Virginia law. Some of these body plants probably will be contacting your agency for guidance in the near future.

We hope members or your agency will be able to help us finalize the planning for this important and much needed feature in an approved school bus for special children. Should a staff member wish to contact me by telephone about this request, they may call 804-225-2037. Sincerely, R. A. Bynum, Associate Director Pupil Transportation Service RAB/ns

ID: nht94-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1994

FROM: Federico Trombi -- Chief Homologation Engineer, Bugatti Automobiles

TO: Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Additional Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/94 from John Womack to Lance Tunick (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter requests an additional opinion from NHTSA as to whether a second anticipated version of the Bugatti EB 110 headlamp would be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108.

This letter is in addition to the Bugatti interpretation request of July 8, 1994, and it is not in lieu thereof. We therefore request that NHTSA respond to both requests. However, we ask that NHTSA not delay the response to either this or the July 8 request because a response to the other may not be ready. Thus, when a response to one is ready, kindly provide it to us, without waiting for the other to be completed. Thereafter, when the other response is prepared, please provide it in a separate l etter. Thank you.

The second version of the proposed Bugatti headlighting system, that is the subject of this letter, would consist of two headlamps. In each headlamp:

The low beam would be provided by a gas discharge unit; and

The high beam would be provided by one "irreplaceable bulb" unit, or such unit together with the gas discharge unit. (In the alternative, instead of an "irreplaceable bulb unit, Bugatti may use a second gas discharge unit.)

The headlamp "box" would be an indivisible entity that would be treated as an exchange unit, and all internal screws would be sealed to prevent removal. The gas discharge unit's bulb, receptacle, reflector, ballast, etc. would be an indivisible unit. The "irreplaceable bulb" unit would be a replaceable bulb unit with an H-1 bulb of approximately 100 watts and the unit would be modified so that the bulb is NOT replaceable. All problems with

2

the headlamp box would therefore be remedied by the replacement of the entire box, which can then be remanufactured at the factory.

As described above, the headlamp would be an integral beam headlighting system provided for in FMVSS 108, S7.4. More specifically, the Bugatti integral beam headlighting system would be comprised of two headlamps that comply with S7.4 (a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii).

The Bugatti headlamp would have the low beam gas discharge unit mounted towards the center of the box (as in the diagram provided to NHTSA) and the "irreplaceable bulb unit" would be mounted inboard of the gas discharge unit.

Outboard of the low beam gas discharge unit, Bugatti may install either a replaceable bulb fog lamp or driving lamp that is not regulated under FMVSS 108.

Bugatti believes that the above headlighting arrangement is permissible under FMVSS 108. Table IV requires that the low beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable". The reason that the gas discharge unit cannot be mounted any farther outboard tha n as proposed is that, because of the design of the Bugatti EB110 body, there simply is not sufficient room (Bugatti's previously submitted attachment shows that if the gas discharge unit were mounted further outboard, it would conflict with the wheel ar ch).

Moreover, the headlamp would be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source (as far as FMVSS 108 is concerned -- the fog or driving lamp would be disregarded) , and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge and irreplaceable bulb light sources.

Is the above-described headlighting system permissible?

We urgently need as swift a response as possible in order to proceed with production. Kindly contact the following with any questions and the response:

Mr. Lance Tunick

1919 Mt. Zion Drive

Golden CO 80401

tel. 303 279 0203

fax 303 279 9339

Thank you.