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.

ID: nht94-3.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1994

FROM: P. Binder -- ITT Automotive Europe GmbH

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/94 from John Womack to P. Binder (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

Thank you for your reply of June 21, 1994.

To my regret I was forced to realize that I had made a mistake. My fax of April 28, 1994 should be referred to tail lamps.

Lighting System:

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

1. With regard to the tail lamps I interpret FMVSS 108 and SAE J 585e, Sept. 77 as follows:

- This Lighting System is a multiple lamp arrangement, therefore the combination of taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 has to be used to meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections (SAE J 585e; 3.1 and Table 1).

2

- Visibility will be judged with tailgate closed. Only taillamp 2 mounted on the tailgate will meet the requirements for an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12,5 cm' measured at 45 deg inboard. This is in accordance with SAE J 585e; Par. 4.

Is my interpretation o.k.?

2. Some general questions:

- Are there regulations, which lamps has to be mounted on the body and which lamps are allowed on the tailgate?

Is there a regulation to take an approval test in an authorized test laboratory (e.g. ETL)?

- Which US-Authority has to be informed about this test?

- How long is this test valid?

- After which period has this test to be repeated?

Excuse my thoughtlessness. Please reply as soon as possible by fax (Fax-No.: Germany - 7142 - 73 28 95). Thank you very much in advance.

ID: nht94-3.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York School Bus Distributors Assn. (Penn Yan, NY)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217(2))

TEXT:

As a liaison and so termed "answer man" for the NYS School Bus Distributors, a question has arisen relating to vehicles (school buses) less than 4,356 kilograms - and pupil capacity - because of special use - handicapped and other - having a passenger se ating capacity ranging from as low as two (2) to as much as sixteen (16) seated or wheelchair positions in combination.

The direct question - do these vehicles - less than 4,356 kilograms, have to be equipped with the retroreflective tape as depicted in S5.5.3 (c) "school bus"?

The question really arises in the fact that - in most other instances where GVWR is depicted as a related factor - unless there is a GVWR related factor for a lesser capacity the lesser capacity is not required or mandated to meet the same factors as the stated GVWR. (See S5.4.2.1 of the amended FMVSS 217

Any response to the "question" will be greatly appreciated, by myself and the membership of the association.

ID: nht94-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samson Helfgott -- Esq., Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TITLE: Your Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/94 from Samson Helfgott to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-10165), letter dated 3/30/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Samson Helfgott, and letter dated 9/17/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samson Helfgott

TEXT: We have received your letter of July 1, 1994, to Paul Jackson Rice, former chief counsel of this agency, on behalf of your client Harold Caine, with respect to whether a certain supplementary lighting system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehic le Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed copies of two previous letters that this Office has sent you on other supplementary lighting systems developed by Mr. Caine.

You state that "Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing [a] combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the side of trucks and other vehicles." Since you later ask "whether the presence of the red and amber lights o n the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108", we interpret this as meaning that the red and amber lamps would be in addition to those red and amber lamps that are presently required on the sides of vehicles (the side market lam ps) by Standard No. 108. However, your letter fails to state the number and candela of the lamps, and how they would be arrayed along the side of the vehicle.

As we understand it, during normal vehicle operation, the amber side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber lamps are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activate d. As you know from previous correspondence, supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 specifies that front and intermediate side mar ker lamps (those at or near the midpoint of the length) shall be amber, and that rear ones shall be red. If, in the Caine system, the amber supplementary lamps are mounted to the front of the vehicle side and the red supplementary lamps to the rear of t he

2

vehicle side (i.e., amber from front to and including the midpoint; red, after the midpoint to the rear), we do not see that the supplementary system would have an impairing effect upon the stop lamps or rear side market lamps and reflectors. If, howeve r, the system consists of alternating red and amber lamps displayed along the side of the vehicle, then the potential for confusion as to orientation of the trailer could result, impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side market l amps. We assume that the candela of the lamps in the Caine system is no greater than that permitted for the side marker lamps that are required by Standard No 108, but if the candela is greater, that would also create the potential for impairment if the array alternates red and amber lamps.

You have also asked "whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization of this structure on the sides of the vehicles." We know of none, however, it is possible that some States might have laws that would affect this. As we are unable to advise you on State law, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott R. Dennison -- Consultant, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from Scott R. Dennison to Administrator

TEXT: We have received your letter of May 31, 1994, petitioning for a temporary exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation (the Federal Express Airbill indicates that it was mailed July 9, 1994).

The petition does not, as required by 49 CFR @ 555.5(b)(7), set forth the reasons why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

You make the statement that "the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength." Please provide a copy of the test report that demonstrates this performance. Under @ 55 5.6(d)(1)(iv), a petitioner is required to provide "the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall level of safety exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards."

The second page of the petition references a "Plymouth Sunbird" vehicle for model year 1994. We assume you mean Pontiac, as we are unaware of any Plymouth with this model name.

The timing of your letter raises the inference that Excalibur may presently be manufacturing convertibles equipped with manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Please inform us as to the number of Cobras that the company may have produced on or after Septemb er 1, 1989, that were equipped with driver and passenger manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

Finally, it has been customary for petitions to be signed by an officer of the manufacturer. We have accepted petitions signed by foreign manufacturers but submitted by a person resident in the United States, on the manufacturer's behalf. Your use of E xcalibur's letterhead leads to an assumption that you have the authority to make the representations of the

2

petition, but your title of "Consultant" does not identify you as a corporate officer. We would appreciate an explanation of your relationship to Excalibur, or, alternatively, the signature of a corporate officer on the petition.

We shall hold the petition in abeyance until we have heard further from you.

ID: nht94-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1994

FROM: Gene Byrd -- Vice President, Anderson Technology

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 571.106 Rev 10/7/91

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Gene Byrd (Std. 106)

TEXT: Reference: Section S7 Requirements-Air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.

Anderson Technology has registered a Trademark (Block Letter T) with NHTSA and intends to produce a range of reusable end fittings for use with SAE J844 Plastic Tube.

Before development we request confirmation as to the applicable sections of FMVSS-571.106 relative to the requirements of reusable end fittings.

For you review, we have concluded the applicable sections of the governing specification to be as follows:

S7.2.2 End Fittings (Markings) S7.3.1 Constriction S7.3.8 Air Pressure Test S7.3.9 Burst Strength S7.3.10 Tensile Strength S7.3.11 Water Absorption and Tensile Strength S7.3.13 End Fitting Corrosion

Of course, we understand the associated Test procedures as found in Section 8 for self certification compliances.

We thank you in advance for your time and response.

ID: nht94-3.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rick Rogers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/8/94 from Rick Rogers to Robert Hellmuth (OCC-10133) abd letter dated 1/25/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite

TEXT: Robert Hellmuth of this agency has sent us for reply your letter of June 8, 1994, commenting that "a car's brake lights should go on not only when the brake pedal is pressed, but should also go on when the gas pedal is released."

The enclosed copy of a letter dated January 25, 1990, to Larry Snowhite, Esq., represents the agency's views on this matter, now as then.

We appreciate the concern for safety that prompted you to get in touch with us.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 26, 1994

FROM: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to a letter dated 7/14/94 from John Womack to Eric T. Stewart (A42; STD 217)

TEXT: REFERENCE: Notice of proposed rule making, response to petition for reconsideration published in the Federal Register December 1, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 7) and Final rule; technical amendment to FMVSS 571.217 published in the Federal Register Dece mber 2, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 5)

The background to docket 88-21 notice no 7, Federal register page number 63324, states that "the agency believes that ALL existing exits should be subtracted before determining if additional exits will be required. The agency also notes that the front s ervice door of a non school bus can be counted as an emergency exit if it complies with the performance requirements in standard No. 217."

The above comment by NHTSA raises a question in the minds of the engineering personnel at Mid Bus, because we are currently in the process of designing a unique bus for the school and commercial bus market. This bus could have a capacity of 48 children or 40 adults. The chassis will use the chassis manufacturers cab that has an existing left hand drivers door. Can the daylight opening of this existing door to the left of the drivers seat be used in the calculations of required emergency exit area if it meets the performance requirements of standard No. 217?

I am requesting written clarification indicating how NHTSA interprets standard No. 217 with regard to this existing left hand exit. If you have any questions, please call me at (419) 221-2525.

ID: nht94-3.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William R. Willen, Esq. -- Managing Counsel, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 6/28/94 Letter from William R. Willen to administrator, NHTSA (6335)

TEXT:

We have received your "Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c)" (correctly, 49 CFR @ 555.6(c)), dated June 28, 1994.

The petition is incomplete in certain respects. It fails to provide the public interest and traffic safety arguments required by @ 555.5(b)(7). Section 555.6(c)(2)(iii) requires the submission of "the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle that demonstrate its failure to meet the standard, expressed as comparative performance levels." You have provided this information with respect to your request for exemption from Standard No. 103 but not with respect to the eight interior components that acc ompany your request for exemption from Standard No. 302. If you have conducted tests on these components, you are required to submit them as part of your petition.

In addition, the petition does not state whether the period for which exemption is requested is for one or two years (you may need the latter if the manufacture of the 20 electric vehicles is not completed within a year from the date of grant of the peti tion).

If the vehicles are manufactured outside the United States, Honda may wish to avail itself of the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j) which allows a manufacturer to import noncomplying vehicles for purposes of research, investigation, and studies for a period of up to three years (when the temporary

importation bond must be paid). After payment of the bond, a manufacturer may request NHTSA for an extension if it requires further time to complete its tests and evaluations.

We shall hold your petition in abeyance until we hear further from you.

ID: nht94-3.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1994

FROM: Kover, Joe

TO: Medlin, Jere -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 10/14/94 From Philip R. Recht To Joe Kover (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: I am writing to you for your opinion regarding an electronic circuit which I have designed for use in motor vehicles. The device to which I refer is the Light Control Unit (LCU) which currently has a patent pending. The LCU is designed to perform the f unctions which are frequently ignored by the motor vehicle operator. The LCU may easily be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles.

The LCU automatically turns off the head and tail/park lights when turning off the ignition switch, therefore, circumventing the inadvertent discharge of the battery.

The LCU automatically turns on the head and tail/park lights in conjunction with the windshield wiper switch and the lights will remain on until the ignition switch is placed in the off position. This feature precludes the operator from inadvertently turning off the head and tail/park lights, during the hours of darkness, when placing the windshield wiper switch in the off position.

The use of the motor vehicle windshield wipers is generally in conjunction with adverse weather conditions which results in poor visibility.

The LCU also extends an exclusive feature over other light units, this feature is the Light Bus Monitor.

The Light Bus Monitor in combination with the auxiliary circuit automatically restores the head and tail/park lights if the LCU should fail.

The LCU also can be employed as a Daytime Running Light (DRL) unit by maintaining the light switch in the on position. However, unlike conventional DRL units the LCU gives the operator the latitude to make this determination. Also, the LCU allows the op erator to turn off either the head lights only or both the head and tail/park lights via the light switch. Furthermore, unlike conventional DRL units which fail to automatically turn off the lights with the light switch in the on position and the igniti on switch in the off position, the LCU does automatically turn off the lights. Therefore these concepts in conjunction with the Light Bus Monitor serve to make the LCU a more desirable alternative over conventional DRL units. However, one question does surface, would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?

In conclusion based upon the information contained herein, does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Also, could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles; I remind you th at the LCU is not a DRL unit. However, the LCU may be employed as a DRL unit, and if the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Also, could you please include the federal specifica tions for electronic devices. Please forward your expeditious response to me at the above address.