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: nht95-7.9

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 Vehicle 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, the 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. Whereas 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, cantilever 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 motor, 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 are 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 requirements) 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), polychloroprene (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 inner 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 system 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 interpretation 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 requires 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, much 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 to 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 motor 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-stop 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 speed. 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: 1983-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in response to your letter of July 8 1983 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps establishes a minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.

The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of the reflector, rather than the extreme edge; nevertheless, the "reflector edge" you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 8, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington; D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda requests interpretation regarding the amendment to FMVSS No.108 which allows the use of semi-sealed headlamps (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3, 48 F.R. 24690).

Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e states that, "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." However, it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp. We, therefore, believe that it is appropriate to use the edge of the reflector, instead of the inside diameter of the retaining ring, to measure the dimension described in Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e (See attached sketch).

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Very truly yours, H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Att.

FIGURE 1: SEMI-SEALED HEADLAMP (PLAN VIEW SECTION) GRAPH INSERTED HERE REFLECTOR EDGE

ID: 1985-01.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Shimizu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1984, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You noted that section S4.1(e) of the standard provides that "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant. . . ." [Emphasis added]. You asked whether the standard would permit a seat belt assembly with two buckles as shown in the schematic attached to your letter. The answer is that while Standard No. 209 would permit such an assembly, whether such an assembly can be installed in a particular vehicle is determined by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of occupants in a crash. Section S4.1.2.3.1 provides that Type 2 lap and shoulder belt systems used in passenger cars must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. Likewise, S4.2.2 provides that certain trucks and buses with Type 2 belts must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. The belt system you illustrated in your diagram consists of one continuous loop of webbing which serves as both the lap and shoulder belt. However, your design provides a separate buckle for the shoulder anchorage and thus an occupant could release the shoulder buckle and use the belt solely as a lap belt. Thus, we would not consider your design to have a nondetachable shoulder belt.

In addition, section S7.2 of the standard sets requirements for the latch mechanism of non-automatic seat belt assemblies used in passenger cars and certain trucks and buses. Section S7.2(c) requires that the latch mechanism used in those vehicles must release at a single point. Therefore, a two buckle system could not be used in those vehicles.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 19, 1984

Diane Steed -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

This is to ask for your confirmation that a design of seat belt assembly having two buckles is allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209.

Section S4.1(e) of the standard sets forth "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant . . . . .". Based on that provision, we believe that FMVSS 209 permits such a seat belt design as shown in the schematic enclosed as long as they meet all the applicable provisions in the regulation.

We should appreciate your confirmation letter.

Very truly yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.;

Hiroshi Shimizu, Asst. Manager -- Overseas Operations Dept.

Encl.

(Graphics omitted)

Schematic of Seat Belt Assembly having Two Buckles

ID: nht87-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona, CA 92065

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1986, concerning the labeling requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Those requirements provide that each safety belt is to be labeled with the year of its manufacture. You asked whether the yea r of manufacture can be shown in code. As explained below, the answer is no, the standard does not provide for showing the year of manufacture in code.

S4.1(j) of the standard requires each safety belt to be permanently and legibly labeled with the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or importer, the model of the safety belt model, and "the year of manufacture." The standard specifically requires the date of manufacture to be provided on the belt and does not provide for the use of a code to represent that date.

The purpose of the labeling requirement is to make it possible for the agency and consumers to identify easily the manufacturer of the safety belt for the purpose of noncompliance and safety-related defect investigations and notification and remedy campa igns. In addition, having the date of manufacture clearly marked on the belt assists consumers in determining whether a particular belt complies with the latest requirements of Standard No. 209 or some earlier version of those requirements. It also assis ts the agency in compliance testing of aftermarket and other safety belts because it enables the agency to determine easily which version of the standard should be applied to that safety belt. Having the year shown in a code can complicate the easy ident ification of which safety belts are covered by an investigation or campaign and make it more difficult to determine which version of the standard applies to the safety belt.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel US DOT/NHTSA SEP 19 1986 400 7th St SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

FMVSS 209 requires that a seat belt be labeled to show:

Manufacturer's name Seat belt model Year of manufacture

My question is: Can the year of manufacture be shown in code? It seems to me that such interpretation was once given by your agency.

I thank you in advance for your kind response.

Sincerely,

George Ziolo

PS: Your response by informal endorsement hereon will suffice for my guidance.

ID: nht87-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas Baloga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Baloga:

Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1987, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked the agency to confirm that the 36 millisecond time interval to be used in the calculation of the head injury criterion (HIC) applies both to the Part 572, Subpart B test dummy and to the Subpart E test dummy. This is to confirm that the 36 millisecond time interval should be used in the calculation of a HIC for both types of test dummies.

On October 17, 1986 (51 F2 37028), NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. One of the amendments modified the manner in which a HIC is calculated in the crash testing required by t he standard. That amendment referred to @6.2 as the provision of the standard containing the HIC requirement. Instead, the notice should have amended @6.1.2, which sets out the HIC calculation for the Part 572, Subpart B test dummy, and @6.2.2, which set s out the HIC calculation to be used with the new Part 572. Subpart E test dummy.. The agency will publish an amendment to adopt the necessary changes to @6.1.2 and @6.2.2 to make clear that the change to the calculation of the HIC criterion affects thos e two provisions.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Docket 74-14, Notice 47 Concerning FMVSS 208 Published in the Federal Register October 17, 1986

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Confirming our telephone request of May 4, 1987, we would be most appreciative if NHTSA could acknowledge in writing that in the subject FR it was erroneously printed, on page 37033 paragraph @6.2, that for calculating HIC values, the 36 millisecond time interval applies only to the Part 572, Subpart E, Hybrid III test dummy.

A corrected Part 571.208 will, in the future, indicate that the 36 millisecond time interval for HIC calculation applies to using either a Hybrid III or a Part 572 Subpart B test dummy. Since a correction notice in the FR may be further delayed due to hi gher priorities, we are eager to obtain this confirmation as soon as practicable.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering (201) 573-2622

ID: nht88-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C. S. ALLEN -- COMMANDER-DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 20, 1988 LETTER FROM ALLEN TO WOOD

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. That standard requires vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions have a starter in terlock. You stated that you believe that a vehicle would not meet the standard if it was also equipped with a starter interlock bypass switch. As discussed below, we agree with your position.

According to your letter, the California Highway Patrol has become aware that a school bus manufacturer "has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, although equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3, are a lso equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch." If the driver uses one hand to operate the bypass switch and the other hand to operate the reg ular starter key-type switch, the bus can be started with the transmission shift lever in a forward or reverse drive position.

You noted that the manufacturer stated its belief that the bypass switch complies with Standard No. 102 since the switch is regarded as "an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts." You stated that it is your position that "t he bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS 102" and that the manufacturer "appears to be interpreting FMVSS 102 as meaning that the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position w ith the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that." Emphasis in original.

Section S3.1.3, which applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, reads as follows:

S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

It is our opinion that a vehicle would not meet this requirement if it can be started, when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position, by means of the regular starter key-type switch and a starter interlock bypass switch. In this instance, the engine starter would not be "inoperative." This opinion is not changed by the fact that the manufacturer may intend the bypass switch as an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. The intention of the ma nufacturer does not change the fact that the engine starter would not be "inoperative," and Standard No. 102 does not provide for any exceptions to this requirement (for covered vehicles).

We are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

ID: nht76-1.3

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to American Motors Corporation's (AMC's) September 9, 1976, request for confirmation that Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, permits the addition of a "fan" symbol to a control that is identified by the word "fan" in accordance with the requirements of S4.2.1.

The AMC interpretation is incorrect. Section S4.2.1 states in part:

S4.2.1 . . . . A control may, in addition, be identified by a symbol, but only a symbol shown in column 3 or 4 shall be used. However, if the word "None" appears in column 3, no symbol shall be provided. . . .

Table I, whose columns are referred to in S4.2.1, contains an entry for "Heating and Air Conditioning System," and column 3 for that entry contains the word "None". This means that no symbol can be used in addition to the word "fan" on the control for the fan control switch.

The language in the preambles to three proposals to amend Standard No. 101 that you list in your letter does not have the effect of amending the requirements of the standard itself. As you are no doubt aware, a recent proposal would amend Table I to include a symbol for the heating and air conditioning system, but this proposal has not yet been made final. A copy of the proposal is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

American Motors Corporation

September 7, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department Of Transportation

American Motors Corporation (AM) submits this request for an interpretation of the control identification requirements contained in FMVSS 101 as they relate to the fan control switch of the heater and/or air conditioning system.

AM requests this interpretation because of the language contained in Docket 1-18; Notice 7, 10 and 11. Therein, the NHTSA has stated their tentative determination that a fan symbol should be allowed, at the manufacturer's option, to supplement the word "Fan" or "Blower" for purposes of identifying the fan control switch, and has announced its intention to incorporate the internationally accepted ISO fan symbol into Standard 101.

AM is about to release a future heater and air conditioner control assembly which will incorporate the word "Fan" along with the appropriate symbol described in ISO Standard 2575/1 (4.8). AM requests NHTSA's interpretation in order to assure that our incorporation of the ISO fan symbol will not be judged in conflict with the requirements of Standard 101.

A prompt reply to this request would be appreciated in order to facilitate this design decision.

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

ID: nht76-2.12

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 15, 1976, request for confirmation that calculation of the material tensile strength of body panels under S6.2(a) of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, is based on the minimum thickness permitted by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 525 for the thickness specified in ordering the material. This response also reflects the April 1, 1976, meeting held between Blue Bird representatives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel at Department of Transportation headquarters.

Under ASTM standards, the thickness of listed materials is permitted to vary from the specified or "nominal" thickness by a small amount. If the thickness tolerance of a material is specified by the ASTM, the NHTSA bases its determination of thickness on the "minimum thickness" specified for that material in the 1973 edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. If the thickness tolerance of a material is not specified by the ASTM, the NHTSA uses the minimum thickness permitted by the school bus manufacturer's material specification.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 15, 1976

Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221 - SCHOOL BUS BODY JOINT STRENGTH

In S6.2(a) the subject standard makes provision for the manufacturer to determine the material tensile strength as published by the ASTM. This information is required before a manufacturer can design body joints and tooling to manufacture those joints in compliance with the subject standard.

Material tensile strength as published by the ASTM has a tolerance and we need to know to which end of the tolerance we must design. The standard adequately addresses this problem in S6.2(a) by stating ". . . .the relative tensile strength for such material is the minimum tensile strength specified for that material in the 1973 Edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards."

This only addresses half of the tolerance problem. The ASTM standards show tolerances for metal thickness ranges. In the absence of specific guidelines of this problem and because we must commit for tooling immediately, we are using the minimum thickness based on our specified thickness and tolerance in ASTM A525-73. This approach seems to be justified in light of the tensile strength guidelines given in S6.2(a).

If this approach is not satisfactory, please contact us by telephone immediately. We will also appreciate a written reply to this letter at your earliest convenience.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

cc: Bob Williams; Jim Moorman; Jim Swift

ID: nht90-3.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Procedure of Re-calibration for Replaceable Bulb Headlamp with VHAD

ATTACHMT: Attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M. Iwase (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

FMVSS No. 108 specifies in S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) that the horizontal indicator of VHAD shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +-2.5 degrees.

We would like to confirm your interpretation concerning the method and procedures of re-calibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage.

Enclosed please find a copy of Federal Register dated February 8, 1990 (Page 4425 and 4426), in which NHTSA interprets, as follows;

If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.

However, we don't believe that the method mentioned in the NHTSA's interpretation is practicable, with the following reasons;

(1) There may be some case that linear measurement of distance will be unable to be taken between reference points on vehicle body and headlamp units, owing to interruption of some other parts in engine room.

(2) Even if possible to measure linearly, we are afraid that it will be difficult to measure it precisely.

Therefore we are going to adopt a method of addressing for re-calibration in which headlamp with it's lens being masked partially are lit and visually aimed with the help of photometric beam pattern on the screen. (see Fig. 1 and the enclosed pictures). Our experiment proved that the visually aiming by photometric beam pattern be practicable.

We are fully aware that this method needs some space of 3 meters or so between illuminated headlamps and the scren (see Fig. 2) for clear image of beam pattern, which is not necessarily possible to accomodate in every case.

Therefore we are preparing Shop Manual in which both methods of NHTSA's dimensional data and our proposing visual aiming by photometric beam pattern are prescribed, and presenting the optional alternative of the above two methods. We intend to provide a masking sheet for the visual aiming, with Shop Manual.

We would be greatly appreciate it if you would kindly advise us whether our proposal could go along with NHTSA's intention.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply, in advance, we remain, with best regard, yours very truly.

Attachment is entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted).