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.

ID: nht94-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/18/94 from Federico Trombi to Taylor Vinson

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas dischar ge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a "box" so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The "box" would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting.

As you note, this assemblage is an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighti ng System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will "comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)", which apply to two-lamp integral beam headlighting systems.

In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable" because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp "wou ld 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 [of those regulated

2

by Standard No. 108] . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge" and H-1 light sources.

We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

ID: nht94-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1994

FROM: Roger Matoba

TO: Patricia Breslin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Shoulder Belts for Passenger Vans

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT (JOHN WOMACK) TO ROGER MATOBA (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: This letter is a request to review the requirement for shoulder belts for "outboard passengers" on passenger van vehicles. Current vehicle manufacturer's interpretation of Rule FMVSS-208 calls for the installation of shoulder type seatbelts on righthand and lefthand outboard passenger seating positions. This creates a potential safety hazard on benchseat passenger van vehicles with side aisle access to rear seating locations. Manufacturers are installing shoulder type seat belts for passengers locate d on the righthand side of the vehicle. When these shoulder type belts are latched into position, they cross the side passenger aisle way, making it impossible for passengers in rear seating locations to exit or enter a vehicle. Should an emergency situ ation occur, rear seat passengers will be unable to quickly and safely evacuate a vehicle. Likewise, emergency personnel will be unable to quickly enter the rear portion of the vehicle to render aid.

The 1992 model year van passenger vehicles are equipped with standard lapbelts for rightside passengers next to the aisle, and shoulder belts for the leftside outboard passengers next to the window. In 1993, this was changed to comply with FMVSS-208 for all "outboard passenger" seating positions to be equipped with shoulder type belts. This has resulted in the situation described above where rear seat passengers cannot exit past middle seat passengers who have their outboard shoulder seatbelts latched into place.

I propose that this rule be changed, or clarified, to eliminate the requirement for shoulder type belts on outboard seat positions when the seat position is located next to a side aisle way. Right side aisles are typically 12-16 inches wide from the veh icle wall to the seat. Passengers seated on the righthand side of the vehicle in this seat position are not actually "outboard passengers" since there is an aisle space between them and the vehicle wall. Attached is an illustration showing typical seat ing arrangements in passenger vans with rightside aisle ways. Please note that all passenger seats next to the right side aisle have shoulder type belts that cross the aisle. This arrangement of shoulder type belts is a safety hazard because they block the only reasonable emergency path in the vehicle.

As an alternative solution to keeping the current safety rule in place as written, center aisles with split bench seats in van passenger vehicles could be mandated. This would allow for shoulder type belts in outboard seat positions and not hinder emerg ency egress from the vehicle through the center aisle.

I purchased a 1992 model year passenger van instead of a 1993 model year for the very reasons I've described here. I felt the shoulder belt requirement for 1993, and 1994, was not only inconvenient for passengers, but potentially dangerous.

Enclosure

WAGON SEATING ARRANGEMENTS (TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED)

ID: nht94-3.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1994

FROM: Richard Quigley -- Special Consultant, Ill Eagle Helmet Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Richard Quigley (Std. 218)

TEXT: I have reviewed your letter of July 15, 1994, and have come to some conclusions regarding your apparent confusion concerning the "DOT" symbol I sent to you for your approval, and your subsequent emphatic rejection of same.

Let me see if I understand. You are rejecting my "D" on the basis that the computer bitmapped the letter "D" in transmission to your fax machine, so the right side, therefore, had the appearance of "jagged lines at the top and bottom of the letter th at meet in a straight line parallel to the line that forms the left side of the 'D'"; and our letter "O" on the basis that our letter "O" was not a letter "O", but rather just a circle - or a symbol resembling a circle. Have I got that?

I thought everybody had seen "The letter 'O'" segment of Sesame Street: "To make the letter 'O', (just) draw a circle." Big Bird wouldn't lie.

From that lesson, and/or a little common sense, a common person would be led to conclude that sometimes a circle is just a circle, and sometimes its the letter "O". But, our letter "O" isn't a letter "O", its just a circle . . . right? How does that work?

I think you may have been confused by the fact that I had superimposed the name of our company -- "THE ILL EAGLE HELMET COMPANY" -- inconspicuously around the surface of the letter "O", and had placed our unimposing logo in the center of same. How el se could you have been led to the mistake of believing that our letter "O" was just a circle?

So, here is a another version (this time with the bitmapped "D" smoothed out) for you to show around the office. Ask your people if they read it to say "DOT"? The surveys we have taken (our tests) indicate that virtually everybody sees our version o f a "DOT" sticker for just what it is, a "DOT" sticker.

So, other than the problem with our letter "D" (now corrected), and the fact that you were mistaken about our letter "O", do you have any remaining objections to our use of this sticker on helmets that we have certified as being in compliance with FMV SS 218?

If not, we will proceed on the basis that your silence means consent, and thank you for your response.

ID: nht94-3.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr P. Binder -- ITT Automotive Europe GmbH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/19/94 from P. Binder to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Herr Binder:

This responds to your FAX of July 19, 1994, requesting a reinterpretation of our letter to you of June 21, 1994. You had intended to ask us about taillamps rather than the turn signal lamps which were the subject of our letter.

Your latest letter shows a rear motor vehicle lighting array of four lamps, two on the body and two on the tailgate. The lamps on the body contain turn signals, stop lamps, and taillamps. The lamps mounted on the tailgate contain backup lamps, rear fog lamps, and taillamps. Your letter asks for confirmation of your interpretation that:

"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 J585e, 3.1 and Table 1)."

This is correct. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585e states that "multiple lamps may be used to meet the photometric requirements of a tail lamp." Note 3 of Table 1 states that "separately lighted sections . . . may be separate lamps", and that the photometric v alues are to apply when all sections that provide the tail signal are considered as a unit.

"Visibility will be judged with tailgate closed."

As we advised you in our earlier letter, this is also correct.

"Only taillamp 2 mounted on the tailgate will meet the requirements for an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg. inboard. This is in accordance with SAE J 585e; Par. 4."

2

Taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 together comprise the taillamp system. Thus it is not required that taillamp 1 meet the inboard visibility requirements when they are met by taillamp 2.

You have also asked some general questions:

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

No. Table IV's requirement for the location of rear stop, tail, and turn signal lamps is that they be "as far apart as practicable." However, Standard No. 108 does not specify which lamps must be mounted on the body and which are permissible on the tail gate. We encourage manufacturers to mount signal lamps on the body, such as is shown in your drawing.

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

No. NHTSA has no authority to require a manufacturer to take approval tests or to designate test laboratories of which it approves.

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

A manufacturer is not required to inform NHTSA or any other governmental agency about its tests. However, NHTSA has the authority to ask a manufacturer to provide it with copies of test results, and generally does so if it finds failures to meet Standar d No. 108 in its own tests.

"How long is this test valid?"

"After which period has this test to be repeated?"

Under our laws, a lamp manufacturer is required to certify compliance of replacement equipment with Standard No. 108, and it is the manufacturer's determination when it should retest a lamp to verify that its certification of compliance remains correct. In our experience, manufacturers will retest when there are design changes to its products. Manufacturers also

3

engage in surveillance testing of products after they have entered production to ensure that design tolerances continue to be met and that the lamp remains in compliance with the specifications of Standard No. 108.