ID: 1984-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape

ID: 1984-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Walsh:

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for confirmation of a 1972 agency interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In pertinent part, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that, at a minimum, a motorcycle be equipped with one taillamp, one stop lamp, and four turn signal lamps. Table IV directs that the stop lamp and taillamp be placed on the vertical centerline, and that the turn signal lamps be placed on each side of the vertical centerline with a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp "and tail or stop lamp." Table IV expressly permits dual stop and taillamps "symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." No express exception is made to the 4-inch spacing requirement if dual stop or taillamps are installed, raising the question whether the minimum distance must be maintained no matter what the rear lighting configuration may be.

You have called to our attention an interpretation of July 1, 1972, that Motor Vehicle Programs of this agency provided Stanley Electric Company Ltd. In that instance the proposed rear lighting configuration consisted of two combination stop, turn signal, and taillamps placed on either side of the vertical centerline. The agency opined that the minimum separation distance was not applicable to combination lamps when there was "no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline." You have asked for confirmation that this remains the agency's view.

As you have pointed out Suzuki's proposed design of a unit combining amber turn signal lamps with red stop and taillamps is similar to current passenger car practice where the minimum distance requirement does not exist. Therefore, this will confirm that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and stop and taillamps applies when single stop and taillamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and taillamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

October 31, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation -FMVSS 108

As we discussed by telephone on 31 October, this is to request confirmation that a July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 applies to the motorcycle rear lighting configuration described below.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 requires that motorcycle rear turn signals be separated by 9 inches or more (centerline to centerline, and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the tail or stop lamp be 4 inches or more. These requirements contemplate the typical motorcycle rear lighting configuration of a centrally located combination tail lamp/stop lamp and separate turn signal lamps on each side of the tail/stop lamp.

For some of today's wider motorcycles, however, we are contemplating a different rear lighting configuration, shown roughly in the enclosed sketch. This configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located near the outer edge of each side of the rear of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp would be a red tail lamp/stop lamp combination, and the outboard part of the lamp would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would typically be more than 24 inches, far exceeding the 9 inch minimum required by FMVSS 108, and providing clear indication of the direction of an intended turning maneuver. In essence, this rear lighting configuration is comparable to current practice in passenger car rear lighting.

In 1972, NHTSA indicated that

the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each noneside of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline.

A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your reference. Based on this interpretation, Suzuki has designed a configuration as shown in the sketch. We would ask you to confirm that the 1972 interpretation would apply to the configuration shown, in recognition that it is meaningless to require a 4 inch separation distance where it is impossible because of the combined construction of the rear lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department

JW:ej

Enclosure "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

July 1972 N41-34 Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of July 5 concerning the requirements for stop and turn signal lamps on motorcycles. The answers to the questions you asked follow -- Question 1.

According to FMVSS 108 Table IV, it says, "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail stop lamp is 4 inches." However, in the case of the above sketch where tail lamp, stop lamp and turn signal lamp are combined in one, can we ignore the above requirements of Table IV? The answer is yes; the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each side of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline. Question 2. Suppose the above lamp arrangement is acceptable, must each stop lamp meet the Class A turn signal lamp (red) -- SAE J575d, Table 1? Or, is complying the said requirements with the total of two lamps acceptable? The two stop lamps cannot be considered as multiple lamps, since it is required that the stop lamp be extinguished on the side when the turn signal is flashing. Each of the stop lamps must therefore meet the Class A photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J575d. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker for E. T. Driver, Director Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs

ID: 1984-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation Mr. Stephen M. Neumer Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler 4100 Mid-Continental Plaza 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603

Dear Mr. Neumer:

This responds to Your August 28, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the labeling requirements specified in paragraph 5.2.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, for containers of brake fluid. You asked whether a label that is "permanently glued" to the container conforms to Standard No. 116. The answer to your question is no.

As you are aware, NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

In your letter you referred to the interpretation that we issued on April 3, 1984, to the Wagner Division of the McGraw-Edison Company. In that interpretation we stated that paper labels on brake fluid containers are not sufficient to comply with the "indelibly marked" requirements of the standard. We interpreted S5.2.2.2 to require the relevant information to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label that is affixed to the container. The agency based this interpretation on the language contained in a notice of proposed rulemaking (35 FR 15229) which proposed to allow labeling on either the brake fluid container or a label or tag attached to the container and the subsequent language in the final rule (36 FR 11987) which did not adopt the proposed alternative permitting markings on labels or tags.

Based on the clear language in Standard No. 116 and our past interpretations on labeling requirements, we are unable to concur with your interpretation that the information required on containers of brake fluids may be marked on labels "permanently glued" to the container.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 28, 1984

Via Air Courier Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are aware of the inquiry of the Wagner Division of McGraw-Edison Company respecting the use of the loose-fitted paper sleeve label on poly-bottles containing brake fluid and your opinion regarding that labeling process. Our client is a packager of brake fluid which, like many of the major marketers of this product, packages brake fluid in poly-bottles but with wrap-around labels permanently glued to the container. By way of background, our client has been packaging brake fluid in this manner for over six years, with millions of bottles having been sold, without one complaint of a label coming unaffixed from a poly-bottle. The labeling is accomplished by sophisticated equipment, acquired at significant cost, and, in addition, there is a quality control department, to assure the permanence of the labels.

Please note that our client does not use a loose-fitting paper sleeve, but its label is permanently glued to the poly-bottle. I have enclosed an example of this kind of container, which is widely used throughout the industry (by way of information, this is not our client's bottle).

It is our opinion that, since the ink on the label is indelibly marked on each label and each label is thereafter permanently glued to the container (not just loosely fitted to the container by sliding it on), there is compliance with Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116. Please confirm our opinion as soon as possible.

In advance, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours, Stephen M. Neumer

ID: 1984-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation -- Jack DiMaio

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack DiMaio Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you asked three questions about the size markings required for truck tires. As a general matter, Standard No. 119 leaves the question of the appropriate size marking to the discretion of the individual manufacturer or to the manufacturers collectively, through the several standardization organizations. To be certain that I fully address your concerns, however, I will answer each of your questions in the order you presented them in your letter.

1 . Please clarify whether it is allowed to market a low profile tire with a size marking of 280/80 R22.5.

At the outset, I wish to clarify one point. In this and your other questions, your size designations do not include a letter designating the tire load range. In prior interpretations of Standard No. 120, which relates to tire selection and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, I have indicated that the load range is considered a part of the size designation. This conclusion was based on the fact that many truck tires have identical dimensions, but widely varying load carrying capacities, depending on the load range. Hence, this answer and the two following assume that the size markings on the sidewall of these tires would include a letter indicating the load range assigned to the tires, as required by paragraph S6.5(j) of Standard No. 119.

Paragraph S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to that standard shall be marked with the tire size designation shown "in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires that tire manufacturers provide the public with a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire size the manufacturer produces. The manufacturer is given the option of itself individually furnishing such a listing to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to the public upon request or relying on the listings shown in the publications of the standardization organizations. A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of its member tire companies. The purpose of standardization organizations is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.

In the case of the 280/80 R22.5 size marking, you may rely on the listings published for that size by any of the standardization organizations shown in S5.1(b) or submit the listings directly to this agency and to each of your dealers. A check of the 1984 publications of the Tire & Rim Association and the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association by this agency did not show any listing for this size designation. It is possible that this size marking is listed by one of the other standardization organizations shown in S5.1(b). If not and if you wish to sell tires with this size designation, you will have to submit a listing of the size rims which may be used with this tire to this agency and to each of your dealers, as specified in S5.1(a).

2. Can the marking 280 R22.5 be used eventually?

If you wish to submit the rim matching information directly to your dealers and to this agency, pursuant to S5.1(a) of Standard No. 119, that marking may be used at the present time. However, it would be preferable if the tire manufacturers, through the standardization organizations, could agree on one size marking for tires with the same physical dimensions and load carrying capacity. This would lessen confusion on the part of consumers and tire service shops. The confusion on the part of those persons was one of the reasons the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the tire tables for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109. Notwithstanding the agency desire that tire manufacturers use the standardization organizations to resolve tire sizing questions, there is no requirement that they do so, provided that they satisfy the requirements of S5.1(a) for disseminating the sizing information.

3. Do standardization instructions exist which say that only marking 275/80 R22.5 is possible?

No such instructions exist in Standard No. 119. It is possible that this is the only size marking which has been approved by a standardization organization and thus the only marking which can be used if the manufacturer wants to meet the sizing dissemination requirements under S5.1(b) of Standard No. 119. However, as stated above, the individual manufacturer is free to follow the dissemination requirements of S5.1(a) for tire sizes not listed in standardization organization publications.

Should you have any further questions, or need further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by a telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 28, 1984 NHTSA Rm. 5219 Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn: Steve Kratzke Dear Mr. Kratzke, We at Continental are in preparation of our own version of the new Low Profile truck tire. Some questions have arisen that you may be able to answer regarding size markings. 1. Please clarify whether it is allowed to market a low profile with marking 280/80 R22.5. 2. Can the marking 280 R22.5 be used eventually? 3. Do standardization instructions exist which say that only marking 275/80 R22.5 is possible? Should you have any questions or need more information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Jack Di Maio Continental Products Corporation Main Office 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 (201) 460-0200; Telex: 133 391

ID: 1984-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section 1905 Lana Avenue, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97314

This responds to your letter of October 23, 1984 to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded ot this office for reply. You asked whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to travel trailers. As explained below, trailers are not covered by Standard No. 205.

Each Federal motor vehicle safety standard has an applications section which specifies the vehicles to which it applies. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing used in a wide range of vehicles. It does not, however, apply to trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 23, 1984

NHTSA 400 7th Street S. W. Room 5320 Washington D. C. 20590 Att'n: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

Please advise if we are correct in assuming that FMVSS apply to non-motorized vehicles as well as motor vehicles.

Specifically, is safety glazing (per FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26) required in Travel Trailers?

Is a travel trailer, regardless of whether it is equipped with a fifth-wheel type hitch or with a tongue type hitch considered to be within the definition of a "house trailer" or "property carrying trailer?'

These questions result from an inquiry we received from a person who had purchased a new 1984 fifth-wheel travel trailer, and found it equipped with "bronze double strength window glass." The dealership who sold the trailer advised the person that safety glazing is not required.

We thank you in advance for clarifying these questions for us.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Telephone (503) 378-2057

ID: 1984-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/84 EST.

FROM: NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT

TITLE: SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 19, 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: Coping with western Montana winter roads used to be a problem for NSTA member Bob Beach, until he made the switch from studded tires to slashed tires. That's right: slashed tires -- thin cuts across the tire, from 5/32 to 11/32 inches deep, and eighth of an inch apart, all the way around. The process is called "siping."

The problem with studs wasn't safety, but cost. "Studs will wear tire casings out," says Beach, "and though they are legal in Montana, they will wear highways out. We used to have a studding machine which made it cost-effective at one end, but we needed another set of tires for summer months, so at the other end, studded tires were costly."

Beach Transportation operates in the city and county of Missoula, Montana. His fleet consists of more than 70 school buses plus seven MCI coaches travelling 793,000 miles per year.

Winters are surprisingly short in Beach's part of the country, from about November to the end of February, but in those months the usual hazardous conditions prevail -- snow pack, slush at times and black ice at others. Schools are rarely closed due to snow, so school buses are expected to perform daily and safely. With siped tires, they do.

According to Beach, the little slits created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, giving it more flexibility. "This means the tire grips the surface better, and it makes braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He added, "you get much better traction spin for starts."

Before the invention of an easy-to-use and low-cost machine that slashed tires, Beach used to cut tires by hand. "Back then, it was called cross cut," he explained, "but it was a costly operation, and the cuts weren't uniform. We wanted something safer."

Siping was invented back in the 1930s by a packing plant worker named John Sipes, who made a series of small cuts in his rubber-soled shoes to prevent slipping. Sipes extended his idea to tires, but it was several decades before the idea became a commercial success.

Today, tire-slashing machines are manufactured by Saf-Tee Siping and Grooving, Inc., the only manufacturer of after-purchase siping equipment.

Purchasers claim that the machines are trouble-free and cost effective. Each blade used to make the sipes is good for 80 to 90 tires, and costs around $ 5 each. Also, the machines are easy to manage and can be operated after 10 to 15 minutes of instruction.

The cost to sipe a school bus tire is $ 10. It takes about five minutes once it is off the vehicle. Any type of tire can be siped -- new, re-cap, or used, as long as it has 5/32" of tread left. Beach Transportation runs new tires on the front of his school buses, and lug re-caps on the rear. His tire inventory is around 500 and every tire is siped, including personal cars and the company tow truck.

Tire engineers have been impressed with test results which show that on snow and ice, siped tires were impressively better performers in terms of traction, braking, and cornering. And, contrary to the engineers' expectations, tread life increased.

Now, molded sipes, a process done during manufacturing, are an almost standard part of tread designs, but are not as effective as siping, an after-purchase process, since molded sipes are spaced only 1/4 inch apart. Also, molded sipes can displace rubber and reduce tread volume, whereas siping does not.

For siping to be most effective, the cuts must go straight across the tire, be of the same depth as the tread, and be at regular intervals. The result of siping with the Saf-Tee Siper is that hundreds of tread elements are created, and each individually grips the road surface and flexes under the stress of acceleration and braking.

Ice traction tests, comparing siped and unsiped tires with identical tread patterns on all four positions, showed the stopping distance of the vehicle to be 155.6 feet with siped tires, versus 200 feet for unsiped tires -- an improvement in performance of 22 percent. And tests for break-away traction on ice show that a significant advantage in force is developed by siped tires compared to non-siped. Once break-away occurs and the tires begin spinning, there is an increase in spinning traction developed by the siped tread in excess of 25 percent.

There are a few eases(Illegible Words) a tire may not be the(Illegible Words) go. First, when the tread design(Illegible Word) already complex and siping would result in numerous unsupported tire elements, chunking might result. Second, using siped tires on gravel roads is not recommended since gravel can cause chunking. However, some companies prefer siped tires in all conditions, including gravel because of the increased safety.

Bob Beach used to run his siped tires only in the winter, but he began using them year-round when he noticed that tire life was increased after siping. He also discovered that siped tires are very effective in Montana's June and September rains. "The siped tread elements open up and the sharp edges penetrate the lubricating film of water in what might be called a squeegee action, and the openings between the tire elements created by the sipes channel water away, minimizing hydroplaning."

Various tests have shown that on slick, wetted surfaces, such as concrete, a new tread with cut sipes will provide up to a 30 percent increase in braking traction, at speeds between 20 to 60 mph. One Canadian transit manager testing low-tread siped tires reports, "I know some of you will say 16 percent (his test results) is only three feet at 20 mph, but three feet can be the difference between an accident and no accident, or a $ 2,000 accident and a $ 1,000 accident. The less accidents you have, the lower your insurance premiums are. The less accidents your fleet has the more confident your drivers are, and the company president is happy."

That certainly is the case with Bob Beach. Siped tires are not only safer on roads that are icy, snow-packed, or filmed with water, they are also cost-effective even on dry roads. They run cooler and dissipate heat. "Increased safety and reduced operating costs don't always go together, but with machine-siped tires, they do. There's no way I'd go back to running without them."

This article was written by Richard Chapman for Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving, Inc., 3467 E. Sunrise Dr., Minnetonka, MN 55345. For further information, contact Wes Sprunk at (612)935-4540.

ID: 1984-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John J. Futini (Fotini)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John J. Futini 1012 Terra Verde Drive Napa, California 94559

Your letter of October 21, 1984, to the Bureau of Motor Safety, Federal Highway Administration, has been forwarded to us for reply.

You have developed a lighting device for mounting on the rear of trucks, "which operates at low speeds, activates and deactivates automatically through the use of electronics, sends a brilliant and instantaneously flashing amber light to the rear for some distance; the result being to ward off or warn fast approaching vehicles... of the presence of a slow moving truck ahead." You have asked for our views regarding the legality of such a device.

We will consider your device as both original and aftermarket equipment. This agency issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to the manufacture of vehicles. Standard No. 108 is the standard applicable to vehicle lighting. Paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 specifies that certain lamps shall flash when activated (e.g., turn signals), that others may be flashed for signaling purposes (e.g., side marker lamps), but, however, that all other lamps shall be steady-burning. We interpret this prohibition to include devices such as yours which are not mandated as original equipment but which might be installed on a vehicle prior to its sale to a customer. Therefore, a vehicle equipped with your device as original equipment or added before sale would appear to fail to comply with paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108.

After a truck has been sold, however, the Federal standards no longer determine the legality of the device. If the owner of a vehicle wishes to install a lamp of this nature, he should be aware that its legality is determined by laws of the State in which the vehicle is registered, and where it will be operated. If the vehicle is subject to the operational requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, the regulations of that agency would apply as well.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

21 October 1984

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter mailed to Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. I invite your comments on the subject matter. Any assistance rendered would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, John J. Futini

10/29/84

Mr. Taylor Vincent,

Per our conversation this date, I am transferring the attached letter for you to handle.

Thank you.

August Burgett 21 October 1984 Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Pierson: This letter is written to you with the intention principally of getting an official view from federal government, or at the least federal input into a project which I have been working on for some time that has to do with highway trucks and safety. Your name was obtained from the latest US government manual on departments and agencies as was the name of the person which appears below to whom a copy of this letter is being sent. I selected the names after close study and assume that I am addressing the contents here to the right people. If not, would you kindly send it on to the proper agency. Instead of going into an elaborate dissertation regarding description of my project, which possibly at some later date I can send a detailed version, I would like to briefly state that I have developed a safety lighting device for highway trucks that attaches to the rearmost point of these vehicles which operates at low speeds, activates and deactivates automatically through the use of electronics, sends a brilliant and instantaneously flashing amber light to the rear for some distance; the result being to ward off or warn fast approaching vehicles, mainly automobiles, of the presence of a slow moving truck ahead. The idea for this device was born from many years of my driving these same heavy vehicles and witnessing sadly the tragic aftermath of a shattering rear-end collision involving a slow truck and a fast automobile, making me realize the urgent need for something to prevent these usually fatal accidents from happening. It has taken many years to develop this truck safety light, going through the frustrations of lack of technical know-how, the near absence of sophisticated electronics in the beginning, trying to find qualified people to assist, etc. I finally have reached a somewhat successful stage in which I now have a working test model that is presently going through a patentability search to determine its uniqueness. While this search is going on, what I need to know is the federal government's view concerning the legality of the application of this truck safety light and if there are existing federal regulations governing the types of lighting that highway trucks may have at their rearmost point, and whether or not it is possible for my light to become a reality on the road. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that I am only interested in applying my warning light to highway rigs strictly and as an accessory item. I believe it to be a direly needed truck safety feature whose time has come. Sincerely yours, John J. Fotini copy: Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards.

ID: 1984-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. Takashi Shimoda Nichirin Rubber Industrial Company, Inc. 1118 Sazuchi, Bessho-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Shimoda:

This responds to your October 8, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses.

Your first question asked about the manufacturer designation required by S7.2.3(b) of Standard No. 106. According to your letter, "NCRN" has been filed with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards as the designation identifying you as the manufacturer of brake hose. You asked whether you must re-register your designation again in order to manufacture air brake hose assemblies. The answer is no. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer or assembler of brake hoses in the event of a safety-related defect or a noncompliance necessitated recall. You need register this designation with NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies.

Your second question asked about 49 CFR Part 393.45, which is referenced in S7.3.10 and S7.3.11 of FMVSS No. 106. Part 393.45 references, among other standards, SAE Standards J1403c for air brake hose assemblies, and J844d for nonmetallic air brake system tubing. You asked whether your understanding is correct that your air brake hose assemblies are required to comply with both FMVSS No. 106 and SAE J1403c. As explained below, your brake hoses are only required to comply with Standard No. 106.

Sections 7.3.10 and 7.3.11 of Standard No. 106 provide that only "coiled nylon tube assemblies" designed for use between frame and axle or between a towed and a towing vehicle are required to comply with Part 393.45. Based on the description in your letter, we believe that the assemblies you manufacture are not coiled nylon tube assemblies. Therefore, your assemblies must conform only to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your third question asked whether Standard No. 106 applies to hoses labeled (A), (B), (C) and (D) in your illustration. As explained below, we conclude that the standard applies to (A), (B) and (C) since, as we understand your letter, if one of these hoses were to fail, the brake system could not be operated.

"Brake hose" is defined by the standard as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Your hoses would be excepted from the standard only if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. Since a failure of hoses (A), (B) and (C) would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system, the hoses transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes and therefore must comply with the standard.

You stated that if (D) were to fail, no influence would be exerted directly on the brakes. We are unable to determine from this information whether (D) transmits or contains the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. We suggest that you determine whether a failure of this hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, (D) is a brake hose subject to FMVSS No. 106.

Your final question asked about the certification requirements for manufacturers of brake hose assemblies. You stated your understanding that the "parts certification needs to be entirely guaranteed by the hose marker itself."

You are correct that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. As the manufacturer of air brake hose assemblies, you are responsible for certifying that the assemblies meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 106. While it is up to you to decide whether to obtain the certification from the parts manufacturers that their products comply with Standard No. 106, this information may be useful to you when you certify that your assemblies comply with the requirements of that standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C., 20590 U.S.A.

October 8, 1984

Gentlemen :

Re : Enquiry on parts certification of air brake hose assembly.

We are the maker of brake hose assembly products and our maker's identification symbol "NCRN" is registered at NHTSA. This time we are planning to deliver our air brake hose assembly to a car maker to be assembled into the automobiles which will be exported to the USA market. Allow us to make some questions on the procedure for having the parts certification on our air brake hose assembly.

Question 1 : Inquiry on labeling. As for the nomination to identify the hose maker set forth in FMVSS No. 106 S7.2.1 (b), our symbol "NCRN" has already been registered as the marker or brake hose. We are of the view that no re-registration is necessary for air brake hose assembly this time since the registered "NCRN" applies to it effectively. Is this understanding of ours correct? (1) Does the legal regulation apply only to the hose for main piping? (2) Or, does it apply to all the hoses (A), (B) and (C), which, if destructed, result in causing the brake ineffective? (3) Or, does it apply to all the hoses (A), (B), (C) and (D) as the hoses used in the system even if they do not influence on the brake operation should they be destructed? Question 4 : Inquiry on procedures or parts certification. The parts certification needs to be entirely guaranteed by the hose marker itself. We are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain the certificate even if the approval procedure is taken to NHTSA and AAMVA. Is this understanding of ours correct? Thanks in advance for your reply to above questions at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Takashi Shimoda NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. Question 2 : Inquiry on applicable regulations for air brake hose assembly. Relating to the item of FMVSS CFR-49-Part 393.45, we assume that the air brake hose must satisfy both the code conditions of FMVSS106 (49 CFR 571.106) and SAEJ1402C. Is this understanding of ours correct? If so, does the performance need to satisfy both the code requirements at the time? Is it enough for the labeling to satisfy only the requirements described in the item FMVSS 106? Question 3 : Inquiry on legal regulation object or hose in air brake system. The outline of air brake system is illustrated below (Fig.1) (A) Hose for main piping. (B) Hose for parking brake. (C) Hose for pressure gauge.

(D) Hose for unloader. If the hoses (A), (B) and (C) out of them should be destructed, the air brake system can not be operative. The hose (D) for unloader is for the circuit or pressure governor which emits the load alleviation signal for air compressor in the event the set pressure of main tank has exceeded the stipulated pressure. Even if this hose is destructed, there is no influence exerted directly on the brake. (In the figure) 1) Valve 2) Main tank 3) Governor 4) Booster 5) Air guage 6) Air chamber 7) Parking brake "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

ID: 1984-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transportation Manufacturing Corporation -- Robert Zeaton, Director of Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Zeaton Director of Engineering Transportation Manufacturing Corporation P.O. Box 5670 (R.I.A.C.) Roswell, New Mexico 88201

This responds to your October 11, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking for permission to use an alternative location for certification labels required by Part 567, Certification.

According to your letter, you are requesting permission to use an alternative location because the locations specified in S567.4(c) are not practicable in your new "MCI" series of intercity buses. The label could not be legible when affixed to areas surrounding the driver's seating position without removing some permanently attached items, such as the driver's seat or steering column cover. You propose, as an alternative, the installation of the labels on the vertical left hand face of the entrance door stepwell. You state that this panel assembly is not removable for servicing and is readily visible in the entrance door and stepwell area.

In consideration of the problems of installing the certification labels on the new MCI buses in the positions specified in S567.4(c) and since the agency desires that these labels be easily readable, we grant your request to install your labels in these new "MCI" series of intercity buses in the alternative locations that you suggested, provided that all the other requirements of S567.4 are met.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 11, 1984 "4 PAGES INSERT HERE"

Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 Gentlemen:

This letter is being sent to you to address the requirements for the location of the VIN plate in a motor vehicle as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations under Title 49 - Transportation, Part 567 -Certification. In S567.4 - Requirements For Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles, the requirements for the location of the VIN plate in the vehicle are specified. There is a general requirement outlined that locates the VIN plate in the immediate vicinity of the driver's seat position.

Attached please find several photographs illustrating the problems with locating the VIN plate in the immediate area of the driver' s compartment on our new (MCI) series of intercity bus. The 'MCI' bus will go into production late this year with first vehicle deliveries scheduled for the end of 1984 or early 1985. A considerable amount of time has been spent reviewing possible locations for the VIN plate. The panel areas to the immediate left side, rear, and right side (driver's console) were all considered. As can be seen in the attached photos, there is no available location where the plate can be permanently installed and still be legible without removing some permanently attached items such as the driver's seat or steering column cover. From the standpoint of federal, state, and local inspections, as well as access to information for customer warranty purposes, this would of course not be practical.

Our present production vehicle (model MC-9) has the VIN plate located in the overhead ceiling cap to the left of the driver's seat (photo #5). As can be seen in photo #6, the new 'MCI' series of buses has the parcel rack extended over the driver's area, eliminating the ceiling cap mounting area. The lower dash area of the vehicle was also investigated, but there is not a practical location available.

After all of our investigations, the location that was found to be the most suitable on the new 'MCI' series was the vertical left hand face of the entrance door stepwall. This is shown in photos #4 and #6. In this location, the VIN plate is permanently rivetted to a stainless steel panel that forms an integral part of the bus. This panel assembly is not removable for servicing and is readily visible in the entrance door and stepwell area.

This proposed location in the front stepwell is by far the most practical one. We would therefore request that this proposal be reviewed and approved at your earliest possible convenience.

Very truly yours,

Robert Zeaton Director of Engineering

Attachments: 4 pages of photos

RZ/jsi

ID: 1984-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Terralab Engineers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas MacGregor Terralab Engineer 3585 Via Terra Salt Lake City, Utah 84115

Dear Mr. MacGregor:

The Administrator has asked me to respond to your letter of June 6, 1984, regarding the modification of fuel systems conforming to Standard No. 301, Fue1 System Integrity. You were concerned about the installation of motor vehicle accessories, such as cab and engine block heaters, which utilize fuel from the fuel system of the vehicles. You are concerned that if the installation of those accessories invalidates the manufacturer's certification as to Standard No. 301, the installer would have to do crash testing to verify the installed system conforms with the standard.

You requested the agency to set requirements for "interconnection systems" which would allow the accessories to be connected to the primary fuel line and the fuel tank and to permit the use of those interconnection systems in lieu of crash testing. We do not believe it is necessary to set requirements for "interconnection systems" since a person altering a fuel line or fuel tank can recertify the system without having to do a crash test.

I have enclosed an information sheet which provides a detailed discussion of the implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks and systems in vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Please note that Standard No. 301 does not require testing; it only requires that the vehicle meet the performance requirements that are specified. The test procedures do, however, state how the agency will test a vehicle to determine compliance. A vehicle alterer's legal responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that a vehicle it has altered does in fact comply with these performance requirements. An alterer can rely upon such things as engineering analyses and computer simulations, rather than crash testing, in making the determination that the vehicle meets the specified performance requirements.

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

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

6 June 1984 Diane Steed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

REQUEST FOR RULING

Dear Administrator Steed:

A problem which needs to be solved by a ruling by the Administration is that of interraction of two fuel systems in a single vehicle.

Specifically, motor vehicle accessories such as cab heaters and engine block heaters which utilize fuel from the fuel system of the vehicle are installed by manufacturers other than the vehicle manufacturer.

An example would be the installation of an engine block heater or a cab heater by an OEM who has purchased a chassis certified to MVSS301.

Even though the block or cab heater may be certified to 301, the insertion of a "T" in the fuel line, or the addition of a second dip tube into the gas tank, invalidates the vehicle manufacturer's 301 certification.

The expense of crash testing to 301 is extreme, and presents a serious burden to manufacturer, the heater manufacutrer of the OEM is difficult to determine.

We therefore request that the Administration determine allowable interconnection systems whereby the primary fuel line may be entered as a fuel source for accessories, and also an allowable method for entry into a fuel tank for a fuel line to such an accessory, and proper test procedures for the acceptability of such connections, and issue, based upon its findings, a ruling which would allow the use of conforming interconnections without the necessity of crash testing.

Sincerely,

Douglas MacGregor DMG:hm