ID: 86-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/86 EST

FROM: SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS

TITLE: NONE

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 ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," 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: The school bus industry is quite possibly the most safety conscious industry in the nation, and properly so. Newspaper accounts of school bus accidents evoke a greater sense of tragic loss amongst readers -- no matter how far away the accident -- than most disasters involving greater numbers. Our culture assigns greater priority to the lives of its children than to the rest of us. Thus, any measures that enhance the safety of school bus passengers deserve serious attention, and they usually get it.

That was the case with the transportation director of a school district in Iowa when he happened on some literature which described a bizarre-sounding, after-purchase procedure for slashing tires. Jerry Williams puzzled about the procedure (called "siping") for a while, checked around with other companies which slashed their tires, and persuaded the business manager of the Linn-Mar Community School District to buy a siping machine.

That was in 1978. Williams says, "we've been very happy with it ever since."

The siping machine Jerry Williams uses can put any cut in virtually any kind of tire siped, new or used, as long as it has 5/32" tread left. Anyone can be trained to use the machine in 10 or 15 minutes, and the machine allows an operator to make cuts of different depths, as required by the amount of tread left on tire. Cuts may be on the diagonal or straight across the tire, and the width between them may be varied. The cutting blades on this particular sipe are cooled by a spray-miser which cost about five dollars, and are good for 80 or 90 tires. Williams sharpens his blades after 20 tires -- "I touch them up," as he puts it.

Siping has been around for a long time, but only in the last decade or so has there been a machine which makes the tiny cuts quickly, effectively and inexpensively. Williams reports that "it takes two hours to sipe the six tires on my buses, from the time the bus comes in until it's turned loose. That's with a crew of two people."

The Linn-Mar School District's siping machine is manufactured by the Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving Company of Minnetonka, Minnesota.

In Missoula, Montana, in the mountainous western part of the state, Bob Beach's school bus fleet of 70 buses travels 800,000 miles per year, all on siped tires. Before the Saf-Tee Siper was invented, Beach used to cut his tires by hand, with a knife, but it was a costly and ragged procedure.

With the machine-made cuts, according to Beach, the hundreds of sharp little edges created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, and "this means the tire grips the road surface better, making braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He adds, "you also get much better traction spin for starts."

The Linn-Mar School District used to stud their tires for winter road conditions, but siping has eliminated the need for studs and double tire inventories.

According to Williams, Linn-Mar first siped its school bus tires in the dead winter. Roads were covered with snow and ice. As an experiment, he mentioned to some drivers that their tires had been siped, but said nothing to the others. "When the latter came back in the afternoon," he continued, "the drivers said "What did you do to his bus? The front end didn't slide around the corners like it did in the past, and the stopping distance is shorter. And it's getting better traction on take-off."

In Montana, Bob Beach used to run his siped tire only in the winter, but when he began using them year-round, he 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. This minimizes hydroplaning. In fact, it usually eliminates hydroplaning altogether."

Bill Dufor, who operates a fleet of 165 school buses in Prospect, Connecticut, and Pittsfield, Massachusetts, agrees with Beach. "One of the reasons we've got a siping machine is because of wet roads. We feel a lot more comfortable with them, especially with some re-caps which are noted for being a little bit slick on wet roads. Siped tires give you that much more comfort and reliability. We think it does a good job on wet roads."

You might reasonably think that tire life would be reduced by siping; tire engineers though so too, a couple of decades ago. To their surprise, however, they found that tire life increased, and for a very simple reason: siped tires run cooler. The cuts help dissipate heat. Siped tires are used by school bus fleets, highway patrol cars, over-the-road truckers, transit companies and thousands of passenger car owners. In all cases, tires run cooler, and some users report increases in tire life from 15 to 20 percent. That reduces operating costs, and is of obvious significance for public sector fleet owners, like school districts.

The Linn-Mar School District runs siped highway tires on the front end and siped traction tires on the rear -- "Michelins, Goodyears, Fire-stones," according to Williams. The bottom line about siping tires? In Jerry Williams' words, "Everybody feels safer."

That is the case with Bob Beach and Paul Dufour, as well. 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.

As Bob Beach puts it, "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."

ID: 86-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne D. Buhler -- Director of Engineering, Onspot, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc. 1424 E. 800 N. Orem, UT 84057

Dear Mr. Buhler:

This responds to your letter requesting a review of your "Onspot Safety Chain," an automatic snowchain, for compliance with existing regulations. according to your letter, the current units are being installed both as original equipment and in the aftermarket on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, although prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. The device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from an air tank or the Onspot air chambers. For the future, you are considering using a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve. On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, air is generally used from the secondary air reservoir, or the primary reservoir if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes, an auxiliary air system is provided. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any regulations covering automatic snowchains. However, it is possible that installation of the Onspot Safety Chain could affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. We note in particular that since the device may be tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge apply regardless of whether an item of motor vehicle equipment is covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Erika Jones March 24, 1986 Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Jones:

I am writing to officially request a review of our product for compliance with existing codes. Enclosed is a copy of our patents and a description of the installation of the product. This should prove helpful in your evaluation.

The Onspot Safety Chain is relatively new to the United States as it has only been marketed since 1984. The product is currently being imported from Sweden, where it was invented. There are approximately 10,000 units in operation worldwide with 1000 of these in operation in the U.S. Customers include the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S.A.F.

The current units have been installed on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, though prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. Installations are made both at the O.E.M. level and the aftermarket.

Onspot safety chains have been approved in the National Standards for School Bus Body on May 22, 1985. California Senate bill No. 2186 also allows the chains is equivalent to a single set of standard chains. The state of Washington granted a certificate of approval for the device in 1981. This approval has been transferred to our company since November 25, 1984. You will find copies of these approvals enclosed.

Currently the device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from in air tank to the Onspot air chambers. In the future we may use a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve (see Figure 1).

On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, it is common to use air from the secondary air reservoir, or primary if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes we provide an auxiliary air system which consists of a Delco compressor, an air reservoir, and a limit switch to keep the pressure between 85 and 110 psi (See Figure 2).

As can be seen from the drawings, the device is pneumatically actuated, and then powered by the tire of the vehicle. As the velocity of the vehicle increases the angular velocity of the chainwheel increases. The device is not warrantied if engaged above 25 mph, and when engaged the top speed of operation is 45 mph. The chains may be disengaged at any speed within the operating envelope. Please note the Operating Instructions and Recommendations enclosed.

Also enclosed is a summary of test results which have been selected from several independent tests on the product. These tests will be available for your review at your request. Please call me If you have any questions or for additional material.

Sincerely,

Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc.

cc: Dr. Carl Clark Inventor Contaxct code NRD-12

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: nht80-4.5

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Elgene Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1980 letter to this office requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you were concerned about paragraph S5.1.3, which permits the use of used tires on new vehicles other than passenger cars. The interpretations set forth below follow the same order used in your letter.

(1) New motor vehicles subject to Standard 120, which includes all motor vehicles other than passenger cars, may be equipped with used tires, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard; provided, that the used tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and that they are installed on the vehicle at the request of the purchaser. This means that a vehicle manufacturer may not itself purchase used tires to install on new vehicles, nor may a vehicle purchaser authorize the manufacturer to install used tires not owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle.

(2) There is no limitation as to the axles on which used tires may be used. It would be permissible for a vehicle purchaser to ask a vehicle manufacturer to install the purchaser's used tires on each axle of the vehicle. The only requirement for axles in section S5.1.3 is that each axle must be equipped with tires, new or used, the sum of whose load ratings is at least equal to the gross axle weight rating for that axle.

(3) The used tires installed pursuant to paragraph S5.1.3 must be marked with the DOT number to indicate that the tires were originally manufactured in compliance with Standard 119. The January 1, 1978 date to which you referred means that all vehicles manufactured after that date and equipped with used tires under S5.1.3, must be equipped with used tires that originally complied with Standard 119 and have the DOT marking. The requirement does not mean that the used tires must have been originally manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, as you stated in your letter.

(4) For purposes of this section of Standard 120, used tires have been interpreted to include retreaded tires. To repeat what I stated under answer number "1" above, your statement that the vehicle purchaser may use retreaded tires on his vehicle if he requests the manufacturer to install retreaded tires is not entirely accurate. The retreaded tires may only be used if they are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.

The penalties for failure to comply with Standard 120 could be up to $ 1,000 for each violation, pursuant to the authority of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). Since Standard 120 applies to vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any violation. This agency considers each separate use of an unauthorized tire on a vehicle to be a separate violation. For example, if a vehicle had six tires and each failed to comply with the requirements of Standard 120, the vehicle would have six violations, and civil penalties of up to $ 6,000 could be assessed against the vehicle manufacturer.

Enforcement of Standard No. 120 is under the general provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act. There are no special enforcement procedures. The agency has investigators who check vehicles to ensure that they comply with the applicable standards. If there is a noncompliance, the agency has the authority to sue the violator in a Federal court to collect the civil penalties, pursuant to section 105 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394).

If the new vehicles were shipped without tires, as you suggested in the last question in your letter, Standard 120 would not apply to the vehicles. Section S5.1.1 specifies that the requirements of this standard apply to "each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service." Only vehicles so equipped are subject to Standard 120.

You should be aware of the fact that this agency will soon publish a notice proposing changes in the requirements of section S5.1.3 of Standard 120. If you would like a copy of that proposal after it is published, or have any further questions on this matter, please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

SINCERELY,

August 15, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

In reference to U.S. Department of Transportation 571.120 standard no. 120: Tire Selection for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S5.1.3 specifically.

It is my interpretation that:

1. New trailers, trailer/container chassis, trucks and buses, may be equipped with retread tires utilizing salvaged, used, worn tire bodies.

2. These retreads may not be used on steering axles.

3. The worn, used tire bodies (casings) must have been manufactured on and after January 1, 1978, as evidenced by the DOT symbol marked on one sidewall.

4. The purchaser of the equipment may use retread tires on these new vehicles when he requests the chassis manufacturer to install same.

Would you please give me your interpretation of the above. I have great difficulty in competitively securing new chassis O.E.M. retread business with the opposition ignoring the requirements as I interpret them to be. This is a very viable segment of the retread industry since retreads salvage worn tires by consuming far less energy and oil than do new tires.

Are there penalties for non-conforming?

Are there any enforcement procedures?

If the new chassis, trailers, etc. were shipped without tires at all -- would the D.O.T. 120/119 casing (used) tire requirement be applicable?

If further personal discussions are necessary please feel free to call upon me. I urge you to respond quickly.

Gene S. Rosenfeld, President

ID: nht79-2.19

DATE: 02/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sulvan Avenue Englood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in reponse to your letter of September 29, 1978, and in confirmation of your conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.

Your letter raises a number of questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. These questions will be answered in the order posed in your letter.

Q-1. The term "line" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles within a make which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type". You are correct in saying that "B210" is a Datsun "line."

Q-2. You ask whether it is necessary in designating a vehicle "line" to distinguish between independent and rigid axle systems within the same model of vehicle. The answer to your question is no. It is not necessary to make this distinction. In your example, either Case 1 or Case 2 would be correct.

Q-3. You ask whether it is necessary in designating a vehicle "line" to distinguish between different lengths of wheel base within the same family of vehicles. Again, the answer to your question is no. In your example, either Case 1 or Case 2 would be correct.

Q-4. You ask whether it is necessary in designating vehicle "body type" to distinguish between a 2-door vehicle and a 4-door vehicle. It is necessary to make this distinction.

Q-5. You also ask whether it is necessary in designating vehicle "body type" to distinguish between a sedan and a hardtop. It is not necessary to make this distinction.

Q-6. You ask whether it would be necessary in designating a vehicle "series" to distinguish between a Datsun 810 with air conditioning and power steering and a Datsun 810 without these features. It is not necessary to make this distinction.

Q-7. You ask whether it would be necessary in designating a vehicle "series" to distinguish between a Datsun B210 with a cigarette lighter and a Datsun B210 without a cigarette lighter and with a less elegant interior. It is not neces- sary to make this distinction. A Datsun B210 with two doors would have a different "body type" than a Datsun B210 with four doors, however.

Q-8. You ask whether in designating vehicle "engine type", you may use the same character (e.g., "H") to designate different engines so long as they are within different "lines", or whether you must use different characters for each engine type you manufacture.

The vehicle description section (VDS) of the VIN is used to describe a group of vehicles with common characteristics. One of these characteristics is engine type. The VDS is a "code word" which is translated as a whole into the appropriate specification. Each VDS is unique, and the use of a specific character in one VDS does not bar its use in another VDS, whether or not the meaning is the same or different. Consequently, "HB210" can represent a Datsun B210 with an 85 CID displacement engine and "HA100" can represent a DATSUM 510 with a 119 CID displacement engine. In your example, both Column 1 and Column 2 would be permissible.

Q-9. You ask whether it is necessary to uniquely distinguish all engine types within a make, or whether it is sufficient to distinguish engine types within a line. As explained above, each vehicle discriptor section is unique. Consequently, you may use the same characters in more than one VDS provided the VDS can be translated into the specific engine type. In your example, either Column 1 or Column 2 would be permissible.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 28, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NHTSA D.O.T. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Enclosed please find some questionnaire which I would like to get your interpretation on as soon as possible. It is regarding FMVSS 115, VIN.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

HM:mh CC: Mr. Nelson Erickson, Office of Motor Vehicle Programs NHTSA Enclosures

ID: nht91-7.39

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by K. Weinstein)

TO: Frank Vestergaard -- M-CO Denmark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from Frank Vestergaard to NHTSA (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding legal requirements with which your company must comply before selling your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Warn-Mill," that warns of the presence of halted vehicles. As explained below, your device must conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR S571.125), if it is to be imported into the United States.

In your letter, you stated that the "Warn-Mill" is intended to warn of the presence of halted vehicles, and is intended as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." Although no size dimensions were provided, you provided a description of the "Warn-Mill" as a "strong reflecting white triangle, surrounded by red frame, mounted at a magnet foot to be placed at the roof of a halted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. S3 of Standard No. 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle."

It appears that the "Warn-Mill" would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 125. The "Warn-Mill" has no self-contained energy source and is designed to be carried in motor vehicles. You state that it is to be used to warn of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The "Warn-Mill" is not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle because your letter states that it is designed to fall off the vehicle if the vehicle is driven with the "Warn-Mill" still attached.

I note from your letter that your company intends the "Warn-Mill" as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." This agency does not recognize such supplements. Since the "Warn Mill" fulfills the applicability criteria of Standard No. 125, it is a "warning device," within the meaning of the standard, and it must comply with all applicable requirements of that standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the "Warn-Mill" must conform include minimum size, durability,

material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. Based upon the information provided in your letter, it does not appear that the "Warn Mill" complies with the stability requirements in S5.6, because the stability testing is done by placing the warning device on a horizontal brushed concrete surface.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with all applicable standards and are covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act. Unlike jurisdictions in which the vehicles and items of equipment to be offered for sale must be delivered to a governmental entity for testing and approval before they can be sold, the Safety Act gives this agency no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any commercial product.

Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please also note that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of our regulations. One is 49 CFR S551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, which requires manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment, before offering such items for importation into the United States, to designate an agent in the United States upon whom service of all legal notices may be made. The other is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to submit to this agency identifying information and a description of the items of motor vehicle equipment produced. I am, for your information, enclosing copies of both of these regulatory provisions.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to write to me.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) pertaining to Sections:

571.125: Standard No. 125: Warning devices and Accelerator control systems; 551.45: Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers; 552: Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders; 566: Manufacturer identification; and 567: Certification

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Requlations

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: 1982-2.6

DATE: 04/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it would be permissible to attach a label to a door stating "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down". You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.

The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum number of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.

As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. For example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

October 1, 1981

General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing today to ask for your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to the extent that it affects the language of an instructional decal that we intend to affix at the front and rear entrances of our new series of articulated transit buses.

As we understand it, FMVSS 217 is a standard whose intent is to prescribe the amount of emergency exit area to be provided on buses, the nature of the emergency exits to be provided, and the way in which such exits must be identified.

We further believe that the vehicles we are preparing to manufacture in the United States more than meet the requirements of the standard. That is, through a combined use of push-out side windows and escape roof hatches that function and are identified according to FMVSS 217, the escape area requirement is exceeded. Therefore, we believe that the main passenger doors are not also required as emergency exits to qualify the bus under the 217 standard.

However, the language of the specification describing the buses of our current contract with the Chicago Transit Authority demands that additional escape area be provided by the main entrances. Manual operation of the main doors is accomplished via a two-step procedure. First, an operator with a red ball handle, located overhead on the door engine compartment, is pulled to release the air pressure that keeps the door closed. Second, the door panels are pushed open by the passenger. (For a better idea of the conditions at the entrances, please refer to the enclosed sketch.)

CTA further requires that this manual operation of the main doors be described in the following way by an instructional decal that is placed in close proximity to the red-handled operator:

TO OPEN DOOR IN EMERGENCY PULL DOWN.

It is the language of this decal that concerns us. Specifically, though the bus easily exceeds requirements of FMVSS 217, without the inclusion of the main doors as emergency exits, we are unsure that those doors could qualify as emergency exits under 217, and we therefore seek assurance from your office that the use of the word "emergency" in the decal does not violate the standard, as you interpret it.

We thank you in advance for your early response to this question.

Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer

cc: M. R. HOWARD; L. K. MIKALONIS; G. E. PICKETT; L. ROGERS; K. M. SIMON

NOTE: THIS IS A GENERAL CONFIGURATION SKETCH, NOT INTENDED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE DOOR AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

SKETCH OF DOOR ARRANGEMENT M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORP. (CTA) DRAWN BY: J. R. KARNER 10-1-81

ID: nht79-2.27

DATE: 10/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 30, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director-Engineering Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria, Ohio 44035

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:

This responds to your September 20, 1979, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to give you written confirmation that your tandem axle trailer brake system complies with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The NHTSA does not provide advance determinations of compliance with the agency's safety standards. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to test for and certify the compliance of its vehicles or equipment. The agency cannot always tell by diagrams and word descriptions whether a system will or will not comply with applicable safety standards. Compliance of a braking system, such as yours, can only be determined when tested on a completed vehicle.

Our technical staff has reviewed the diagrams and the letter that you submitted. In their opinion, your system appears to comply with the requirements of the standard. However, this is merely an opinion based upon your submission and does not bind the agency in any way should your device fail any compliance tests conducted by the agency.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Sept. 20, 1979

Subject: Request for Confirmation - FMVSS 121

Gentlemen:

A customer of The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix), has requested that Bendix obtain written confirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that the two reservoir tandem axle trailer brake system (Bendix System) shown and described herein, meets the requirements of Section S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems. Previous Bendix studies concluded that based on the interpretation given by the NHTSA letter of January 22, 1976, to Wagner Electric Corporation (copy attached) the Bendix System is in compliance with these reservoir requirements.

The design objectives for the Bendix System were safety, performance, reliability, simplicity, and economy of cost and space. Two years of production installations of this Bendix System have proven that the design objectives have been met.

The Bendix System (Figure 1), utilizes two service reservoirs for normal service braking and reserves sufficient air pressure in one or the other to provide the required spring brake release in the event of a failure to a reservoir.

The major component of the Bendix System is the SR-4 Spring Brake Control Valve (Figure 2) whose operational functions are as described herein.

SYSTEM CHARGING

Trailer supply line air pressure enters the SR-4 valve at the trailer supply port, actuates the control piston, opens the spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and flows into the cavity under the pressure protection piston. When the air builds to a pressure of aproximately 55 psi, the pressure protection inlet valve opens and the air pressure flows past Check Valve "A" and into the rear service reservoir and PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve and then past Check Valve "B" and through the open spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and into the spring brake units. Air pressure is prevented from passing into the front service reservoir by Check Valve "C". When the pressure in the PR-3 valve reaches approximately 60 si the PR-3 inlet valve opens and the air pressure flows past the PR-3 check valve and into the front service reservoir. Both reservoirs and all the spring brake units can now be charged to full system pressure and parking brakes will be released.

NORMAL OPERATION

Service Brakes

Trailer service brakes are controlled by application and release of pressure in the trailer service line connected to the control port of the relay valve. Air pressure consumed from the front reservoir is replenished from the rear reservoir and the trailer supply line via the open PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve. The combined volume of front and rear reservoirs is at least 8 times the volume of all the service chambers at maximum travel.

Since the rear reservoir is in communication with the front reservoir via the open PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve during normal operation (system supply pressure in excess of 60 psi) that total service reservoir volume of the system is in compliance with the requirements of S5.2.1.2.

Parking Brakes

Trailer parking brakes are controlled by application and release of air pressure in the trailer supply line. Loss of supply line pressure due to trailer breakaway, leakage or operation of tractor valving causes the pressure protection valve to close and deactuates the control piston, which closes the spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and vents the air pressure in the spring brake units via the SR-4 exhaust port; thereby causing application of all trailer parking brakes. Reapplication of air pressure in the tractor supply line reactuates the control piston, opens the spring brake inlet/exhaust valve and pressurizes the spring brake units with the air pressure contained in both reservoirs; thereby releasing all trailer parking brakes.

SERVICE FAILURES

Failure of Rear Reservoir System

With a failure in the rear reservoir full air pressure is retained in front reservoir due to the check valve in the PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve and Check Valve "B". Pressure in trailer supply line is maintained at approximately 55 psi due to closing of the pressure protection inlet valve. The reduced trailer supply line pressure actuates the low pressure warning on the tractor alerting the driver to a system failure. The trailer parking brakes do not automatically apply because the trailer supply pressure keeps the control piston actuated and front reservoir pressure is maintained in the spring brake units. In this failure mode, trailer braking is provided by service brake applications on both axles using the air pressure retained in the front reservoir, or by a manual parking brake application on both axles, releaseable by the air pressure retained in the front reservoir.

Failure of Front Reservoir System

With a failure in the front reservoir, approximately 55 psi air pressure is retained in rear reservoir due to closing of the PR-3 Pressure Protection Valve and Check Valve 'C'. Pressure in trailer supply line is maintained at approximately 55 psi due to closing of the pressure protection inlet valve. The reduced trailer supply line pressure actuates the low pressure warning on the tractor alerting the driver of a system failure. The trailer parking brakes do not automatically apply because the trailer supply pressure keeps the control piston actuated and full pressure is maintained in the spring brake units. In this failure mode, trailer braking is provided by a manual parking brake application on both axles, releaseable by the air pressure retained in the rear reservoir. Air pressure in rear reservoir is rechargeable to approximately 60 psi from the trailer supply line pressure.

With respect to the foregoing service failures in the front and rear reservoir systems, the failure modes depict system functions after the reservoirs have been pressurized to 90 psi air pressure and the respective reservoir pressure has been vented to atmosphere to simulate an extreme failure in a service brake system.

In summary, the Bendix Two Reservoir Tandem Axle Trailer Brake System, with its four wheel non-automatic "back-up" braking on tandem axle trailers under conditions of a trailer service system failure, complies with the noted reservoir requirements of FMVSS 121 and provides the safety, performance and economy of cost and space objectives necessary for acceptance by the industry.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests from the NHTSA written confirmation similar to that issued to the Wagner Electric Corporation that the Bendix System complies with the requirements of Sections S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2 of FMVSS 121. We would be pleased to discuss this system in more detail at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director-Engineering

RWH:ep

Attachments

ID: 7241

Mr. Thomas Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, with respect to the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. You were especially concerned with the interaction between a provision in Wisconsin's Administrative Code requiring activation of the stop signal arm under specified conditions and the stop signal arm activation requirements set forth in Standard No. 131. I have responded in detail to your questions below.

Before I answer your question about your company's design for complying with both the Wisconsin Code and Standard No. 131, I would like to note that it does not appear that the Wisconsin regulation is inconsistent with Standard No. 131 with respect to the stop signal arm activation requirements. The Wisconsin Administrative Code states that:

"Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

S5.5 of Standard No. 131 states that "The stop signal arm shall be automatically extended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated..." (emphasis added) Both the Wisconsin requirement and the requirement in Standard No. 131 tie the activation of the stop signal arm to the operation of the red signal lamps. In addition, the Wisconsin regulation also ties the activation of the stop signal arm to the opening of the service door. Based on this information, it appears that a manufacturer could comply with both Standard No. 131 and the Wisconsin regulation by designing its school buses so that opening the service door automatically activates both the stop signal arm and the red flashing lamps. If the Wisconsin regulation were interpreted in a way that does not tie the automatic extension of the stop signal arm to opening the service door, then there could be an inconsistency with Standard No. 131.

You asked whether Blue Bird's system for activating the stop signal arm in accordance with Wisconsin's requirement complies with the requirements of Standard No. 131. You explained that, on its school buses sold in Wisconsin, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. Under this system, the red flashing lamps are activated before the service door has been opened and before the stop signal arm has been extended. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that Blue Bird's system would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 131.

Standard No. 131 explicitly requires the stop signal arm to be automatically deployed whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are activated. As explained in the final rule adopting Standard No. 131, "any system of activation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is extended during, at least, the entire time that the red warning lamps are activated." (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991). As described in your letter, the system your company has developed for its Wisconsin school buses has the red warning lamps activated by a manual switch and the activation of those lamps does not activate the stop signal arm. Hence, that system does not comply with the explicit requirement of Standard No. 131 that the stop signal arm be automatically extended whenever the red warning lamps are activated.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:131 d:6/17/92

ID: nht92-6.5

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Thomas D. Turner to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7241)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, with respect to the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. You were especially concerned with the interaction between a provision in Wisconsin's Administrative code requiring activation of the stop signal arm under specified conditions and the stop signal arm activation requirements set forth in Standard No. 131. I have responded in detail to your questions below.

Before I answer your question about your company's design for complying with both the Wisconsin Code and Standard No. 131, I would like to note that it does not appear that the Wisconsin regulation is inconsistent with Standard No. 131 with respect to the stop signal arm activation requirements. The Wisconsin Administrative Code states that:

"Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

S5.5 of Standard No. 131 states that "The stop signal arm shall be AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated..." (emphasis added) Both the Wisconsin requirement and the requirement in Standard No. 131 tie the activation of the stop signal arm to the operation of the red signal lamps. In addition, the Wisconsin regulation also ties the activation of the stop signal arm to the opening of the service door. Based on this information, it appears that a manufacturer could comply with both Standard No. 131 and the Wisconsin regulation by designing its school buses so that opening the service door automatically activates both the stop signal arm and the red flashing lamps. If the Wisconsin regulation were interpreted in a way that does not tie the automatic extension of the stop signal arm to opening the service door, then there could be an inconsistency with Standard No. 131.

You asked whether Blue Bird's system for activating the stop signal arm in accordance with Wisconsin's requirement complies with the requirements of Standard No. 131. You explained that, on its school buses sold in Wisconsin, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. Under this system, the red flashing lamps are activated before the service door has been opened and before the stop

signal arm has been extended. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that Blue Bird's system would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 131.

Standard No. 131 explicitly requires the stop signal arm to be automatically deployed whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are activated. As explained in the final rule adopting Standard No. 131, "any system of activation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is extended during, at least, the entire time that the red warning lamps are activated." (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991). As described in your letter, the system your company has developed for its Wisconsin school buses has the red warning lamps activated by a manual switch and the activation of those lamps does not activate the stop signal arm. Hence, that system does not comply with the explicit requirement of Standard No. 131 that the stop signal arm be automatically extended whenever the red warning lamps are activated.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht74-5.2

DATE: 02/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and an earlier letter received from Mr. J. K. Smith dated December 14, 1973, forwarding to us for approval revised draft defect notification letters in International campaigns IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081), IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078), IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125), IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) -- two drafts, IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207), IH 73521 (NHTSA 730208). You ask if the revised letters may be sent First Class mail as opposed to Certified mail.

We appreciate your efforts to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), but we find that your revised owner notification letters do not comply with the regulations. We deal with each notification separately below.

IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081). The third paragraph of your letter appears to represent an attempt to comply with both @ 577.4(c) requiring a description of the defect, and @ 577.4(d), requiring an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety related to the defect. We find that this letter fails to adequately describe the defect as the phrase, "unwanted vehicle speed" is vague, and consequently meaningless. Any speed in excess of the driver's input would be "unwanted." We believe to adequately describe the defect, the amount of unwanted speed should be quantified, at least in general terms. If, as quite likely, this may differ from vehicle to vehicle, we believe the letter should contain an indication of the most adverse case. In evaluating the risk you state that the condition can result in vehicle crash if not corrected by the driver. However, you do not indicate how the driver can correct the problem, and the facts as you present them, a jammed throttle

linkage in a moving vehicle, seem to preclude any possibility that the driver can "correct" the condition apart from somehow stopping the vehicle. Without a clear explanation, we believe that the reference to the possibility of correction is misleading. We do not, therefore, consider your statement to be responsive to the requirement of @ 577.4(d)(1)(ii).

Section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires an estimate by the manufacturer of the day by which dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. Your letter states that most dealers have parts, but if they do not, that parts are "usually" available at parts depots within 72 hours. We question the latter part of your statement, particularly as it appears in each notification letter you submit. The estimate must be a specific day, based on the facts of each particular campaign. The requirement assumes, because notification campaigns usually involve other than normal service items and apply to large numbers of vehicles, that manufacturers will take special steps to ensure the availability of parts. Your statement would be appropriate only if repairs can be accomplished using parts normally stocked by dealers, and your company is taking no special steps to supply parts to dealers (or parts depots). Even if this is the case, we believe your letter should include that explanation for your customers.

IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078). We do not find this notification letter to comply with Part 577. I response to your question, the use of the words, "may exist" in the first sentence of the second paragraph is not permitted under @ 577.4(b), which calls for a precise statement. Your next sentence, indicating that the defect may not exist in each vehicle, is permitted under the regulations. Your description of the defect as some loss of "stopping ability" fails to comply with @ 577.4(c) for the same reason as the phrase "unwanted speed" in campaign IH73505. The loss of braking power should be quantified, as the worst possible case if it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Our comments made with reference to IH 73505 regarding compliance with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) are equally applicable here.

IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) 2 proposals. We do not find the notification letter equating the defect with the violation of Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to contain, for that reason, an appropriate description of the defect (@ 577.4(c)) and we do not discuss that draft further. With respect to the

the other draft, we do not find the description of the defect to be sufficient under @ 577.4(c). Specifically, there is no explanation why the gas cap is incorrect, and how it can cause an explosion. In addition, the letter does not comply with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided in our evaluation of campaign notice IH 78505 (NHTSA 730081).

IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73521 (NHTSA 730206). This letter does not conform for reasons similar to those provided for campaign IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078) and IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126). Specifically, to conform to @ 577.4(c), the degree of additional brake pedal effort should be quantified, and an explanation should be provided on why the use of "single wrap" brake hose can result in a loss of vacuum assist. Similarly, the letter does not conform to @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided for campaign IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).

The regulations require notification letters which conform to Part 577 to be sent Certified mail. Consequently, the revised letters must also be sent Certified mail.