ID: nht76-1.29

DATE: 12/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 1, 1976, letter to Mark Schwimmer of my staff, concerning the marking "V1" on passenger car tires.

The marking "V1" is not required by any Federal statute, motor vehicle safety standard, or other regulation to appear on the sidewall of passenger car tires. Furthermore, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides in pertinent part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard establshed under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, prohibits any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements for passenger car tires other than those contained in that standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements, including the "V1" that you have mentioned, are thus preempted and void.

SINCERELY,

NOVEMBER 1, 1976

Mark Schwimmer N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel

The marking V1 on passenger car tires, as you know, signifies compliance to the "minimum performance requirements and uniform test procedures for new tires for passenger cars and station wagons" issued by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission on May 14, 1965 and later revised on October 11, 1965 and September 17, 1966.

To my knowledge no further revisions have been made, because the FMVSS 109 went into effect as of January 1, 1968. I assume, therefore, that the marking V1 should be applied only on the tires listed in the tables 1 - 6 of the regulation as follows: Table 1 - Domestic bias tires of the following series: Low Section (ex. 6.50-14) 4 & 8 P.R.

Super Balloon (ex. 6.70-15) 4 & 8 P.R.

Super Low Section (ex. 6.95-14) 4 & 8 P.R.

Table 2 - 70 Series, alpha numeric bias construction (ex. E 70-14) Table 3 - Domestic radial millimetric series from cross section Table 4 - European bias tires of the following series: Table 5 - European bias tires of the millimetric series (ex.

Table 6 - European radial tires of the millimetric series up to the cross section 155 (ex. 145 R 13) version A (32 psi)

I would like to know if the above is correct and therefore the marking V1 is no longer requested on the tires not included in this list.

If the requirements do not apply to every state in the United States, please notify me.

Thank you in advance for your reply on this matter.

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

Galileo Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

ID: nht76-2.3

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: VIRACON, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Viracon's December 13, 1975, and January 28, 1976, requests for a copy of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and for a discussion of the distinction under NHTSA regulations between installation of a sunroof before and after "original sale of the roof." A copy of Standard No. 216 has already been mailed to Viracon under separate cover.

You suggest that there may be different regulations for installation of a sunroof prior to, and after, the sale of the roof, by which I understand you to mean the sunroof. The NHTSA does not regulate sunroofs as such, but it does regulate the roof strength of most passenger cars (Standard No. 216), and conformity with this standard can be affected by installation of the sunroof.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards. Anyone that modifies a passenger car roof by the addition of your product would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 216 at the time of sale. This would include alterations of this type made to a vehicle that has been certified by the manufacturer (49 CFR Part 567). This prohibition does not apply (except in cases of importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)).

The Act also prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)). This means that these classes of persons may not install one of your products, even after the first retail sale, if the installation takes the vehicle out of conformity with Standard No. 216 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

YOURS TRULY,

VIRACON Inc.

January 28, 1976

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

Attached please find a copy of our letter to you dated December 13, 1975. Since we still have had no reply, may I again ask that you please send us a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Diane Bortle Executive Secretary

VIRACON Inc.

December 13, 1975

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

We are anticipating the manufacture of a laminated glass sunroof in the not-too-distant future. May I ask that you send me a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation? I understand there are different regulations for installation prior to, and after the original sale of the roof.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention.

Randall L. Johnson Executive Vice President

ID: nht90-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID R. MARTIN -- TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED 01/01/90 (EST); FROM DAVID R. MARTIN TO NHTSA (OCC 4221)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred t o me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after Se ptember 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers a nd subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already be en sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determinati on that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-10-88 TO NHTSA FROM SCOTT A. SNYDER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we aske d the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still co ntinues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by incr easing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, o r any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This cou ld happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devi ces not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht90-4.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 from W. Shapiro to P.J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). More specifically, you asked about the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 safety belts (i.e., la p/shoulder belts), set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those regulatory requirements for you.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the design drawings for this proposed new safety belt design. We hereby grant your request. We will make available t o the public your incoming letter and this response, but not the design drawings.

Your letter stated that Volvo is designing lap/shoulder belts for the rear seating positions of proposed future vehicles. The retractor for the upper end of the shoulder belt portion of these safety belts would be located in the seat back, and not withi n the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. However, the shoulder belt webbing would pass through a device on the top of the seat back that you called a "belt anchor" on the way to the retractor. This "belt anchor" w ould bear most of the loads imposed on the shoulder belts from the forward direction, and would redirect the shoulder belt webbing downward to the retractor. This function is similar to that performed by D-rings for many current designs of manual lap/sh oulder safety belts. The "belt anchor" would be within the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. You asked if this design would comply with the requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question is yes.

Both the "belt anchor" and the retractor would be "anchorages" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 210 for the shoulder belt, because both would transfer belt loads to the vehicle structure. However, S4.3.2 does not require that both these anchorag es comply with the anchorage location requirements. Instead, S4.3.2 provides that, "the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range shown in Figure 1." NHTSA has interpreted this langu age as follows. If there is a single "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, that single "anchorage" must comply with the anchorage location requirements. If there is more than one "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, the upp ermost of these multiple anchorages must comply with the anchorage location requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: 1985-03.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edward Maloney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Road Bellevue, Nebraska 68005

Dear Mr. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1985 concerning the safety belts in your 1984 Ford Tempo. You explained that Ford has offered to replace the safety belt buckle in your car and you asked if such an alteration is permissible under Federal law. As discussed below, Ford can replaceable buckle as long as the safety belt would continue to comply with our safety standard for safety belts.

Our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance and marking requirements for safety belts. All safety belts sold as items of original or aftermarket equipment must be certified as meeting Standard No. 209. The alteration or repair of items of safety equipment is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....

Thus, if a dealer alters a safety belt, the dealer must ensure that it is not rendering inoperative the belt's compliance with Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 17, 1985

Dear Sir,

I wrote you previously 2/8/84 about my problems with Ford Motor Co. substituting a cheap seat belt in my '84 Tempo that became defective, with one from an '84 Escort car which did not even match my decor.

I took them to Small claims court because I could not get satisfaction or any help from anyone. Ford produced a letter in court in which they offered to alter the seat belt by tearing it apart and putting a different buckle on it. I refused them on grounds of safety. I was under the impression that the federal government specified seat belts in cars for safety, and any alteration was a federal violation, as are all other parts of the car that meet safety standards.

A copy is enclosed. If you prosecute Ford, count on me.

Sincerely,

Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Rd. Bellevue, NE 68005

ID: 2416y

Mr. Earl W. Dahl
Vice President
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be included in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 requires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) together with Part 574 require that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. [These standards] permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intended to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner. Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:5/2/90

ID: 86-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yoshikazu Ito

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager, Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Ito:

This is in reply to your letter of November 29. 1985, to Jeffrey R. Miller, former chief counsel of this agency, with reference to the acceptability of a headlamp switch under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. According to you, "upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for headlamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF...."

You have asked whether the circuit complies with Standard No. 108 and any SAE standards referenced in Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 does not specify circuit design. The "optical horn" is neither required nor prohibited by Standard No. 108 and is viewed as permissible for its use for momentary signalling purposes. This would include simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beam filaments as in your design.

I believe that this uppers your other questions as well.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Re: Head Lamp Switch Circuit

Dear Sir:

We are automotive switch manufacturer in Japan and are making prototype of a head lamp switch for our customer's new car model for U.S.A. which has a circuit by which upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for head lamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF (please see an attached sheet). To our experience, the circuit has never been designed for cars which are to be marketed in U.S.A.

Would you like to answer the following questions?

1. Does the above-mentioned circuit comply with requirements of FMVSS and the concerned standards (SAE?) referred in FMVSSS:

2. What provision(s) of FMVSS and the standards involve this matter?

3. What are interpretation of the FMVSS and the standards provision(s)?

We really appreciate it if you could kindly send us your answers by December 27, 1985. Your kind assistances have been useful for us all the time.

Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Faithfully yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept.

ID: 2744y

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulations and Compliance
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). More specifically, you asked about the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 safety belts (i.e., lap/shoulder belts), set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those regulatory requirements for you.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the design drawings for this proposed new safety belt design. We hereby grant your request. We will make available to the public your incoming letter and this response, but not the design drawings.

Your letter stated that Volvo is designing lap/shoulder belts for the rear seating positions of proposed future vehicles. The retractor for the upper end of the shoulder belt portion of these safety belts would be located in the seat back, and not within the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. However, the shoulder belt webbing would pass through a device on the top of the seat back that you called a "belt anchor" on the way to the retractor. This "belt anchor" would bear most of the loads imposed on the shoulder belts from the forward direction, and would redirect the shoulder belt webbing downward to the retractor. This function is similar to that performed by D-rings for many current designs of manual lap/shoulder safety belts. The "belt anchor" would be within the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. You asked if this design would comply with the requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question is yes.

Both the "belt anchor" and the retractor would be "anchorages" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 210 for the shoulder belt, because both would transfer belt loads to the vehicle structure. However, S4.3.2 does not require that both these anchorages comply with the anchorage location requirements. Instead, S4.3.2 provides that, "the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range shown in Figure 1." NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. If there is a single "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, that single "anchorage" must comply with the anchorage location requirements. If there is more than one "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, the uppermost of these multiple anchorages must comply with the anchorage location requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:2l0 d:ll/9/90

ID: 2796o

Mr. Scott A. Snyder
117 South Keesey Street
York, PA 17402

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of March l0, l988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we asked the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still continues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by increasing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, or any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This could happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devices not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/ll/88