ID: nht75-2.20

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, which was given to you by Mark Schwimmer on April 16, 1975.

Your letter of February 26, 1975, explained that:

(i) Firestone would produce 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use on one of the prototype vehicles in the Urban Mass Transit Administration's Trans-Bus program;

(ii) these tires would be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 119; and

(iii) D50C-16.5 is a new size, not appearing in any existing tire and rim organization publications.

In such cases, S5.1(a) of the standard requires tire and rim matching information to be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires. Your letter suggested that, because Firestone does not expect the tire to be sold through any dealers, this requirement would be inapplicable. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, that interpretation is incorrect. S5.1 of Standard No. 119 applies to all new bus tires, including prototypes manufactured for prototype vehicles. Therefore, you must furnish the matching information to all dealers of Firestone non-passenger-car tires.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 26, 1975

Mark Schwimmer, Attorney -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

RE: TIRES FOR UMTA TRANS BUS PROGRAM

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

As I advised you in our telephone conversation, Firestone has the contract to produce tires for the prototype vehicles being tested by UMTA currently. We have received an order for an additional 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use on the prototype manufactured by The Rohr Industries. Since these tires will be produced after March 3rd, they will be certified by Firestone as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

Size D50C-16.5 is a new size and is not included in any list showing tire and rim matching information. FMVSS 119 specifies in Section S5.1(a) that where such information is not published in the documents listed it is to be supplied to dealers and to NHTSA.

By copy of the attached letter to the Tire Division, NHTSA, we are supplying the necessary information to NHTSA. However, since we have orders for only 100 tires to be used only on the prototype vehicle and since it is our understanding from the prime contractor that the test will be terminated at the end of this year, thereby precluding any possibility of this size being sold for this purpose through any dealers, we are not planning to send copies of the tire and rim matching information to our dealers.

May I have your confirmation that we will be acting within your interpretation of FMVSS 119 in this matter?

As you know, the testing of the three prototype buses is under the control of UMTA. It is not anticipated that any additional tires will be needed for the other two prototypes, however, if the prime contractors should order additional tires it would most likely be under the same conditions as the order received from Rohr Industrial and we would follow the same procedure as it is agreed will be acceptable with the D5OC-16.5 tires.

In view of the fact that an order has been placed with us, it would appear that the prime contractor anticipates a need in the near future. Therefore, we would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely, A. J. DiMaggio -- QUALITY ASSURANCE, FIRESTONE

February 26, 1975

The Tire Division National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Section S5.1(a) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, this is to advise that tire size D50C-16.5 is to be used with a 6.0 x 16.5 rim.

This size tire is not listed in any of the publications of the organizations listed in FMVSS 119.

Very truly yours, A. J. DiMaggio -- QUALITY ASSURANCE, FIRESTONE

ID: aiam4882

"Dear Mr. Harmon: This responds to your letter asking whether Standar No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply. As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of 'child restraint system' in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to 'add-on child restraint systems' only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to 'built-in child restraint systems' only. The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.l.l relating to dynamic performance. In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars. You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1381-l431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Legal Analysis Standard No. 2l3 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term 'child restraint system' is defined as 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition. Some of Standard No. 2l3's requirements apply generally to 'child restraint systems,' i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of 'child restraint system,' it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to 'child restraint systems': S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 2l3 either specifies separate requirements for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems,' or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines 'add-on child restraint system' without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as 'any portable child restraint system.' The term 'built-in child restraint system' is defined more restrictively, as 'any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car.' (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 2l3's requirements for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems,' do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems' only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5441

"Dear Mr. Ori: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of thi agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were concerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the 'second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicle's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have certification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, including the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the 'addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting.' NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a 'minor finishing operation.' Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities. However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112a, 'a person may not...sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with all applicable standards .' Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance. Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business 'may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.' Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 percent. You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered 'passenger cars' under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility, accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a 'bus' under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1(b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0160

Dear Senator Javits: #This is in further reply to your transmitta memorandum and attached letter from Mr. Robert W. Muller, New York, New York, inquiring about consumer information on passenger car tires. #The Department of Transportation does not presently have a publication which would guide the consumer in selecting tires most suitable to his needs. #To provide the consumer with an indication of the performance characteristics of tires, the Federal Highway Administration is obtaining research data and has established Docket 25, Uniform Tire Quality Grading System - Passenger Cars. A copy of the notice from the Federal Register is enclosed. #As soon as a meaningful system of tire quality grading can be developed to assist the public, it will be made available. #Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director;

ID: aiam3359

Dear Mr. Ohashi: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1980, to Mr. John W Carson regarding the dimensions of pliers referred to in paragraph S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and odometers.; The requirements for jaws 25.4mm or less as shown in your sketch o slip joint pliers applies to the dimensions labeled 'R.' The requirement for chain nose pliers with a nose length of 45 mm or less as shown in your sketch applies to dimension 'P.' The enclosed print of slip joint and chain nose pliers clarifies these requirements.; Sincerely, George L. Parker, Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, Vehicl Safety Standards;

ID: aiam2254

Dear Mr. Oleisky: I am writing to confirm your March 19, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*.; Standard No. 119 requires that the symbol 'DOT' appear on the sidewal of a non-passenger car tire, as a certification that the tire meets all of the standard's performance and labeling requirements. Assuming that the tire in question does meet those requirements and is so certified, there is no prohibition in the standard against additional labeling such as 'Blem' or 'A.B.O.' I hope this clarifies the status of your tires.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3691

Dear Mr. Howard: Thank you for your letter of May 6, 1983. You note that your Safet Alert device will blink the hazard warning lights four times in five seconds when the accelerator pedal is lifted when the car is moving at 30 mph or more.; We are glad to advise you that this device is not in violation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, Buses and Motorcycles. For vehicles which predate having the hazard warning control, your device may blink the turn signals on both sides simultaneously.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2014

Dear Mr. Buzzi-Ferraris: #Please forgive the delay in responding t your letter of May 5, 1975, which inquired about the permissibility of iron-branding the letters 'N.A.' on the sidewall of certain passenger car tires to indicate that they are not adjustable under your warranty. #Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars*, Specifies labeling and performance requirements for such tires. The NHTSA has no objection to the provision of additional labeling information such as the 'N.A.' which you have suggested. However, the tire must continue to be capable of meeting the standard's performance requirements at the completion of the hot-branding process. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1204

Dear Mr. Allen: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, to the Administrator. The exemption provided vehicles with a curb weight of 1,000 pounds o less will cease to exist as of January 1, 1974, and lightweight vehicles manufactured on or after that date will be required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to their vehicle category, *e.g.* passenger cars.; Under the circumstances you indicate, you would be the final-stag manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages, under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 of our regulations. We refer you specifically to sections 567.5 and 568.6 of those regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2032

Dear Mr. Inoue: #This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975 concerning the permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on the tire sidewalls to show the locations of the treadwear indicators. #Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certain labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;