ID: nht92-8.21

DATE: March 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth R. Brownstein -- Senior Counsel, PACCAR Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Kenneth R. Brownstein to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6962)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, requesting that the agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR S571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol).

Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not

clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3.

We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984).

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.

Attachment

Copy of Federal Register, vol. 49, No. 97, 5/17/84: rules and regulations. Pertains to 49 CFR Part 571 (docket No. 80-16; Notice 2): Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. (Text omitted)

ID: 86-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/86 EST

FROM: Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek -- Chief of Machinery Plant, Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi (Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 109)

TEXT:

AIR MAIL Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda n.p., 707 02 Ostrava 7 CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dear Mr. Vapenicek:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. You stated that the dimensions of your rims comply with dimensional specifications of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. You asked whether disc wheels provided with certain information can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You provided the following example of your disc wheel marking on the attachment face of the disc:

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

You stated that the information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of your multipiece rim and that height and depth of the marking meets the requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120.

Section S5.2 states: . . . each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph . . . . The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multipiece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall also appear on each other part of the rim.

Your letter indicates that you plan to place your disc wheel marking "on the attachment face of disc." While it is not clear what you mean by the term attachment face of disc, I would like to note several requirements specified by section S5.2 for marking location. First, the marking must be placed on the rim, except that for singlepiece wheels manufacturers have the option of placing the marking on the wheel disc. Thus, assuming that your rim is a multipiece rim, the marking must be placed on the rim rather than the disc. Second, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) must be placed on the weather side. Section S4 provides a definition for the "weather side" of a rim. Third, for multipiece rims, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) must appear on the rim base, and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) must also appear on each other part of the rim. Section 54 provides a definition for "rim base."

Your sample disc wheel marking links by a hyphen the symbol "DOT" required by S5.2 (c) and the designation "E" required by S5.2(a). The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, while the designation E indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, i.e., in your case, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. While NHTSA expects the information provided in paragraphs (a), (b) , and (c) to be grouped together, we do not recommend linking "DOT" and "E" by a hyphen. These symbols provide two different types of information, and the inclusion of a hyphen could cause confusion.

The information required by S5.2(b) is "(t)he rim size designation, and in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5. " Your sample disc wheel marking is 8,O-20. I note first that the rim size designation (defined in S4 as "rim diameter and width") should use the symbol "x" between the width and diameter, as indicated by S5.2(b)'s example. Moreover, for multipiece rims, S5.2(b) requires both the rim size designation and the rim type designation. S4 defines the term "rim type designation" as "the industry or manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code." If your disc wheel is a multipiece rim, the disc wheel marking should include the rim type designation.

S5.2(c) requires a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol. Your letter indicates that you plan to use a symbol. I note that, as discussed in an interpretation letter dated February 17, 1986 (copy enclosed), 49 CFR Part 551 requires rim manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Among other things, the designation of agent must contain information concerning marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name.

The information in your sample disc wheel marking under (e) is consistent with one of the examples provided in S5.2 (e) to indicate the month and year of manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure (see 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi)

Dear Sirs,

We take the liberty of asking you for your advice concerning the disc wheels. As the requirements of S571,120 differ from those on windshields or tires when symbol DOT is concerned we are not quite sure whether our disc wheels marking meets the requirements. We would like to mention that dimensions of our rims comply with dimensional specifications required by the EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANIZATION.

An example of our disc wheel marking on the attachment face of disc (according to S 571.120):

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

The information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of our multipiece rim as specified in S 571.120 S5.2. Height and depth of the marking meet the requirements of S 571.120 S5.2.

Be so kind, please, and let us know whether a disc wheel provided with the information (b), (c), (d) and (e) above can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards.

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant

ID: nht81-1.6

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 17, 1980 letter in which you requested information about the steps your manufacturing plant must take to comply with this agency's requirements for selling tires in the United States. Your letter stated that your main products are truck tires.

All truck tires (for both light and heavy-weight vehicles) imported into the United States must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information. You will see that the standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, and high speed performance), marking requirments (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

Concerning the performance requirements, your letter asked how many sets of each tire size must be delivered to this agency for testing and how the costs are paid. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing before they can be sold, but this country does not. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. After the manufacturer determines that the tires comply with the requirements, the manufacturer stamps the letters "DOT" on the tire to accomplish the certification. This agency then makes spot checks of tires, by purchasing some from a dealer and testing the tires according to the procedures set forth in Standard 119. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. However, there is no advance approval procedure by the agency.

It is a simple matter to check the tire to see that the marking requirements have been followed. I should note that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without a DOT marking to enter the United States.

With respect to the tire and rim matching, this information, as well as the loading schedules for the tire size (showing the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must either be set forth in a current trade association manual or be furnished by manufacturers to dealers of the tires and in duplicate to this agency. If you wish to obtain a copy of the current manual published by the American tire manufacturers to see if the tire sizes manufactured by your plant are listed therein, you may send $ 8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims which you manufacture are listed in that manual, you have complied with this requirement. If the sizes are not listed, you may consult other trade associations, or you may exercise the option to furnish the information to your dealers and to this agency.

I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that would also apply to your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping. This requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see @ 574.5), including the manufacturer's identification mark. To obtain an identification mark, you should follow the steps set forth in @ 574.6 of this regulation.

Further, this regulation requires each manufacturer to furnish forms to its tire dealers to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers of these tires. The dealers must then return the completed forms to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive these forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires because they fail to comply with Standard 119 or because the tires have a safety-related defect. It may be necessary for you to make arrangements with some party in this country to store the completed forms for you.

Finally, I am enclosing a procedural rule, which applies to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency (49 CFR Part 551). This regulation requires all manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. This designation must be in writing and in a form which is valid and binding under Chinese law. Such designation must provide the information set forth in @ 551.45(b) and be mailed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope that this information helps you and that the trade relationship between our countries will be a long and fruitful one. If you need any further information, or clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of Department of Transportation,

Dear Sirs:

Our plant is Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant, formally Ta Chung Hua Rubber INd.Co., established in 1928. Its main products are truck tires and light truck tires, "DOUBLE COIN" brand.

Since liberation, our products have already been exported to many other countries and districts. For promoting Sino-American trade, we would interest to export our tires (bias-ply) into the U.S. market.

We have been told that truck tires imported into U.S. market must meet the minimum Standards of NHTSA of DOT and get his identification. As we are short of further information related to these tests, we write this letter to you for your kind assistance. It would be much appreciated if this letter will soon reply to us for the following matters:

1) How many NHTSA Standards must be met before entering to U.S. tire market?

2) How many sets of each tire size will deliver to NHTSA for total testing procedures?

3) How many testing fee would be paid, if it is nessesary to?

4) Further details which we have to know.

Deng Shin-Wen, Deputy director & chiefengineer

ID: nht81-3.11

DATE: 08/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sigma Six Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 29, 1981, letter asking whether a three-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a motorcycle for purposes of complying with the motor vehicle safety standards.

The term "motorcycle" is defined in our regulations as "a motor vehicle with motive power . . . designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground" (Volume 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Since your vehicle is designed to travel on three wheels, it would be classified as a motorcycle for purposes of complying with the safety standards. The agency plans no major rulemaking at this time that would change the definition of motorcycle or the standards with which these vehicles comply.

SINCERELY,

29 July 1981

Office of the General Counsel Department of Transportation NHTSA

Dear Sirs:

We wish to obtain information on the proper procedures to obtain certification of a specialty vehicle for manufacture in the United States.

I have attached some of the sales literature describing the vehicle. I have previously talked with the rulemaking and compliance personnel at NHTSA in an attempt to clarify the problems that may be encountered.

The "Ant" is a three wheel vehicle and is currently manufactured in Britain. It is certified in the UK under category N[1], "Vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum weight not exceeding 3.5 metric tons". It is also certified for French import.

In my discussion with the rulemaking section I was told that three wheeled vehicles are currently classed as a motorcycle, however, they were under review for possible changes to the rules. The classification required to be met and any changes being made could have a major impact on the investment required to properly set up the manufacturing facility to insure that all applicable FMVSS standards are met in the vehicle engineering and manufacturing practices and procedures.

The investors are currently planning a production rate of 1000 per year in two years with a possible expansion to 5000 per year in five years.

Your attention to our problem and assistance in obtaining a solution is appreciated.

Sigma Six Inc.

Marshall Zaun President

Sales Literature Omitted.

ID: VICK

Mr. Greg Vickers
Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau
900 Spring Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dear Mr. Vickers:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You were particularly interested in the antilock braking system requirements which become effective on March 1, 1998.

You explain that Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau (TMMB) member companies are final stage manufacturers. They usually purchase new chassis and "finish" them by mounting bodies, i.e., concrete mixers.  You ask:

The question arises when you consider that TMMB members will potentially receive non-ABS-equipped chassis prior to March 1, 1998 and will subsequently complete manufacture of the vehicle after March 1. Please confirm that our members' trucks will be in compliance in such a case.

Our standards apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of the standard. However, special provisions apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. If your members purchase "incomplete vehicles," the vehicles may be completed to the standards in effect on the date of the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates.⁽¹⁾ In the example you provide, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle would be prior to the effective date of the ABS requirements. Thus, the use of ABS would be optional for the final stage manufacturers.

You also ask about "another ABS related matter." You state:

Final stage manufacture of truck mixers frequently entails adding a liftable boost-a-load axle. Non-ABS brakes for the wheels on the added axle are tied into the air system of the chassis. The brake assemblies of the truck chassis are otherwise unaltered by the installer of the mixer body. TMMB would like verification that such addition of a liftable axle does not decertify the braking system of the chassis, provided the provisions for an additional certification label affixed to the completed vehicles are met.

Given that you are concerned whether the addition of a liftable axle would "decertify" the braking system of the chassis, we assume that you are asking about chassis-cabs.⁽²⁾ As discussed below, the answer would depend on the type and nature of the certification statement made by the chassis-cab manufacturer. I note, however, that this agency cannot provide verification that the addition of a liftable axle would not affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121.

Under 49 CFR Part 567.5(a), the chassis-cab manufacturer is required to make a certification statement, with respect to each Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in one of three categories:

(1) The vehicle conforms to the standard,

(2) The vehicle will conform to the standard if it is completed in accordance with the instructions contained in the incomplete vehicle document (this statement is made with respect to standards conformity to which is substantially affected by the design of the chassis-cab and the manner in which the vehicle is completed), or

(3) Conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the chassis-cab.

The final stage manufacturer's certification responsibilities (49 CFR 567.5(c)) for a particular vehicle are dependent on the type and nature of the certification statements made by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and on the specific manufacturing operations performed by the final stage manufacturer. In the case of Standard No. 121, we assume the chassis-cab manufacturer would make a certification statement in the second category set forth above, i.e., a conditional statement. The final stage manufacturer could rely on this conditional statement only if it completed the vehicle in accordance with the chassis-cab manufacturer's instructions. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(c). If the final stage manufacturer did not complete the vehicle in accordance with those instructions, it would be responsible for ensuring compliance of the vehicle to Standard No. 121, and certifying such compliance. I also note that the addition of a liftable axle could affect compliance of a vehicle with other safety standards, including Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:568
d.10/7/97

1. See 49 CFR 567 and 568. Note that 568.6 also specifies that this provision shall, however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. The ABS requirements include no such provision.

2. While incomplete vehicle manufacturers are required under 49 CFR Part 568 to provide information with all their vehicles concerning conformity to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, only chassis-cabs are required to be certified. See 49 CFR Part 567.

ID: 07-000295as

ID: nht89-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

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

TO: PAUL WALKER -- PRESIDENT SUNGUEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/17/89 FROM PAUL WALKER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3157

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for your letter regarding your company's efforts to export a product to Saudi Arabia. The product in question is identified in your letter as "remote-controlled electronic automobile window shades." Your letter indicates that your company's to tal production for the next two years will be for export only. It is my understanding that your company must provide the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization with a statement from this agency that we would "have no objection to the product in the U.S. m arket" before "large quantities" of the product can be shipped into Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the product is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safe ty standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the product may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

In the case of your window shades, NHTSA has no standard that establishes requirements for window shades as items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, your company is not required to make any certification of the window shades before offering them for sale . We do have two safety standards that might affect the installation of window shades in new vehicles. The first is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. These requirements in clude specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The second is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which sets forth flammabili ty

resistance performance requirements for window shades installed in new vehicles. No manufacturer or dealer could legally install any window shades, including the shade developed by your company, in a new vehicle unless the manufacturer or dealer cer tifies that the vehicle with the window shade installed complies with Standards No. 205 and 302, as well as any other applicable standards.

To enforce the requirements in our laws and regulations, we conduct spot checks of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment after they have been certified and/or sold to the public or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce. For these s pot checks, we purchase the vehicles or item of equipment and test it according to the procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. If the product passes the tests, no further steps are taken. If the product fails the tests and is determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the product is required to remedy the problem, by repairing or replacing the product at no cost to the purchaser. Since your product has not yet been sold in the United States, NHTSA has not made any spot checks or other evaluations of your product.

With that explanation, we will state that the window shades developed by Sunquest, Inc. could legally be sold to the public in the United States and could legally be installed on new vehicles to be sold to the public in the United States, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the vehicle with the window shades installed complies with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 8599

Mr. Frank Millar
1841 Shady Brook Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

Dear Mr. Millar:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car . . . shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:105 d:9/l/93

ID: nht93-6.26

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Millar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 4/28/93 from Frank Millar to John Womack (OCC 8599)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car ... shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

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

ID: 8417

Mr. Philip Trupiano
Auto Enterprises, Inc.
1850 Rochester Road
Clawson, MI 48017

FAX 313-589-3218

Dear Mr. Trupiano:

This responds to your FAX of March 18, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You seek an interpretation of provisions of 49 CFR Parts 591 and 592. You have supplemented your letter by FAXing us on March 23, 1993, a letter from Ford Motor Company dated September 17, 1992, and a copy of a work order from the Louisville Truck Centre in Canada dated September 30, 1992.

Auto Enterprises is a Registered Importer (RI) under Part 592. It has contracted to represent a person who wishes to import a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck of Canadian manufacture. The truck would be imported across the border shared by North Dakota and Manitoba. The truck appears to have been manufactured as a chassis cab in the United States, and subsequently completed as a truck in Canada. Ford's letter states that the completed vehicle will comply with 18 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that it "was designed to meet FMVSS 108 as fully as possible for the vehicle configuration as delivered at the assembly plant", and that to comply "with FMVSS 121 it may be necessary to do the following: Add a quick release valve. Eliminate the control line to the limiting valve. Use 6 or 8 hose from foot control to quick release valve." The work order from Louisville Truck Centre states that "[t]he necessary changes have been made to comply with safety standard FMVSS 121" in accordance with Ford's letter." We assume, of course, that Ford's letter identifies the truck in question as your letter did not convey the VIN of the vehicle.

You wish to proceed as follows and ask for our concurrence under Parts 591 and 592. Because of the distance involved in driving the truck to Michigan and back (approximately 4,000 miles), you wish to facilitate entry by mailing Auto Enterprise's RI certification label to its customs broker at the contemplated port of entry to be affixed there. Appropriate photographs of the certification would be taken and submitted to NHTSA as part of the RI conformance package required for bond release. During the period before release of the bond, the truck would be in the custody of the importer. However, because the truck cannot be registered in North Dakota without a copy of the bond release letter, the importer would be effectively prohibited from licensing it for use.

The truck involved was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It may not have been completed to meet the lighting standard. In addition, modifications were recently made with the intent of conforming it to the U.S. standard on air brakes for trucks. While Ford's letter is informative, it falls short of a manufacturer's certification of compliance. Although the vehicle could in fact now conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that fact must be verified by Auto Enterprises as the applicable RI, and its certification of that fact provided to NHTSA. This agency's initial interpretation of The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988 was that it forbade conformance work to be performed outside the United States, but that conformance work could be performed in the United States either by the RI or its agent. However, Part 592 as adopted reflects a modified view. It allows conformance work outside the U.S. subject to verification by the RI. AS NHTSA stated in the preamble to the final rule (54 FR at 40084) a principal obligation of the RI is "(1) to bring those vehicles into compliance, or to demonstrate that they have been brought into compliance before importation." Further, as NHTSA noted at 40086, after consideration of comments it did not adopt "those aspects of the proposal that countenanced delegation of conformance responsibilities to an agent." In light of the above, we do not believe that Auto Enterprises can, in good faith, affix its certification of compliance to the Canadian truck without verifying its compliance, and we do not believe that it can delegate that task to the Customs Broker who would thereby become its agent for this purpose.

With respect to whether the importer may have custody of its vehicle, The Safety Compliance Act appears to require that it is the RI who has custody, for it clearly states that RIs shall not release custody of any motor vehicle for which they have responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(E)(i)) until after they certify approval and have been notified by NHTSA that the conformance bond is released.

Given the possibility that the truck in question may be in de facto compliance with the safety standards, and in recognition of the practical problems involved, we suggest that Auto Enterprises send an employee to inspect the vehicle on the day that it is entered under bond. If your employee concludes that the truck apparently now conforms to Standards Nos. 108 and 121, as well as remaining in compliance with the l8 other applicable standards, (s)he may then affix the certification of compliance. When this is done, your employee may complete and FAX the compliance documentation to NHTSA. We will endeavor to accord this submission priority treatment so that, if it is in order, we can release the bond without delay, probably within one workday. In the interim, the truck would be in the custody of your employee. We believe that this course of action would meet both the law and your practical concerns.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref.592 d:3/31/93