ID: aiam4196

Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements* requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, *Certification*, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2862

Dear Mr. Attenhofer: This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter noting two standards o the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that you consider to be in conflict. You suggest that Part 569, *Regrooved Tires*, conflicts with Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, in their requirements for the size of the molding of the word 'regroovable'.; Standard No. 119 specifies all of the labeling of tires for moto vehicles other than passenger cars. The size of that required labeling is set at not less than .078 inches. This size provision applies generally to all of the various information required to be labeled on a tire. The information labeled on the tire includes the tire identification number and word 'regroovable' if appropriate. Both of these requirements, however, are subjects of their own regulations. The tire identification number is specifically regulated by Part 574 and regroovable tires are regulated by Part 569. Each of these Parts further specifies the size designation of the information that it requires. For example, Part 569 specifically requires the word 'regroovable' to be in letters .38 to .50 inches in height.; The two standards do not conflict. The size requirement in Part 56 falls within the acceptable size levels of Standard No. 119. Part 569 merely further restricts the size of the word 'regroovable' beyond that specified in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, the two are consistent. To understand both requirements, apply the general size requirements of Standard No. 119 to all information that is not otherwise regulated elsewhere. For information specifically regulated elsewhere, apply the size criteria specified in the applicable regulation.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2859

Dear Mr. Attenhofer: This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter noting two standards o the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that you consider to be in conflict with Standard No. 119, *new Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars,* in their requirements for the size of the molding of the word 'regroovable'.; Standard No. 119 specifies all of the labeling of tires for moto vehicles other than passenger cars. The size of that required labeling is set at not less than .078 inches. This size provision applies generally to all of the various information required to be labeled on a tire. The information label on the tire includes that tire identification number and word 'regroovable' if appropriate. Both of these requirements, however, are subjects of their own regulations. The tire identification number is specifically regulated by Part 574 and regroovable tires are regulated by part 569. Each of these Parts further specifies the size designation of the information that it requires. For example, Part 569 specifically requires the word 'regroovable' to be in letters .38 to .50 inches in height.; The two standards do not conflict. The size requirement in Part 56 falls within the acceptable size levels of Standard No. 119. Part 569 merely further restricts the size of the word 'regroovable' beyond that specified in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, the two are consistent. To understand both requirements, apply the general size requirements of Standard No. 119 to all information that is not otherwise regulated elsewhere. For information specifically regulated elsewhere, apply the size criteria specified in the applicable regulation.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4183

Dear Mr. Silidker: This is in reply to your letter of July 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of m staff, bringing to our attention the lack of a center high-mounted stop lamp on your 1986 Nissan Stanza wagon, and asking us to look into this matter. You have enclosed a letter from Nissan informing you that your wagon has 4-wheel drive and thus is not certified as a 'passenger vehicle' required to have the light. However, you believe that manufacturers of other 4-wheel drive vehicles are providing the new lamp.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires the new lamp a original equipment on all 'passenger cars' manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. It is not required on other types of motor vehicles such as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles'. This latter category is defined for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a vehicle constructed on a truck chassis, or with special features for occasional off- road operation. The principal feature for such operation is 4- wheel drive. If a 4-wheel drive vehicle is built on a passenger car chassis, its manufacturer may treat it as either a 'passenger car' or 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for purposes of compliance with the safety standards, and for purposes of certification to those requirements. We believe that the certification plate permanently attached to the door post of your Stanza identifies it as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' and that Nissan is therefore not required to provide the center mounted stop lamp.; As for the reason that the lamp is installed on other 4-wheel driv vehicles, it may be that they are certified as passenger cars, or that their manufacturers have voluntarily chosen to equip them with the new lamp.; Thank you for your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2692

Dear Mr. Pivar: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1977, with respect t moped tires. You have informed us that you wish to manufacture mopeds that would be equipped with an unspecified quantity of tires that are 'not marked with the letters DOT and [do not] have the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company...' You have asked 'to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for this manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold'.; The symbol 'DOT' is the tire manufacturer's certification that the tir complies with all applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.* Without that certification a moped manufacturer would appear to have no reasonable basis for certifying that vehicles of his manufacture equipped with these tires comply with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.* Your use of these tires might therefore be an apparent violation of the certification requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act subjecting you to civil penalties. If the tires in fact failed to comply, additional penalties could be imposed, and you would be required to notify and remedy the noncompliance.; The fact that part of a foreign manufacturer's production may b certified as meeting DOT standards cannot be relied upon as an assurance that a tire that is not marked with the DOT symbol or manufacturer code letters will also comply. Indeed, it is a prima facie indication that the tire was not manufactured for the American market and does not meet Federal safety standards.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Deputy Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4199

Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements* requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, *Certification*, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 002101GF

Mr. Charles W. Lawhon
C & S Trailer World
4111 E. Loop 820 S.
Fort Worth, TX 76119

Dear Mr. Lawhon:

This letter is in response to your phone call and a subsequent letter asking about the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to a trailer with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) at or above 10,000 pounds that was manufactured in 1987. Specifically, you asked about any regulations applicable to such a trailer equipped with an "electrical braking system." It is our understanding that this electrical system actuates brakes via an electro magnet and does not utilize air or hydraulics. You also asked us to elaborate on any other safety requirements for "manufactured utility or gooseneck trailers."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. As a preliminary matter, we note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with those standards.

There is only one Federal motor vehicle safety standard that regulates the braking performance of trailers.[1] That standard, FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121) establishes performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers. A trailer manufactured in 1987 would have been subject to the standard as it existed at that time. An air brake system is defined in paragraph S4 of the Standard as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

Based on your correspondence, it is our understanding that the trailer in question uses electricity to actuate or control its brakes. Accordingly, the trailer you described is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121.

In addition to Standard No. 121, Standard Nos. 106 and 116 are also applicable to trailers manufactured in 1987 and today. Standard No. 106 regulates brake hoses and Standard No. 116 regulates brake fluids. Again, it is our understanding that the trailer in question was equipped with an electrical braking system. Therefore, Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 116 do not apply to that vehicle, because the system does not contain brake fluid or brake hoses.

In you letter you state: "there were no safety regulations in regards to trailers with straight electrical brakes or any other safety devices in 1987." This statement is not correct. There are several safety standards that applied to all trailers manufactured in 1987. Specifically, Standard No. 108 regulates certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment installed on trailers. The specific requirements under this standard depend on the size of the trailer, which you have not provided. Standard No. 119 applies to new pneumatic tires installed on trailers manufactured after 1948. Standard No. 120 applies to tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including trailers.

In sum, there was no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to electrical braking systems installed on trailers manufactured in 1987. However, several other safety standards were applicable to trailers manufactured in 1987. For your convenience, I have enclosed a package of information for trailer manufacturers, published by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. This information is also available on the web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/maninfo/.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.2/28/03





---




[1] In 1987, FMVSS Standard No. 105 Hydraulic brake systems, applied only to passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses. We note that the application section of the current version of Standard No. 105 states that it applies to "hydraulically-braked vehicles with a GVWR greater then 3,500 kilograms." The application section does not exclude trailers. However, this is an error, and we intend to issue a correcting amendment to exclude trailers, as was the case in 1987.

ID: nht92-7.1

DATE: May 18, 1992

FROM: Timber Dick -- General Manager, Safeline Children's Products Company

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Michael Pyne -- NHTSA Enforcement; Kathleen Weber -- UMTRI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/92 from Paul J. Rice to Timber Dick (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

We spoke on several occasions recently regarding Safeline's certification of the Sit'n'Stroll 2-in-1 Carseat/Stroller under FMVSS 213. In particular, our discussions focused on NHTSA's interpretation of the regulations, and whether a manufacturer could certify a rear-facing carseat at a weight greater than 20 lbs.

We were prompted to investigate certification at a higher weight than the standard 20-lb limit as a result of numerous safety studies (several of which are enclosed) which indicate that children are exposed to a lessened risk of cervical spine fractures, and consequent para- and quadriplegia, if they are rearward facing to a higher weight limit. I have a baby boy born with a 99%+ head circumference, and I've been afforded additional peace of mind by keeping him rear-facing in his Sit'n'Stroll as he has reached 25 lbs in body weight.

Safeline is committed to providing the highest degree of safety possible within practical and regulatory constraints. To this end, we recently tested the Sit'n'Stroll at the University of Michigan facility rear-facing using a 35 lb, NHTSA-approved dummy. FMVSS 213 positioning procedures were interpreted in a logical manner. The enclosed test results are a powerful testimony to the safety benefits afforded by use of the Sit'n'Stroll in this configuration.

Please note two important conclusions of the test. First, even with the 35-lb load, the test seat was well within the back angle limits imposed by FMVSS 213. Our maximum back angle was just 50 degrees, as compared to the maximum permissible of 70 degrees. Second, and in my eyes perhaps more compelling, our Head Injury Criteria was 289, a remarkably low figure as contrasted with the permissible 1000.

Safety experts across the nation have contacted Safeline to applaud our efforts to give parents of babies (like mine) with disproportionately large heads an safer way to transport their children. We submit that it is in the best interests of the taxpayers and their children to allow FMVSS 213 interpretations which would permit rear-facing carseats to be certified with 35-lb dummies to a weight higher than 20 pounds.

We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter.

ID: GF007220

Louis J. Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations and Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Carlin:

This is in response to your letters dated September 23, 2004 and October 11, 2004, in which you requested interpretations of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. Specifically, you raised certain issues with respect to the content of the tire information placard, and tire normal load requirements.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you ask whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule in response to petitions for reconsideration published on June 3, 2004 (69 FR 31306), allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. Our answer is no.

S4.3(i) specifies that only a tire load identification XL or reinforced may appear on the tire information placard (see 69 FR at 31318). No other load identification is allowed. We note, however, that we received several petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit load identifications B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards (see Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-6). We are currently considering that request. We expect to issue our response in the near future.

In your September 23, 2004 letter, you ask about a technical correction to the June 3, 2004 final rule. In the correction notice published on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51399), we amended S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110. You state that the amendment to S4.2.2 was unnecessary. You ask to confirm which section of FMVSS No. 110 currently specifies the normal load requirements, and what section of FMVSS No. 110 will specify the normal load requirements in the future.

Currently, the normal load requirements apply only to passenger cars. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies normal load limits for passenger cars. Effective June 1, 2007, S4.2.1.2 will specify the normal load limits for passenger cars, and S4.2.2.3 will specify the normal load requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You are correct to note that the August 19, 2004 document does not affect the date on which multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds will become subject to the normal load requirements. We intend to clarify this issue when we respond to the petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004 final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.1/3/05

ID: aiam3530

Dear Mr. McCalmon: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff concerning th Federal requirements for vehicle wheels that are to be imported into the United States. You noted in your letter that the wheels would be for 'original equipment on passenger vehicles and non-passenger vehicles (recreation vehicles).' There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which apply to wheel rims. There are no standards applicable to the rest of the wheel assembly, however.; The two applicable standards are No. 110, *Tire selection and rims passenger cars*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars*. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards Nos. 109 and No. 119, which are applicable to tires. For those passenger car rims you manufacture there are two requirements, specified in section S4.4 of Standard No. 110. FIrst, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Deutsches Institut fur Normnug. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.; For those rims you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenge cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explainted (sic) above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only it knows what size tires will actually be on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim must be marked with certain specified information.; When a rim manufacturer determines that its rims comply with th requirements outlined above, it may certify the rims and sell them in the United States. In your letter, you inaccurately stated that there is no (sic) a specific DOT certification for rims. While there is no specific DOT certification number, as required by some other standards for items for equipment other than rims, a manufacturer must always certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1403) (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the certification for items of motor vehicle safety equipment, including rims, may be in the form of a label or tag on the item, or on the outside of a container in which the item is delivered. All of your rims to be sold in this country must contain such a certification.; The United States does not use a certification process similar to th EEC, in which the manufacturer delivers the item to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the item to determine if it can be certified. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufactuer (sic) must certify that the product complies with all applicable standards. Further, this agency does not require that a certification be based on actual tests of the equipment, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine in the first instance exactly what data or information it needs to allow it to certify that the equipment meets all applicable Federal standards. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings or if the rim size is listed in one of the publications of a standardization organization.; Should you have any further questions about these standards, feel fre to contact me. If you need further information about the actual process of importing the rims into the United States or the form for the certification, you can contact the U.S. Customs Service Duty Assessment Division at 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20229.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel