ID: aiam5228

Dear Mr. Millar: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto 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;

ID: 07-001408as

ID: 2858yy

Mr. J. C. Brown
President
MidAmerica Design Service
10206 Lima Road
Ft. Wayne, IN 46618

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in reply to your letter of February 8, l99l, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company has been asked to "develop a high mounted stop light and turn signal to be installed into the door of over the road trailers." You have not found a reference in Standard No. l08 to such a lamp, and you have concluded that, as long as you add to the trailer's existing lamps without eliminating any of its lighting devices that are standard equipment, you will be in compliance. You have asked us for our opinion on this matter.

You are correct that the requirement for a center high mounted stop lamp does not extend to trailers. Moreover, trailers are not included in the agency's pending rulemaking to extend the requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. Although your design appears to combine the stop lamp and turn signal, a combination prohibited for passenger cars, you are under no Federal legal obligation to design a center high mounted stop lamp for trailers that complies with Standard No. l08.

As the lamp is not intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. l08, it is permissible under section S5.1.3 of the standard as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. The judgment of whether impairment exists is initially that of the trailer manufacturer, who certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review it and inform the manufacturer accordingly.

Assuming that the trailers for which the lamp is intended have an overall width of 80 inches or more, your lamp would be mounted in closest proximity to the three-unit identification lamp cluster, which Table II of Standard No. 108 requires to be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Identification lamps indicate to following drivers the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead. It is possible that an activated center stop lamp or adjacent turn signal could mask the light from these lamps. However, these trailers are also equipped with clearance lamps, which serve the same purpose of identifying a large vehicle. Thus, it would appear that your device would not impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps within the prohibition of section S5.1.3.

We assume that the turn signal portion of the lamp is a supplement to others on the trailer that are located to comply with the 83-inch maximum mounting height imposed by Table II.

I hope that this is responsive to your concern.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/7/9l

ID: nht81-1.4

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Davis Trailer Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 7, 1980, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you requested information concerning the legality of using welded mobile home axles and mobile home tires on trailers.

We have no regulations concerning the axles which may be used on trailers. However, the use of mobile home tires on new trailers would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of this standard. Section S5.1 of the standard requires all new trailers equipped with tires for highway service to use tires that comply with either Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Use on Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars, or Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars. Tires which have the label "For Mobile Home Use Only" have been expressly exempted from the performance requirements of Standard No. 119. Because of the exemption, these tires may only be used on mobile homes. Therefore, the use of these tires on new trailers would render the trailers in violation of Standard No. 120. A manufacturer using these tires on a new trailer would face a fine of up to $ 1,000 for each mobile home tire used, pursuant to the provisions of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). If you are aware of any such violations, the agency would appreciate any information you could supply.

As I have stated above, we have no regulations specifying performance requirements for the axles on trailers. If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

DAVIS TRAILER MFG CO

NOVEMBER 7, 1980

(Illegible Words)

Dear Sir:

In regards as to our conversation on 11.5.80 I am asking for information on using Mobile Home (Illegible Word) cut into, welded back together an (Illegible Word) to the Public. As you might know on some axles & all mobile home tires are stamped these words. For Mobile Home use only.

If you will mail me some paper work on this matter I will surely appreciate it any information on trailers as to the law of the land. I want to know about it. My competers around me are about to put me out of business using this sort of luck

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Yours truly

Charlton C Davis -- OWNER, Davis Trailer Mfg. Co

ID: nht74-1.8

DATE: 10/16/74

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 16 1974 NOA-30 (ZTV)

Mr. Joseph W. Kennebeck, Manager Emissions, Safety & Development Volkswagen of America, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 07632

Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1974. You informed us that Volkswagen intends to introduce a new model, the Rabbit, in January 1975 that meets all requirements of Standard No.105-75 except S5.3.1.(b), requiring a brake fluid reservoir capacity indicator, which it will meet as of September 1, 1975. You also informed us that "one version of the Rabbit which meets FMVSS 105-75 exceeds the currently required preburnish check permissible pedal force." You therefore asked for an "interpretation of whether the Volkswagen Rabbit could comply with FMVSS 105-75 except for S5.3.1.(b) prior to September 1975, in lieu of complying with FMVSS 105 in effect up to that time."

In our view, the fact that the Rabbit exceeds the maximum specified preburnish check pedal force does not by itself indicate a failure to comply with existing Standard No. 105. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the performance ability of a passenger car service brake system to be "not less than that described in Section D of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J937, 'Service Brake System Performance Requirements - Passenger Cars', June 1966." and tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J843c, 'Brake System Road Test Code - Passenger Cars', June 1966." Section D of J937, Preburnish check, subreferences "SAE J843, Section C item 1".

The subreferenced item says that the purpose of the preburnish check is "to allow for a general check of instrumentation, brakes, and vehicle function," rather than a test of the effectiveness of the service brake system. Thus the preburnish check is not actually a test requirement. Although the distinction between test requirements, conditions and procedures is not made in the SAE materials incorporated into Standard No. 105, the successor Standard No. 105-75 distinguishes the three. It makes brake burnish part of the test procedure and sequence. Burnishing appears in the test procedure section, S7.4, and Table I, showing test requirements and corresponding procedures, does not relate it to any of the requirements of S5.

A manufacturer's certification covers only the performance requirements of the standard, and is his representation that if testing is conducted in the manner the standard specifies, the vehicle will meet those requirements. Therefore, no "waiver" of Standard No. 105-75 or amendment to Standard No. 105 appears necessary for Volkswagen to certify that the Rabbit complies with Standard No. 105, assuming, of course, that it meets all actual performance requirements of that standard.

Yours truly,

Original Signed By

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.69

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E.T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Shughart; Thomson and Kilroy

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your October 20, 1976, letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, has been referred to this office for reply.

You request data concerning the 10.00-02 "Inland Deep Drive 300," that was manufactured by the Mansfield Tire and Rubber Company, Mansfield, Ohio. Tire Identification Number WLZJAVN 503.

We have enclosed all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for:

* New Pneumatic Tires, Passenger Cars, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109

* New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119

* Part 574 - Tire Identification and Recordkeeping

* Tire Code Numbers Assigned New Tire Manufacturers.

* Tire Size Codes

The tire identification number stated in your letter can be explained by the use of the above data.

"WL" - is the plant code for the Mansfield, Ohio plant.

"ZJ" - is the tire size code for the 10.00-20 tire size designation.

"AVN" - is an internal code for Mansfield.

"503" - means the tire was cured the 50th week of 1973.

You also request design and construction information. We do not have this type of information because it is proprietary. Also enclosed are copies of tire "Care and Service of Bias and Radial Ply Truck Tires."

We hope the above has been of some help to you.

SHUGHART, THOMSON & KUROY

October 20, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Re: Commercial Truck Tires

Our office is investigating an accident involving the blowout of a commercial truck tire known as the "Inland Deep Drive 300" size 10.00 x 20 tube type 13 ply rating with serial No. WL2JAVN503 manufactured by the Mansfield Tire and Rubber Company, Mansfield, Ohio. Please advise us if this particular tire or series of tires has been assigned a Department of Transportation number and if so, please advise us of the number.

We would also appreciate copies of any documents, standards, regulations, and procedures which you have on this tire including its design, construction, and manufacture. We would also appreciate copies of any documents, standards, and regulations or procedures pertaining to the design, construction, and manufacture of commercial truck tires in general.

Naturally, we are willing to pay a reasonable charge for providing the copies requested. If there is such a charge, please forward your statement for services along with the requested information and we will arrange for the appropriate payment of same.

REX R. REDHAIR

ID: 77-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rototron Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1977, with respect to 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 tire 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 be 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,

ATTACH.

September 1, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are about to enter the manufacture of a moped and we wish to make use of a tire which is manufactured by the CHENG-SHIN CO. of Taiwan. This tire is imported for the Worksman Trading Co. in Brooklyn, New York, and bears the name WTC and is marked "Made in Taiwan", but is not marked with the letters DOT and it doesn't bear the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company whose product line generally speaking is DOT approved and marked accordingly.

We wish to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for the manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold.

Very truly yours, ROTOTRON CORPORATION; Stuart Pivar President

ID: nht75-2.12

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 30, 1975, concerning the standards applicable to a tire which you manufacture and sell with the designation L78-15LT, Load Range C.

You are mistaken in your assumption that a station wagon is classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Because it is constructed neither on a truck chassis nor with special features for occasional off-road operation, a station wagon is a passenger car rather than a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

If, despite this misunderstanding, the L78-15LT tire in question is designated by you as primarily intended for use on lightweight trucks or multi-purpose passenger vehicles, then it is a light truck tire subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

Because a station wagon is a passenger car, Standard No. 110 requires that its original equipment tires comply with Standard No. 109. Standard No. 110 is not applicable to used cars, so there is no prohibition on the use of the L78-15LT tire as replacement equipment on a station wagon. However, because the informational placard on a station wagon would suggest to its owner the use of inflation pressures which are dangerously inadequate for light truck tires, we do not wish to encourage the sale of such tires as replacement equipment for use on station wagons.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

May 30, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Attention: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

We are manufacturing and selling in the replacement market only a truck tire described as a

L78-15 Light Truck 6-ply rated tire. This will be designated as a L78-15LT, C load range.

We have been informed by one of our large distributors that they intend to sell this tire as a replacement tire for use on station wagons. The rims used on station wagons are listed by The Tire and Rim Association as a rim size for this tire.

As we interpret the definition of a "Light Truck Tire" under Standard 119, this tire may be used on station wagons if qualified and labeled under MVSS 119 and need not be qualified or carry the labeling required under MVSS 109. We assume a station wagon to be a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

We understand that our interpretation would not apply if the tire were supplied as original equipment.

We would appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,

R. L. Donnelly -- SECRETARY

ID: nht67-1.11

DATE: 08/25/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Honda of New York

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1967, to Mr. Donald H. Schwentker in which you request confirmation that the Japanese-made CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH compact trucks are multipurpose passenger vehicles under the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

You state that the CONY line is primarily a line of commercial truck-type vehicles and that the Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are built on the same truck chassis as the purely commercial models.

A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in section 255.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Therefore, the CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH are multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they are designed to carry 10 persons or less and are constructed on a truck chassis.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 4, 1967

Donald M. Schwentker -- National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

As you suggested in our recent telephone conversation, this is in the nature of a request to your office to confirm two models of the Japanese-made CONY brand of compact trucks which we import, as multi-purpose passenger cars, rather than as passenger cars, for the purpose of classifying them under the new national motor vehicle safety standards.

The basis of this request rests on the facts that (1) the CONY line is primarily a commercial truck type of vehicle and (2) the two models in question AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are convertable to exclusively cargo space (the rear seat folds down to the floor) and are built upon the same truck chassis as is employed for the purely commercial models.

I am herewith enclosing brochures describing the entire line of eight vehicles of the CONY brand (only two of which are expressly built for passenger-carrying) and have checked and marked the two models thereon.

Inspection of the drawings, photographs and specifications will show only the slightest differences existing among the eight models in size, design and performance and for all practical purposes, each model has a majority of the engineering characteristics of all the other models.

We would appreciate your earliest interpretation for the benefit of our manufacturer who must consider the necessary modifications for 1968 models.

May I also reiterate my appreciation for the information and advice you have already tendered.

Very truly yours,

John J. Paxton -- HONDA OF NEW YORK

ID: 14270.wkm

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
Attorney at Law
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter requesting DOT identification numbers for Union Autoparts Manufacturing Company, Ltd.(Union). Please be advised that Union is not required to have a DOT identification number, as discussed below.

You stated that Union, a Thailand company, manufactures steel wheel rims for motorcycles and bicycles, as well as steel spokes and steel nipples for motorcycle and bicycle tires. Union wants to export some of its wheel rims and parts to the U.S. and for that purpose, wants to obtain DOT identification numbers for their rims. You further stated that Union's motorcycle rims bear the words "Union Cycle" on the weather side, and that bicycle rims are marked "UAB." Finally, you stated that you have been designated Union's resident agent in the U.S. for the service of process.

Unless equipped with a motor, bicycles and bicycle equipment are not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a DOT identification number is not necessary for importation and sale of bicycles and related equipment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued regulations relating to bicycles, however, which can be found at 16 CFR 1512, including requirements for tires (1512.10), wheels (1512.11), and wheel hubs (1512.13).

With respect to motorcycle rims, paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120), specifies rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Subparagraph (d) requires rims to be marked with "A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." This information allows this agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim should the need arise. The use of a trademark or symbol instead of the manufacturer's name is permitted because the agency can determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbol. Domestic manufacturers' trademarks and symbols are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Foreign manufacturers are required by 49 CFR 551.45 to include in their resident agent designations a list of the "marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" that appear on any of their products in lieu of their legal names. Thus, the assignment of an individual DOT identification code, as the agency does for tire manufacturers, is not required for rim manufacturers. In that respect, Union's continued use of "Union Cycle" and "UAB" is acceptable.

It should be noted, however, that in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed), if it has not already done so, Union will be required to provide NHTSA the information called for therein.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by fax at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:120

d.9/22/97