ID: GF002565

Tony Dosmann, President
Dec-O-Art, Inc.
3914 Lexington Park Drive
Elkhart, IN 46514-1194




Dear Mr. Dosmann:

This responds to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Both regulations require permanently affixed labels. You ask us to explain the meaning of "permanent".

In previous letters of interpretation, we have explained that specifying precisely how a label is to be affixed could be design restrictive. However, when the agency requires a permanently affixed label for a vehicle, the label must be affixed in a manner that would make it likely to stay attached and legible during the lifetime of the vehicle, under normal conditions. We have previously stated that a label affixed to the vehicle using adhesives would be considered adequate. Finally, in previous letters we cautioned that labels should not be attached in a manner where they can be easily detached. I have enclosed copies of several relevant letters.

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

Enclosure
ref:110
d.4/15/05

ID: GF002595

Ms. Nancy Liu
Qingdao Sunsong Co., Ltd.
Wangtai Lingang Industrial Park,
Jiaonan, Qingdao
266425
CHINA
Attn: Mr. Yanlin Yang

Dear Ms. Liu:

This responds to your e-mail to George Feygin of my staff regarding the labeling requirements for brake hoses and brake hose assemblies found in S5.2.2(b) and S5.2.4(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106; Brake Hoses. Specifically you state that you have filed a manufacturers designation "SUNSUNG" with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as required by S5.2.2(b). You ask whether you may use the same designation to label brake hose assemblies as required by S5.2.4(b). Additionally, you ask whether a manufacturer needs to provide samples for agency testing. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. Accordingly, a manufacturer need not provide the agency with brake hose samples for testing. Instead, the manufacturer is responsible for self-certifying its product. If the agency decides to test the brake hose or brake hose assemblies manufactured by your company, the agency will purchase samples of your product on the open market.

With respect to brake hose and brake hose assembly labeling, we note that S5.2.2(b) requires that each manufacturer mark the brake hose with, among other things, a designation filed with NHTSA. Similarly, S5.2.4(b) also requires that each manufacturer mark the brake hose assembly with, among other things, a designation filed with NHTSA. A manufacturer can use the same designation for both sets of requirements. Because you already filed a manufacturers designation "SUNSUNG" under S5.2.2(b), you need not file a separate designation under S5.2.4(b).

In addition, I would like to direct your attention to the following two requirements:

1. Under the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 (a copy of which is enclosed), each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies must submit to NHTSA certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Specifically, a manufacturer must indicate: (a) the full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the manufacturer; (b) the residence address of the manufacturer and state of incorporation, if applicable; and (c) a general description of the equipment produced.
2. Under the requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (a copy of which is enclosed), each foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment must designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent for service of process and file this designation with NHTSA.

For your reference, I also enclose an information package for new equipment manufacturers. I hope this information is 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

Enclosures
ref:106
d.5/4/04

ID: GF002676

Mr. Dale W. Soos
Sr. Project Engineer
Intertek ETL SEMKO Division
3933 US Route 11
Cortland, NY 13045

Dear Mr. Soos:

This responds to your e-mail of April 17 asking about the length of hose specimens required for certification under Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your e-mail, you state that your client intends to manufacture a single brake hose product line that would feature length variation, so that individual brake hoses can properly fit custom-built trailers. You ask whether a single hose length can be used to certify an entire product line. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hoses. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles and equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. In certain circumstances, a manufacturer of a noncomplying product may also face a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

Standard No. 106 applies to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country.

As previously stated, NHTSA relies on self-certification process where each manufacturer certifies its product. Accordingly, we are not in position to determine whether it would be prudent for you to use a single hose length to certify the entire product line. A manufacturer is responsible for determining the testing and analysis necessary for certification. We note that in carrying out the self-certification, each manufacturer is expected to exercise due care and sound engineering judgment. If later asked to do so by the agency, a manufacturer would have to be able to show it was reasonable to believe that a shorter hose lengths meeting the specified performance requirements accurately predicted the performance of a longer hose length, or vice versa, since all hoses must comply with the performance requirements specified by the standard. Thus, NHTSA cannot comment on whether there is any appropriate representative hose length.

I hope this information is 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:106
d.6/3/03

ID: GF002714

ID: GF003064

Mr. Christopher H. Willison
General Manager
Americarb
5151 Wooster Road West
Norton, OH 44203

Dear Mr. Willison:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 2004, and subsequent conversations with George Feygin of my staff. You ask a series of questions regarding DOT regulations related to a pressure vessel used for tire inflation located inside a hollow semi-trailer axle.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no FMVSS regulating pressure vessels located in hollow semi-trailer axles as described in your letter. In fact, the agency does not have any regulations covering tire inflation systems for heavy vehicles. However, if your system is tied into the vehicles air braking system, it may affect compliance with other safety standards.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, may have implications for your product, especially if your device is an integral part of the brake system. We do not have sufficient information about your device to discuss FMVSS No. 121 implications. However, in a previous letter of interpretation (copy attached) we stated that a tire inflation device would not be considered a part of the braking system if it was separated from the vehicles main braking system by a pressure protection valve in such a way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device.

Further, the air supply line between the air supply tank described in your letter and the pressure vessel could be considered a brake hose subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses. In a previous letter of interpretation, we stated that if a failure of a hose or a supply line would result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, that hose or supply line are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106 (copy enclosed).

For your reference, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope this information is 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

Enclosures
ref:121
d.6/8/04

ID: GF003147

Kenneth M. Bush, Associate Director
Government Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway;
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100




Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the procedures the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow for locating "Point 1" described in S10.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You provide an illustration and two different interpretations of these procedures.

By way of background, FMVSS No. 201 requires that vehicles meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with testing procedures specified in FMVSS No. 201. With respect to targets located on the A-pillar, the agency would perform testing using the target location procedure in S10.1.

In order to locate "Point 1" described in your letter, the agency would follow the following procedure described in S10.1(a):

"On the vehicle exterior, locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. The intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface is Line 1. Measuring along the vehicle exterior surface, locate a point (Point 1) on Line 1 that is 125 mm inboard of the intersection of Line 1 and a vertical plane tangent to the vehicle at the outboardmost point on Line 1 with the vehicle side door open"

NHTSA locates "Point 1" by measuring inboard, along the nominal vehicle exterior surface, 125 mm from the intersection of "Line 1" and the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. "Line 1" is established by locating a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) that is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal plane, which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. We note that the outermost edge of the roof is determined with the door open and includes uncompressed weather stripping, rain gutter, or other trim components. NHTSA makes linear measurements following the nominal vehicle surface (as opposed to following each convolution of weather stripping, rain gutter or other trim components). See Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 201U (TP-201U-01, April 3, 1998, pages 37 and 38 at www.nhtsa.gov), and the enclosed illustration.

In your letter and accompanying illustration, you offer two interpretations for the location of "Point 1." The difference between the two interpretations appears to stem from the location of the outboardmost point on Line 1; i.e., the intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface. As explained above, that intersection is located at the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. After examining your illustration, we believe that this intersection is marked "point *2."

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.7/14/05

ID: GF003171

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Vice President, Engineering
Peterson Manufacturing Company
4200 East 135^th Street
Grandview, MO 64030-2896

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your April 8, 2005, letter asking about clearance lamp location requirements for trailers equipped with outboard fenders.

Your letter and accompanying diagrams show a dual axle trailer equipped with outboard fenders each extending approximately 10 inches from the main body of the trailer. The outer edges of the fenders are the widest part of the trailer. Specifically, the main body of the trailer measures 81 inches, and the distance between the outer edges of the trailer measured at the fenders is 102 inches. You intend to install both front and rear clearance lamps on the top of each fender, instead of on the main body of the trailer. You ask whether this is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that for a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, the front and rear clearance lamps must be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top thereof as practicable."

As explained in our March 4, 1996, letter to Mr. Jerry Clay, when the widest part of a trailer is the outer edge of the fender, locating the front and rear clearance lamps on the fender satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 because the lamps would indicate the overall width of the trailer (see also, our September 4 letter to John W. Cook). By contrast, locating the clearance lamps on the main body of the trailer would not adequately indicate the overall width of the vehicle.

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

NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:5/13/05:62992:OCC 003171
Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook (2), interp 108
U:\NCC20\INTERP\108\GF003171.doc

ID: GF003174

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated April 9, 2004, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on April 2, 2004. You believe we mistakenly assumed that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type instead of an open type flasher.

In the April 2, 2004, letter, we indicated that the newly reprogrammed flash rate of your hazard warning signal flasher would comply with the current requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (FMVSS No. 108). However, we also stated that the flash pattern in your device is very different from what the agency contemplated in incorporating SAE Recommended Practice J945 by reference in the standard, and noted that existing hazard warning signal flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Because we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals and because very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion, we indicated that we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

In your latest facsimile, you state that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type flasher, as opposed to an open type flasher. You also ask that we explain how your flasher can comply with the requirements set forth in J945, and fail to comply with the requirements of Figure 1.

First, J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. In the present case, the distinction between "normally open" or "normally closed" flashers is irrelevant because your hazard warning signal flasher would satisfy either requirement of flashes per minute.

Second, our previous letter did not indicate that your hazard warning signal flasher failed to comply with the requirements of Figure 1. Instead, we indicated our concern with the fact that while your flasher met the flashes-per-minute average identified in Figure 1, each individual flash cycle in your flash pattern is outside the parameters established in Figure 1.

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:108
d.6/14/04

ID: GF003175

Mr. Steven Jonas
Principal Engineer
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Jonas:

This responds to your April 13, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask if expanded parts marking requirements in Part 541 apply to passenger cars with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds. Our answer is yes.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires identifying numbers or symbols (usually Vehicle Identification Numbers) to be placed on major parts of "high-theft" lines of passenger motor vehicles (i.e., a higher than median theft rate). "Passenger motor vehicle" was defined in the 1984 Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act so as to exclude multipurpose passenger vehicles, leaving passenger cars as the only included type of vehicle. As originally issued, Part 541 thus applied to above median theft rate lines of passenger cars regardless of GVWR.

The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 331) expanded the application of the parts marking requirement by expanding the definition of "passenger motor vehicle" to include multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and light duty trucks (LDTs) with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. This definitional change brought above median theft rate MPVs and LDTs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less within the parts marking requirement. On April 6, 2004, NHTSA issued a final rule that expanded Part 541, inter alia, to passenger motor vehicles with theft rates below the median (69 FR 17960). As a result, all passenger motor vehicles are now subject to the parts marking requirement.

You ask about a statement in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule in which we said that NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to expand parts marking requirements to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds. That discussion applied only to multipurpose passenger vehicles and light duty trucks and not to passenger cars. The parts marking requirement has applied to passenger cars regardless of the vehicles GVWR since the issuance of Part 541. Nowhere in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule is there a discussion of narrowing the application of Part 541 to passenger cars based on the vehicles GVWR.

We regret any confusion and plan on issuing a correcting amendment that will clarify the application of Part 541 to passenger cars (541.3).

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.5/10/04

ID: GF003409-2

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your e-mail of March 22, 2004, in which you ask several questions with respect to a hardtop convertible vehicle equipped with a retractable glass roof. The vehicle in question will have a tinted glass roof, which retracts rearward to a stowed position inside the vehicles rear deck (trunk). A thin carbon fiber frame will surround the glass roof panel. A latch mechanism secures the roof to the windshield header when the roof is not stowed. You ask whether the glass roof, as well as carbon fiber frame and latch mechanism are exempt from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You also ask what roof glazing materials would comply with FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials.

In establishing FMVSS No. 201, the agency excluded convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms from the requirements of the standard because a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with their movement (see 60 FR 43031, at 43047). S6.3(a) of FMVSS No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. Accordingly, the carbon fiber roof frame and the latch mechanism in your vehicle are exempt from S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201.

With respect to the glass portion of the convertible roof in your vehicle, the agency has previously stated that FMVSS No. 201 was not intended to prevent injuries resulting from impacts with glazing. Accordingly, the glass portion of the convertible roof is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 201.

Finally, FMVSS No. 205 contains no light transmittance requirements applicable to a glass roof described in your letter because roof glazing is in an area not requisite for driver visibility. The type of glazing material that can be used in the glass portion of the convertible roof is any glazing material subject to FMVSS No. 205, including glazing materials incorporated by reference from ANSI/SAE Z26.11996.

I hope this information is 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:201
d.7/19/04