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: nht76-5.19

DATE: 12/13/76

FROM: R. L. CARTER FOR JOHN W. SNOW -- NHTSA

TO: Department of Education; New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, requesting information on the legal aspects of the change in the definition of "school bus."

Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) will read as follows:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition of "bus" will continue to read as follows:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

The new definition of school bus will include many of the van-type vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and it it is sold for purposes that include "carrying students to and from school or related events," it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will therefore have to have school bus lights as specified by the standard on lighting (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Our experience with the comparative accident patterns of Type I and Type II buses does not justify the use of different lighting systems for the two types. In view of Congress's expressed desire to have the school bus standards uniformly applicable to buses of all sizes, we consider it appropriate to apply the lighting standard to all school buses.

We understand your concern with the effects that the newly applicable requirements will have on your purchase of Type II vans. However, we are persuaded that the requirements are reasonable and that they will protect school children.

If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

ID: nht89-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/23/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: JIM BATES -- MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/88 FROM JIM BATES -- CONGRESS TO DIANE K. STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bates:

This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1988, with reference to an invention by your constituent, Angelo R. Collica. You have asked for "the requirements necessary to install lighting devices on motor vehicles."

Since we do not have a description of Mr. Collica's device, our answer must therefore be general in nature. There are different answers, depending upon whether a device is installed before or after the first sale of a vehicle.

A supplementary lighting device installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or dealer before its first sale to a consumer is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment that are required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Examples of impairment are diminished brightness of a lamp due to interference with its wiring, or a confusion of its function through close proximity or signal of the supplementary devi ce. In general, also, all lighting equipment other than hazard warning/turn signals, and headlamps flashing for signalling purposes, must be steady-burning in use. Whether a device creates an impairment is a determination to be made by the vehicle manu facturer in its certification of compliance with the Federal safety standards, or by the dealer, before sale of the vehicle.

The installation of a supplementary lighting device on a vehicle after the vehicle's first sale to a consumer is acceptable under Federal law, provided that the installation does not degrade the performance of any device or element of design installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This prohibition applies to vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. It does not, however, apply if the supplementary lighting device is installed by the vehicle own er.

The legality of operating a supplementary device, installed after vehicle sale, is primarily determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle using it is registered or driven. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wil son Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203, is able to advise on State laws.

I hope that this has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-1.50

DATE: 06/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1976, letter concerning the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

In its present form, S5.2 requires a rim to which the standard applies to be marked with its size designation and, if it is a multi-piece rim, its type designation as well. There is no prohibition on the marking of additional information beyond that which is required. Therefore, the marking of single piece rims with a type designation is permitted.

Please note that, in a notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration delayed the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements. In particular, the effective date of S5.2, Rim Marking, was delayed until August 1, 1977. A copy of this notice is enclosed for your convenience.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

February 23, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 120, S5.2

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, 'Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars," which was published in the Federal Register of January 23, 1976 as Docket No. 71-19; Notice 3.

In S5.2, it lists the information required to be marked on each rim on and after August 1, 1976. As we understand it, this requirement does not prohibit marking of additional information on rims. For example, although S5.2(6) requires that each rim be marked with information of the rim size designation, and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation, we believe that single piece rims should also be marked with the rim type designation, such as the type of flange denoted as J, JJ, etc., for reasons of vehicle safety.

We would appreciate your informing us of the correct interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

D. KIWANO FOR

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: 3232yy

Mr. Robert W. Smith
President
Auto Safety Corporation
Box 424
Middletown, Delaware 19709

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, l990.

You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a "flashing/steady burning stop lamp", for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and "an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp" for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. l08 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp.

Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. l08 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. l08 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. l08 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent.

You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. l08. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:ll/l5/9l

ID: nht91-6.45

DATE: November, 1991 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-14-91 from Robert W. Smith to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, 1990.

You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a "flashing/steady burning stop lamp", for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and "an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp" for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. 108 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp.

Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. 108 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent.

You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. 108. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that - a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-4.45

DATE: 11/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1971, concerning steps you plan to take to comply with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), which were amended on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19593). You indicate that you plan to affix, in addition to the required Certification label containing the vehicle's gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings, an additional "vehicle identification data plate" which would be attached to the driver's door panel inside the cab. This plate will specify an axle capacity for each axle and an additional gross vehicle weight rating, but here the figures will reflect the vehicle's maximum potential capability. The axle capacities on the vehicle identification plate will be the axle manufacturer's ratings, and added together will be the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight rating. It appears from your letter that you intend using the maximum potential capability of the vehicle as a substitute for listing gross axle and vehicle weight ratings for all available tire and wheel combinations, which was proposed as an option for manufacturers in a notice published on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19617). Your question is whether, under the Certification regulations, you may affix the vehicle identification plate in addition to the required Certification label.

While we agree that a legitimate purpose may be served by the information you wish to provide on the vehicle identification plate, we consider that the manner in which you have chosen to furnish this information is inconsistent with the Certification regulations. Specifically, the inclusion of two different figures under the heading "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" conflicts with the requirement that a single figure be provided. The figure on the vehicle identification plate may be frequently higher than that on the Certification label, and if followed might result in vehicle overload. Also, the summing of the axle manufacturer's ratings to arrive at a "gross vehicle weight rating" is not

wholly consistent with the definition of that term in 49 CFR @ 568.3, which calls for a manufacturer's figure based on the capacity limitations of the vehicle's tires, rims, suspension system and other components, as well as its axles.

If you wish to provide information based on the vehicle's axle capability, we prefer that it not be represented as a vehicle or axle weight rating, but that it be described as the axle manufacturer's rating of the axles.

ID: 86-6.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James R. Mitzenberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Product Safety Engineer The Flexible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, OH 13015

Dear Mr. Mitzenberg:

Forgive our delay in replying to your letter of August 21, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a deceleration warning system you have been asked to install as original equipment on city transit buses However, on the basis of the information you provided Taylor Vinson of this Office in a phone call on August 13, 1986, we have a better understanding of the system described.

The system as described consists of three amber lamps mounted on the vertical centerline below the rear window. They provide a steady-burning light when the ignition is "on," and when the accelerator is released. They are extinguished when the accelerator is depressed. We have concluded that these aspects of the system are not prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3, which you cited, and which forbids the installation of equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there are two further aspects to the system. The amber lights are also extinguished when the brakes are applied and the normal stop lamps are illuminated, but if the brake application continues for at least 3 seconds the amber lamps will flash at a rate of approximately 60 cycles a minute. You have cited paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 which requires all vehicle lights to be steady-burning, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, and side marker lamps and headlamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. We have interpreted S4.6 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles, and not just the equipment required by the standard. This means that the deceleration system must be steady-burning in every mode. There is a good reason for this requirement, as simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 21, 1985

Mr. Jeffery R. Miller Office or Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Flexible Corporation, a manufacturer or city transit buses, has been requested by several city transit authorities to install a rear deceleration warning light system. These customers have demanded factory installation and operational hook-up of this deceleration warning light system. Other bus manufacturers are supplying such systems without question. Due to this, and by our not agreeing to install the system and make it fully operational, we have found ourselves to be at s distinct marketing disadvantage. We are concerned about certifying our vehicle to FMVSS 108 with an OEM installation or this deceleration light system.

The deceleration light system specified for installation on our bus is manufactured by Safety Development Systems, Haines, Oregon and requires installation on the rear centerline of our bus. See Attachment 11 which depicts the proposed installation method. The housing contains three horizontally aligned amber lights. These amber lights would be installed and operated independently from our normal rear lights and reflectors, which are required FMVSS 108 equipment. These three amber lights operate as described below:

A. When the ignition is "on", the amber lights are illuminated, burning.

B. When the accelerator is depressed, the amber lights are extinguished.

C. When the accelerator is released, the amber lights are illuminated, steady burning, and remain illuminated as long as the accelerator is released.

D. When the brake is applied, the amber lights are extinguished and the normal red atop lights are illuminated. If the brake is continually applied /or three seconds or more, the amber deceleration lights will flash (approximately 60 cycles per minute).

E. The normal amber (red color is optional) rear turn signal could then be illuminated simultaneously with the stop lights and the deceleration lights.

Paragraph S4.6 of FMVSS 108 provides that required signaling lamps shall flash when activated and all other lamps shall be steady burning, except that means mar be provided to flash headlights and side marker lights for signaling purposes.

Paragraph S4.1.3 or FMVSS 108 provides that no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness or lighting equipment required by this standard.

In order that we may be customer responsive, we request an interpretation from NHTSA concerning any non-compliance with FMVSS 108 on an OEM installation of these deceleration warning lights functioning as described above.

Sincerely,

James R. Mitzenberg Product Safety Engineer

ID: 77-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: McCandlish; Lillard; Bauknight; Church & Best

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether the remanufacture of a school bus using a new chassis and an old school bus body constitutes the manufacture of a new school bus subject to the new Federal school bus safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the manufacture of a vehicle using a new chassis and an old body is the manufacture of a new vehicle. (Part 571.7, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.) In this regulation the agency indicated that the only time that the remanufacture of a vehicle would be exempted from compliance with the new safety standards is when an old chassis is combined with a new body. In those situations, the vehicle is considered a used vehicle not subject to the standards.

In the case to which you refer, the combination of a new chassis and an old school bus body would require that you modify the bus body to comply with all of the Federal school bus safety standards in effect on the date of your manufacture of the new bus.

SINCERELY,

McCANDLISH, LILLARD, BAUKNIGHT, CHURCH & BEST

AUGUST 4, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation

This office represents the County School Board of Fairfax County, Virginia. A 1975 school bus was damaged extensively in November of 1976, and due to the failure of the insurance company for the responsible driver to pay, we have had to look very carefully into the question of damage to school buses.

In my search for an economical way to repair this bus, I have discovered that there are new regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration dealing with the installation of old school bus bodies on chassis manufactured after April 1, 1977. In this case, putting the old school bus body onto a chassis would be the cheapest way to repair the bus but it appears that this runs afoul of regulations of your agency.

I would appreciate very much your advice on this matter, especially your direction as to the regulations which control this matter.

Robert H. J. Loftus

ID: 17501.wkm

The Honorable Paul D. Coverdell
United States Senate
100 Colony Square, Suite 300
1175 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30361

ATTN: Brice Willis

Dear Senator Coverdell:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve O. Palmer, the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, which was referred to this agency for reply.

Your letter forwarded a letter dated January 23, 1998, from Mr. Jimmie D. Gowen, Jr., President, Big John Trailers, Folkston, GA. Mr. Gowen's letter enclosed copies of letters to The Honorable Saxby Chambliss, U. S. House of Representatives, and to Ms. Heidi Coleman, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law in this office. Mr. Gowen stated in his letter to you that his company produces self-propelled loader/crane carriers that are equipped with early model used truck air brake axles that are not designed for antilock brake system (ABS) applications as now required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. He stated that such vehicles are utilized primarily off-road in logging operations, although they are capable of being towed between job sites. He stated that being required to comply with the ABS requirements would result in his company's having to eliminate the vehicle from the company's product line. He therefore asked your assistance in bringing the matter to the attention of the proper authorities.

For your information, Mr. Gowen wrote to this agency on January 26, 1998, and submitted additional information to us on March 12, 1998. He asked whether knuckle boom loader trailers and self-propelled loader carriers that his company produces are required to comply with the ABS requirements of Standard 121. We replied that they are not subject to the ABS requirements because those particular vehicles do not meet the statutory definition of "motor vehicle."⁽¹⁾ Therefore, they need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in particular the ABS requirements of Standard 121. A copy of our response to Mr. Gowen is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref: 121#VSA
d.4/23/98

1. "'[M]otor vehicle' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).