ID: nht75-2.29

DATE: 10/01/75

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 17, 1975, in which you ask whether a permanent label affixed to the inside surface of a hubcap would satisfy the requirements of a new proposed paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 211.

The intent of the proposed labeling requirements, part of a general identification scheme for motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, is to ensure rapid and efficient identification of the manufacturer of a defective or nonconforming part or vehicle. The placement of an identifying label on the inside of a hubcap would not hinder rapid identification of the manufacturer. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would consider that a label that is permanently affixed to the inside surface of a hubcap and contains the information specified in proposed paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 211 would comply with the requirements of S3.2.

We hope this answer is satisfactory. If you have any other questions, please contact us.

YOURS TRULY,

September 16, 1975

Frank Berndt Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of Proposed Rule FMVSS 211

This is to ask for your interpretation of FMVSS 211, S.3.2 which was proposed in Docket No. 73-14; Notice 3, published on March 19, 1975.

S.3.2 (labeling requirement) states, "Each wheel nut, wheel disc and hubcap shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with . . . . .".

As the location of the mark or the label is not specifically mentioned in S.3.2, may we understand that it is in compliance with S.3.2 to affix permanently and legible the label on the inside surface of the hubcap?

Thank you for your attention to the above question. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Tokio Iinuma

Staff, Safety

ID: nht75-3.20

DATE: 07/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Part 567 with respect to whether or not Chrysler should affix a certification label to an incomplete vehicle prior to shipping the vehicle to an outside vendor for body work.

It appears from your letter that there is some misunderstanding regarding the certification requirements applicable to manufacturers of incomplete vehicles. Section 567.4, to which you refer in your letter, is not applicable to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. However, Section 567.5(c) provides that if an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act, as provided for in Section 568.7(a), then the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must ensure that a certification label is affixed to the final vehicle with the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's name after the words "MANUFACTURED BY" or "MFD BY". The data to be included on this label must follow the words "INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED" or "INC VEH MFD" and is the "[month] and year in which the original manufacturer of the incomplete vehicles performed his last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle . . . ." (Section 567.5 (a)(4)). The date as of which the manufacturer certifies that the vehicle conforms to applicable safety standards is any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture. (Section 567.5(a)(7).

The regulations do not specify a date on which the certification label must be affixed. However Section 114 of the Traffic Safety Act provides that the label must be on the vehicle at the time of its delivery by the manufacturer to the distributor or dealer.

We trust that the above explanation will provide you with the guidance that you need. If you have any further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht73-2.47

DATE: 12/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Streamline Division

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in acknowledgement of your Defect Information Report, in accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.

The Defect Information Report involves: 41 - 1973 SL, Regency, Imperial, and Crown Imperial Travel Trailors. Possibility that the 3/8" copper tube lines from the gas manifold to all appliances may have a defect thereby causing gas leakage, which may allow for a possible fire hazard.

The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identification number has been assigned to the campaign 73-0224. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1974.

Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.

In addition, the letter which you have sent to the first purchasers does not meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 (copy enclosed) in the following respects. It does not contain the specific statements required by sections 577.4(a) and (b)(1). Your reference to a "possible" safety hazard, moreover, is not permitted under paragraph 577.4(b)(1). We do not consider your letter to adequately describe the malfunction, as required by sections 577.4(c)(1) and (c)(2). You do not, for example. Indicate the effect or possible consequence of an "improper flare" on

a gas line. Nor do you state any precautions the owner can take to reduce the likelihood of the malfunction occurring as required by 577.4(c)(4). Your letter fails completely to evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by section 577.4(d). Finally, we consider your reference to "no reported related failures" to be a disclaimer prohibited by section 577.6.

It is necessary for you to revise this letter as we have indicated and to provide this office and the owners with a copy of the revised letter.

Failure to comply with this regulation can result in the imposition of civil penalties and injunctive sanctions.

If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murray or Marx Elliott of this office (202) 426-2840.

Enc.

ID: nht75-5.37

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William C. Koch; Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As you requested in your August 29, 1975, telephone conversation with Karen Kreshover of this office, I am forwarding to you an interpretation of Section 580.5(b) of 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, as it applies to new car dealers.

Section 580.5(b) states that an odometer disclosure form need not be executed by transferors of new vehicles before their first transfer for purposes other than resale. This means that a distributor of new vehicles is not required to provide a dealer with odometer disclosure statements for vehicles he transfers to him. A new vehicle dealer, however, must complete disclosure statements for all vehicles he transfers to persons who are taking possession for purposes other than reselling the vehicles. In other words, even a new vehicle which has not been previously sold to a consumer must have its odometer mileage certified in compliance with the odometer disclosure requirements when it is transferred.

ID: 1983-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Police

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

B.E. Diehl, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Captain Diehl:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1983, asking three questions about the use of sun screening devices on vehicle glazing materials. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The interpretations of Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, stated in this agency's letters to the State of Hawaii concerning the use of sun screening device on vehicle glazing materials will be uniformly applied by the agency from State-to-State. If you are aware of vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair shops that are in violation of those interpretations, please provide that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on where in the vehicle the glazing is used. For example, only glazing materials used at levels requisite for driving visibility must comply with the luminous transmittance requirements.

3. Standard No. 205 specifies abrasion resistance requirements for glazing materials. Therefore, the use of solar screening materials, which do not meet the abrasion requirements of the standard, would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with the standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: lawrence.2.ztv

Mr. Lon Lawrence
3305 Boyd Drive
Carlsbad, NM 88220

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is in reply to your recent fax to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking that we intervene on your behalf with the Attorney General of New Mexico so that she may inform "all New Mexico Law enforcement agencies that modulating headlamps [on motorcycles] are legal."

You reported that the New Mexico Motorcycle Riders Organization (NMMRO) has expressed an intent to draft a letter to the state Attorney General for an interpretation but that NMMRO had not yet done so. In the meantime, on July 24, 2003, the New Mexico State Police sent you a letter (which you also faxed to us) stating that it finds "no current legal foundation for your assertion that Federal Statues [sic] preclude local entities from citing you for the use of modulating headlamps," but then advises that the commander of the Roswell District has been instructed "to have his officers refrain from citing for the use of modulating headlamps."

We are not familiar with the laws of New Mexico. We know, however, that some States have objected to modulating motorcycle headlamps because, in their opinion, such headlamps "flash," in contravention of State laws that allow flashing lamps to be used only on emergency vehicles. I am enclosing copies of several of our most recent interpretations on State laws and modulating motorcycle headlamps: letters to Frank A. Schaub (March 24, 2003), relating to Connecticut law, to Michael L. Wagner (June 20, 2000), relating to Indiana law, and to Henry S. Winokur (January 21, 1999), relating to Maryland law. They may prove helpful to you and others in your contacts with the motor vehicle authorities of your State.

If you have any questions, you may call Eric Stas of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.9/9/03

ID: nht76-1.30

DATE: 03/01/76

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

TO: Leisure Time Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as they apply to the manufacture of mobile homes with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

The standard requires that these vehicles be equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 in<2> of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. While you are free to provide additional mirrors, the standard clearly requires two mirrors each of which has at least 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Substitution of a number of small mirrors for one or both of the 50 in<2> mirrors is impermissible, even if a total reflective area of 50 in<2> is provided.

If you require any further assistance, do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

Leisure time PRODUCTS, INC.

January 29, 1976

Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111

As a manufacturer of motor homes of over 10,000 pounds GVWR, I am not certain on how to interpret Section S6 of Standard No. 111. I understand the minimum requirements for mirror size, capability, and location which would be applicable. The item which I question is the 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Are the mirrors required to be of one piece instead of possibly two piece? For example, two mirrors one with 40in.<2> reflective surface and additional mirror of adequate size to meet the 50in.<2> requirement for each side of vehicle.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Tommy Watson Engineer of Codes and Standards

ID: GF009527

Mr. Richard Coffel
456 Coos Bay Wagon Rd.
Roseburg, OR 97470




Dear Mr. Coffel:

This responds to your e-mail dated December 14, 2004, asking "what wattage bulb is legal in a motorcycle headlight?"

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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.   The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. FMVSS No. 108 does not regulate the wattage of light sources (bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps that are marked "motorcycle".Instead, these headlamps must conform to the photometric requirements, measured in candela, in Figure 32 of FMVSS No. 108.

For all other motorcycle headlamps that incorporate replaceable bulbs, S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires, in part, that each replaceable light bulb be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information (these specifications are available online at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3397). That is, a replacement bulb must be manufactured to conform to specifications applicable to the original bulb. Replaceable light bulb manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the requirements of S7.7 by marking the light bulb with the symbol "DOT".

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,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/17/05

ID: nht89-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/06/89

FROM: LINDA B. KENT -- MARKET DEVELOPMENT SR. ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LINDA B. KENT -- FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION; REDBOOK A35; VSA 108 [A] [2]; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed you will find a brochure and samples of a product called Contra Vision. Avery International has purchased the Marketing and Selling rights of this invention. Contra Vision allows you to print an image on one side of a clear substrate, but from the other side, the viewer can see right through the sign.

This product will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses.

I am writing to request clarification of federal vehicle safety compliance standard no. 205. I understand that the federal standards outline the visibility rates that are permissable for use in these types of vehicles at the OEM level. I understand, al so, that there are state standards that can be the same or different from the federal standards. If, though, Contra Vision does comply with the federal standards, I feel that this will greatly help us in approching each state on an individual basis.

I feel that our product does comply with the federal standards in that you can see clearly through the Contra Vision panels. The same amount of ink is on both sides of the panel, it's just that your eye sees the colored dot, yet ignores the black dot.

If you could respond back to me with my request of clarification and your thoughts on compliance, it would be greatly appreciated.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, ENCLOSURE

ID: nht74-2.10

DATE: 11/07/74

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

TO: Columbia Body & Equipment Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to CBE's October 24, 1974, question whether a trailer equipped with a telescoping drawbar that varies the distance between axles to conform to various State regulations would qualify as a "Heavy hauler trailer" as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, Air brake systems:

"Heavy hauler trailer" means a trailer with one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front-end structure" as that term is used in @ 393.106 of this title.

The answer to your question is no. The extension of the drawbar is not an "extension of the vehicle frame." This characteristic is intended only to describe trailers whose function necessitates a highly specialized configuration that significantly interferes with brake design. In contrast, the telescoping drawbar is not related to the trailer's function, but simply permits the vehicle to conform to State highway regulations.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

October 24, 1974

Acting Chief Consel -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Attn: Richard Dyson

Dear Mr. Dyson;

Does the Pony Trailor on our drawing number T65-497 (enclosed) qualify as a heavy hauler trailer and exempt from the S121 or any other antiskid requirement until Sept. 1, 1976 as Mr. Tadd Herllhy defined in our phone conversation Oct. 23, 1974. Please reply as soon as possible.

Sincerely yours,

COLUMBIA BODY & EQUIPMENT COMPANY

John C. Hansen -- Sales Manager