ID: 24739.drn

Ms. Rhonda Lordet
4130 Commonwealth Avenue
Culver City, CA 90232

Dear Ms. Lordet:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that "there are no standards or regulations concerning hubcaps or wheel covers." You are correct in your understanding that there is no longer a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) regulating hubcaps or wheel covers.

In the past, FMVSS No. 211 (Standard No. 211), Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, (49 CFR Section 571.211) precluded certain wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps from having "winged projections." We were concerned that the winged projections could catch on clothing or strike legs or other body parts, posing a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. Standard No. 211 was rescinded in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1996, (61 FR 20172).The final rule took effect on June 5, 1996.

However, a hubcap or wheel cover designed to be used on motor vehicles is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act.If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.(This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a device is installed on or in a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)I have enclosed an information sheet that describes these and other responsibilities.

I hope this information is helpful.If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:#211
d.9/24/02

ID: 2789o

Mr. J. Mike Callahan
Precision Images
P.O. Box 5524
Kent, Washington 9803l

Dear Mr. Callahan:

This is in reply to your letter of April l4, 1987, to Mr. Vinson of this office with respect to your representation of a company "that will be selling plastic name plates which would be installed behind the red lens of the third brake light." You stated that "these are to be sold to new car dealerships. When the driver of the car steps on the brake the dealer's name lights up." You ask for letters regarding the legality of the name plates for 24 States.

We regret the delay in responding to your request. When Mr. Vinson tried to reach you by phone this week he was told that you had already received a letter, and that the answer was negative. Perhaps that letter came from one of the 24 States listed in your letter. We are unable to advise you of the legality under State laws, but I have enclosed representative interpretation letters of this agency on the legality of similar devices under Federal law.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:8/ll/88

ID: 21111.ztv

Mr. Tadzio Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Regulation & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Motorcycle turn signal lamps

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1999, asking whether a turn signal lamp design is in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The turn signal lamp system consists of two lamps and is intended for use on motorcycles.

In Stanley's design, the turn signal lamp contains two filaments, one performing the turn function and the other functioning as a "parking lamp." The parking lamp meets the requirements of Standard No. 108. You later describe the parking lamp as "operating continuously." When the turn signal is activated, the parking lamp function is turned off in the turn signal lamp, while it continues to function in the other turn signal lamp. In your opinion,

"such electrical connection would not be accepted if it were intended for motor vehicles as specified in S5.5.10(d) - All other lamps shall be wired to be steady burning." However, FMVSS No. 108 has no specification for motorcycle ' parking lamps,' nor their electrical connection. And we believe such electrical connection does not violate the Federal Regulations.

We regard the Stanley turn signal lamp design as incorporating an auxiliary function not required by Standard No. 108 for motorcycles. Under S5.1.3, this is acceptable if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We do not believe that the "parking" system you describe would have an impairing effect, and conclude that it is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/30/00

ID: nht73-3.40

DATE: 03/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Dow Corning Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1973, in which you inquired whether our brake fluid standard, No. 116, has preempted State regulation with respect to silicone-based brake fluids.

As you know, Standard No. 116 does not presently contain any performance requirements for silicone-based brake fluids. The recent amendment of January 31, 1973 (38 FR 2981) only establishes labeling requirements for these fluids.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), states that no State shall have a safety standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance" as a Federal standard that is not identical to the Federal standard. In this case, no "aspects of performance" at all, other than labeling, are covered by the Federal standard, so the State performance standards other than labeling cannot be said to cover the same aspects of performance. For these reasons the State performance requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 116. To hold otherwise would have the effect of voiding all State regulation of this product, leaving nothing in its place, until a Federal standard came into effect. No such results were intended by the issuance of the labeling amendment.

Work is in process to propose performance standards for silicone-based brake fluids and we plan to have requirements in effect before very much more time passes. At that time, of course, all State regulations will have to be identical to the Federal standard.

ID: nht91-3.24

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Paul R. Kirchgraber -- Souvenirs of the Future

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request For Interpretation of Federal Standards Compliance

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul R. Kirchgraber (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a legal interpretation from your office on exactly which standards, if any, my firm needs to comply with in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover for on-road vehicular use. This tire cover is to be made from a new fabric that our company has developed which is both solar heat reflective and highly reflective of light (see enclosed).

We believe that when this cover is placed on the exterior mounted tire of a motor home, trailer, passenger van or four wheel drive, it will provide a significant safety enhancement by making the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic.

The THERMAL reflective characteristic of this tire cover currently has important use in the off-road motor car racing industry in that it helps keep the temperature of high performance racing tires at a constant level prior to race time. Because of the LIGHT reflective characteristics, we are also interested in adapting this product for on-road use as an external tire cover.

In order to offer this product for commercial sale, we want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard. I would be grateful if you would please cite any appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories.

ID: nht70-2.34

DATE: 11/03/70

FROM: R. A. DIAZ -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY GEORGE C. NIELD

TO: B. Borisoff

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Reference is made to your letter of October 14, 1970 to Secretary Volpe regarding our Consumer Information publication.

Concerning your comments on stopping distance, the wording used on page 4 is the exact wording of this regulation. The category "Stopping distance in feet with emergency brakes (partial service brake system)" is a generalization of the regulatory wording meant to convey the sense of this requirement to a consumer who may have no engineering background. The paragraph on page 193 paraphrases the regulatory wording. The title "Partial Failure on One System" is, again, meant to convey the meaning to an otherwise uninformed consumer. I trust this clarifies the situation for you.

The reason many motorcycles are not listed is the fact that the data was not received in time to be included in the book. I am enclosing copies of the data available for U.S. made motorcycles as you requested.

Volume 2, covering the 1971 makes and models will be available approximately November 15, 1970 and can be obtained from the Government Printing Office at a cost of $ 2.00. In addition two (2) new Consumer Aid publications entitled "BRAKES - A Comparison of Braking Performance for 1971 Passenger Cars" and "TIRES - A Comparison of Tire Reserve Load for 1971 Passenger Cars" will also be available at a cost of $ .40 each.

Many thanks for your kind words and your interest in our motor vehicle safety program.

ID: nht90-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLES M.A. SAEDT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-8-90 FROM CHARLES M.A. SAEDT ATTACHED; (OCC-4641)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1990, with respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1 991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States.

As Taylor Vinson of this OffiCe explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no pr oblem in importing your car.

You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the Uni ted States at the conclusion of your tour of duty.

ID: 2411y

Mr. Charles M.A. Saedt
9940 Springfield Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21043

Dear Mr. Saedt:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, l990, with respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States.

As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no problem in importing your car.

You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the United States at the conclusion of your tour of duty.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/25/90

ID: 2412y

Mr. Charles M.A. Saedt
9940 Springfield Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21043

Dear Mr. Saedt:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, l990, with respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States.

As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no problem in importing your car.

You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the United States at the conclusion of your tour of duty.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/25/90

ID: nht71-5.20

DATE: 12/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 22, 1971, I have enclosed a copy of our letter of May 21, 1971, to Mr. George Jones of the Louisiana Tire Dealer and Retreader Association. Department of Transportation regulations require that we charge a duplicating fee of $ .50 per page for this service. Please, therefore, remit the sum of $ 1.50 to the undersigned, payable to the Treasurer of the United States.

In your letter you also enclosed a copy of an article that appeared in the September 1971 edition of the Modern Tire Dealer Magazine concerning the letter to Mr. Jones, and ask whether the article's conclusion that wheel testing is not a must," is accurate. This conclusion is correct. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), manufacturers are not required to test the compliance of their products to applicable standards in any particular manner. The test procedures specified in any particular standard indicate only the manner by which the agency will test for compliance, and manufacturers are free to utilize any test procedure they wish as long as they can show that they exercised "due care to comply with the standard. The use of wheel tests, however, as our letter to Mr. Jones indicates, may have an effect on a manufacturer's ability to show he used "due care" should he be called on to make that showing.

ENC.