ID: nht89-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/89

FROM: FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS

TO: JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBERT A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 09/2 3/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN , REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Jerry:

Recently I was contacted by Daniel Wiechmann, Jr. an attorney from Hampton, Iowa concerning an October 14, 1988 letter he sent to Mr. Ralph Hitchock at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards that has not been responded to as of this date. Enclosed find the correspondence I have received from Mr. Wiechmann.

I would be grateful if you would review this matter so a reply can be sent to Mr. Wiechmann as soon as possible. Mr. Wiechmann has indicated he has a case pending in the District Court of the State of Iowa waiting on this response. I would appreciate a copy of your response sent to my Mason City office.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht93-1.10

DATE: January 14, 1993

FROM: Bob Dittert -- Trooper, Texas Department of Public Safety, Safety Education Service

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Janet Monteros -- Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Bob Dittert (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d))

TEXT: It would be appreciated if your agency would make clear the authority of the CFR's concerning automotive equipment standards for new vehicles and after- market equipment.

1. Are the CFR's law and enforceable only by federal agents?

2. Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?

3. Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFR's?

4. Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp 'black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?

I am of the understanding that the CFR 48, Part 571.105 requires light transmission of 70% minimum (words illegible) is this correct? If this is correct and Texas law, VCS S701(illegible) Art. XII, Sec. 184(C), allows light transmission of only 35% (words illegible) action of Federal law? (Words illegible) Sec. 108 stated that if a Federal standard for any item of automotive equipment exists that standard will take precedence over any state standard and this section also empowers the Department (Texas Department of Public Safety) to control the sale and use of automotive equipment. If the state statutes are in error can that be remedied by the Federal Government? If so, how?

It doesn't seem realistic that every state could have different standards for automotive equipment, either new manufactured vehicles or after-market!

Your answers to these questions are awaited in ernest.

ID: nht73-1.42

DATE: 05/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Signum Plastics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1973, requesting that you be assigned a "DOT" code number for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials". You state that you purchase acrylic plastic sheet from Thailand and Japan, and indicate that you are sole importers of this material.

Under paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205, the assignment of a code number is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers, who are those manufacturers who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. As you import only acrylic sheet, you are not a prime glazing material manufacturer, and the assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate.

I have enclosed a copy of marking requirements for glazing materials. Paragraph S6.2 requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to apply a code number, which is obtained upon written request to this agency, to that glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper. The code number requirement does not apply to glazing sheets not designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper. If you plan to import glazing material that is designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper, the prime manufacturer of that material, whether foreign or domestic, must apply for and receive a DOT code number.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

April 26, 1973

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are requesting assignment of a D O T number, relative to Standard No. 205.

We purchase acrylic sheet plastic from Thailand and Japan, and are the sole importers of this material, as evidenced by the enclosed labels.

We are in the process of getting a registered trademark for this label.

Very truly yours,

SIGNUM PLASTICS --

Jack Molesworth, Partner

Encl.

ID: aiam2678

Dear Mr. Reider: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1977, to Don Williamso of our Ohio regional office.; You enclosed information on an automatic warning flasher lamp that i designed for installation on the parcel shelf inside the rear window of automobiles. You asked whether such a device would be legal on U.S. cars or U.S. highways, and 'what steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A.'; The unit appears to be designed for sale as a motor vehicle accessor in the aftermarket. There are no Federal prohibitions against the sale of the warning device or its installation in motor vehicles. Whether it is legal to use such a device however is a question to be answered under the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle in which it is installed is registered and/or operated.; The NHTSA does not issue approvals or endorsements of propriety safet devices.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Deputy Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0823

Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letter of May 19, 1971, concerning th placement of vanity mirror in sun visors. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. The issues it raised, however, are of consequence to manufacturers other than Rolls-Royce, and concerned basic matters of interpretation of Standard No. 201 which have only recently been resolved.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined tha paragraph S3.4.1 of Standard No. 201 does not prohibit the installation by manufacturers of vanity mirrors on sun visors. Consequently, manufacturers are free to incorporate such mirrors into or onto sun visors, including mirror that are recessed into the surface of the visor as in the sample you enclosed.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht71-1.38

DATE: 02/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Kelly Springfield Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 2, 1971, concerning Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulations and to confirm that the date code may be placed at the end of the tire identification number by means of a screw as depicted in the sketch attached to your letter.

ID: aiam3374

This is in response to your request on the adequacy of the Georgi certificate of title for use in lieu of a separate Federal odometer form.; As you know, the Federal odometer requirements that became effective a of January 1, 1978, have been substantially increased. We have made provision for those states that wish to include odometer information on their titles to use a shortened form that was adopted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). We consider the AAMVA form to include the minimum amount of information ncessary for an adequate disclosure.; In addition to the information included on the sample title which yo submitted to our office, the buyer's signature is also required. If this signature is included, the title may be used in lieu of a separate Federal form.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2647

Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your July 22, 1977, request for clarification of m July 21, 1977, letter to you stating that, in the case of brake and axle modifications to change the function of a used vehicle from that for which it was originally manufactured, it is the NHTSA's view that degradation of the brake system would only occur as prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S 108(a)(2)(A)) if portions of the brake system originally installed are removed, disconnected, or otherwise rendered inoperative. You asked whether a change in 'function' of a vehicle would include a modification that simply increases the load-carrying capacity or stability of a vehicle to carry out the same task for which it was originally manufactured.; The answer to your question is no. In the NHTSA's view, the changes yo describe would only increase the capabilities of the vehicle to perform its originally manufactured function. Thus, the 'element of design' that constitutes the original braking system of the vehicle could be knowingly degraded by the installation of an additional axle that does not provide the capability that would have been required for it if installed in the new vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-2.30

DATE: 09/22/78

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

TO: Fiat Research & Development - U.S.A. Branch

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 16, 1978, letter asking whether a manufacturer is permitted to list on the certification label required by Part 567, Certification, the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) in kilograms as well as pounds. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the use of kilograms on the certification label as long as the label continues to list the GAWR in pounds also.

ID: nht78-4.1

DATE: 03/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: The Reynolds and Reynolds Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 3, 1978, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review your small Odometer Mileage Statement Form ODOM-1030N, your large Odometer Mileage Statement Form ODOM-105-N, and your Retail Buyers Order. It is our opinion that the forms which you submitted meet the Federal odometer requirements which became effective January 1, 1978. Thank you for your cooperation in preparing the forms.