NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam5142OpenMr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren, MI 48090-9055; Mr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren MI 48090-9055; "Dear Mr. Bennett: We have received the petition by General Motors (GM for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures. First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until 'resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . .' We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV. We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be 'slightly below' the minimum requirements 'at a few test points'. Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points? Similarly, GM has argued that 'preliminary testing has indicated that' the GMEV will 'substantially comply' with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide '. . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . .' Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition. Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that 'the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles.' The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above. When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0212OpenMr. Royal Leeman, Project Engineer, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WI 54929; Mr. Royal Leeman Project Engineer FWD Corporation Clintonville WI 54929; >>>Re: *Petition for Rulemaking*<<< Dear Mr. Leeman: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting a exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ('Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses'), to allow the use of *Lexan* and *Plexiglas* in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the City of New York.; You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protectio for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR SS 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.; It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawin where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use *Lexan* and *Plexiglas* are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that *Plexiglas* meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that *Lexan* does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexan is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders it unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.; With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fightin vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test Z26.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partititions (sic), are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.; Sincerely, F. C. Turner, Federal Highway Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4932OpenDeborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq. General Motors Corporation Legal Staff New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef Esq. General Motors Corporation Legal Staff New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; "Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term 'dynamically-tested' in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so. Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: 'This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term 'dynamically-tested' from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term 'dynamically-tested' on its labels. NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information 'does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.' See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information. Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as 'dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies,' instead of 'seat belt assemblies.' We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term 'dynamically-tested,' would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992. Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2204OpenMr. John L. O'Connell, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109; Mr. John L. O'Connell State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles State Street Wethersfield CT 06109; Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.; In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 21 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).; Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effectiv October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by S103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since S103(d) requires the State regulations to be identical' to the Federal standard.; It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut ma not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.; In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and othe similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for Item 12' rigid plastics.; Item 12' is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastic which comply with all tests required of Item 5' rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - *Rigid plastics*, provides that Item 5' safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles *only* in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include Standee windows in buses' and readily removable windows'. However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of Item 12' plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.; Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having GVWR of more that 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.; I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1104OpenMr. Ralph H. Ullenberg, President, Milwaukee truck Center, Inc., 10521 West Layton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53228; Mr. Ralph H. Ullenberg President Milwaukee truck Center Inc. 10521 West Layton Avenue Milwaukee WI 53228; Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4039OpenMr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, U.S. Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported them pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.; More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that hi vehicles was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity, he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle' as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final- stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without 'major components of the fuel system: no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.,' you believe that they are 'incomplete vehicles,' which are defined by S568.3 as 'an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle.'; We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 56 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, 'A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle.' (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).; I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 s that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufactured operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3655OpenThe Honorable Eldon Rudd, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Eldon Rudd House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Rudd: This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the windows of their automobiles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority t govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are no glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has a transmittance of at least 70%).; Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner ma alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners, this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehicle whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.; In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from havin darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4851OpenMs. Jessie M. Flautt 4405 Lafayette Street Bellaire, TX 77401; Ms. Jessie M. Flautt 4405 Lafayette Street Bellaire TX 77401; "Dear Ms. Flautt This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke o my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle. You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1464OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, Avenue Brugmann, 32, 1060 Bruxelles, BELGIUM; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation Avenue Brugmann 32 1060 Bruxelles BELGIUM; Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in reply to your Submission Nos. 78 and 79, of February 1 1974, and February 19, 1974, respectively. In Submission No. 79 you request that several corrections be made to the Tables of the Appendices of Standard Nos. 109 and 110 as they appeared in the *Federal Register* on November 1, 1973 (38 FR 30234). In Submission No. 78 you request new additions to the Tables.; You request in Submission No. 79 that Footnote No. 1 of Table I-S an I-T in standard No. 109 be corrected. A correction of those footnotes was published in the *Federal Register* on February 5, 1974 (39 FR 4578), and we enclose a copy. You also request that in Table I-C of Standard No. 109 the test rim width for the 165-15 tire size designation be changed to 4 1/2 inches. That correction was published in the *Federal Register* of November 13, 1973 (38 FR 31309), copy also enclosed.; You further request that Table I-D be corrected by changing the tes rim width of the 145-10 tire size designation to 4 1/2 inches, by changing the minimum size factor of the 230-15 tire size designation to '37.30,' and by changing the test rim width of the 165-400 tire size designation to '4.65.' Our review of previous publications show these three items and we will publish a correction regarding them. You also request changed in several load inflation values in Tables I-H and I-N. The November 1, 1973, publication is incorrect with respect to these load values as well, and we will publish a correction regarding them.; We cannot, however, grant your request that we correct in Table I-F th 16 psi (from '705 to '760') for the 5.60 R 15 and 5.90 R 13 tire size designations without first receiving a formal submission from E.T.R.T.O. requesting the change. The 705-pound load is a carryover from earlier Tables, and we cannot conclude that the Table as published on November 1 is in error. Accordingly, if you wish the load value to be modified to 760 pounds you must request such a change in accordance with the abbreviated rulemaking procedures published in the *Federal Register* on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964). Upon receipt and approval of E.T.R.T.O.'s submission, we will make the requested change in the subsequent quarterly amendment to the Tables.; You ask in Submission No. 78 that we add to Table I-H the 165 SR 1 tire size designation and the alternate rim size 500b. No amendment is necessary to include the 165 SR 13 tire size designation in Table I-H. Tire size 165 R 13 is listed, and Footnote 1 of the Table allows the 'S' to be placed adjacent to the 'R.' We will, however, add the 5.00B rim as an alternative rim size for the 165 R 13 tire size designation in the next quarterly amendment to the Tables.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3771OpenThe Honorable Robert A. Young, Member of Congress, 4150 Cypress Road, St. Ann, MO 63074; The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann MO 63074; Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potentia hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, th agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistances. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film an other materials used to make windows opaque are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance of abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter th vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 'Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance performance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use o vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.; I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potentia problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.