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: aiam4010OpenDavid L. Ori, Manager, Vehicle Control Division, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Harrisburg, PA 17122; David L. Ori Manager Vehicle Control Division Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Motor Vehicles Harrisburg PA 17122; Dear Mr. Ori: Thank you for your letter of June 24, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of m staff concerning your meeting to discuss the interaction of Federal and State laws affecting the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I am glad that you and the other members of your committee found the meeting as helpful and productive as Mr. Oesch did.; I believe you will be interested to learn that subsequent to you meeting, the agency has corresponded with Congressman John S. McCain III concerning conflicting State laws on motor vehicle window tinting, a copy of the agency's letter to Mr. McCain is enclosed. We understand that Mr. McCain has also written directly to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this issue. We look forward to discussing possible joint actions to resolve the apparent problems in this area.; As you have requested, we have reviewed your interpretation of Mr Oesch's answers to the questions discussed at your meeting and find that you have accurately summarized them. To ensure a full understanding of each of the answers, we have provided below a complete response to each of the questions.; First, I would like to review some background information. The Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In 1967, the agency issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. The standard went into effect on January 1, 1968.; Vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that al components on their vehicles comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards prior to sale. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to applicable safety standard (sic) is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the proble of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendments added section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add tinting to glazing materials of a used motor vehicle, if that tinting would 'render inoperative' the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. Based on the law and regulations discussed above, we have provided the following answers to your questions.; *Question (1)*: What impact does Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 205 have upon commercial installers of tinting materials if the installation is performed:; (a) prior to the sale of the vehicle? *Answer*: If a commercial installer places tinting film on glazing in new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the abrasion resistance and other requirements of the standard.; (b) after its first sale? *Answer*: If a commercial installer adds tinting material to a use vehicle and the material reduces the light transmittance of the glazing to a level below 70 percent or otherwise reduces the compliance of the glazing with one of the standard's requirements, the agency would consider that action a rendering inoperative of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205 in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, it merely limits the use of tinting.; *Question (2)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have upon individual who install tinting on their own vehicles?; *Answer*: Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act does not appl to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. States retain the authority to set their own laws regulating the application of window tinting by individual vehicle owners.; *Question (3)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have upon th manufacture and sale of window tinting material?; *Answer*: Standard No. 205 does not regulate the manufacture or sale o window tinting materials, it affects only the application of the tinting materials to windows in a motor vehicle. States retain the authority to issue laws affecting the manufacture and sale of such materials.; *Question (4)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have on new vehicle versus old vehicles?; *Answer*: All new motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968 must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. As discussed in our response to Question 1(b), the tinting of used vehicles, manufactured after January 1, 1968, by commercial businesses would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.; *Question (5)*: What specifically is a State preempted from doing b regulation or Federal law?; *Answer*: Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws o the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment , any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or othe vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Standard No. 105. States may establish and enforce identical requirements, they may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.; *Question (6)*: Must a state develop laws or regulations governing th actions of individuals pertaining to window tinting? If a state were to adopt Standard No. 205 which apparently governs manufacturers and commercial installers and adopt no other rules or regulations pertaining to actions taken by individuals regarding window tinting would that state be subject to Federal sanctions? Does a state have to adopt Standard No. 205?; *Answer*: There is no Federal requirement that States adopt law regulating the tinting of motor vehicle windows by vehicle owners. The agency does not have authority to sanction a State if the State decides not to regulate the actions of individual vehicle owners. As explained in our response to question 5, if a state adopts a law that regulates tinting by commercial businesses, then its laws must not be more or less stringent than Standard No. 205. States are not required to adopt a law identical to Standard No. 205 if that applied *only* to tinting by individual vehicle owners.; *Question (7)*: If a state were to adopt regulations or laws pertainin to the actions taken by individuals with regard to window tinting, would those laws or regulations have to mirror Standard No. 205? How could they be different?; *Answer*: As explained in our response to question 6, State law regulating tinting by individual vehicle owners do not have to be identical to Standard No. 205. We believe that NHTSA and the States have a common interest in promoting highway safety and in minimizing inconvenience to traveling motorists. We are interested in working with the States to see that State laws regulating tinting by vehicle owners are consistent.; *Question (8)*: Some would prefer that Standard No. 205 be amended t make glazing requirements for passenger vehicles and multipurpose passenger vehicles the same.; *Answer*: We understand that AAMVA is considering filing a petition fo rulemaking on this issue. Part 522 of our regulations sets forth our procedure on rulemaking petitions. A copy is enclosed for your reference.; *Question (9)*: Is it anticipated that there will be any materia change to Standard No. 205 in the near future?; *Answer*: The agency does not have any pending rulemaking actions o Standard No. 205. As with all of our standards, as the agency acquires data indicating a need to change a standard or if we receive a petition for rulemaking, we would determine if a rulemaking proceeding is justified.; *Question (10)*: May a manufacturer of window tinting materials sell product that does not conform to Standard No. 205? If not, is the sale of such a product based on its nonconformance to Federal standards?; *Answer*: Standard No. 205 does not regulate the manufacture or sale o tinting materials. Thus, there is no Federal regulation that applies to a manufacturer who sells tinting materials that, when applied to motor vehicle glazing, would render inoperative the compliance of the glazing with Standard No. 205. Although the agency would encourage all manufacturers of tinting materials to sell products which can be used on a vehicle and not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205, we do not monitor the sale of glazing materials. A state may adopt and enforce its own law regulating the manufacture and sale of tinting materials.; *Question (11)*: What does requisite for driving mean? *Answer*: The agency considers all windows in a passenger car to b requisite for providing the driver with a sufficient view to operate safely his or her car.; You also asked whether the agency has any guidelines for medica exemptions to Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 does not have provisions concerning medical exemption. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1212OpenMr. R. D. Shepard, Staff Engineer-Electrical & Safety, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., 1331 S. Washington, Lansing, MI 48920; Mr. R. D. Shepard Staff Engineer-Electrical & Safety Diamond Reo Trucks Inc. 1331 S. Washington Lansing MI 48920; Dear Mr. Shepard: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, asking whether a rea 'light signalling' switch may be installed on your vehicles.; As I understand your letter, the switch and circuitry in questio provide automatic flashing of side markers, clearance, tail, and identification lamps. Wiring of this nature, whether installed by the incomplete, intermediate, or final stage manufacturer would violate S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.5.8(b)). You are correct in saying that a switch and circuit may be furnished by manufacturers of truck-tractors, and incomplete vehicles for flashing only the side markers, and 'that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps.' Of course, wiring these lamps to the same on-off switch would not violate the standard provided there is no flasher in the circuit.; You also ask 'who assumes the responsibility for older trailers whic will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit.' The person completing the circuitry on a trailer is responsible for compliance to standards in effect when the trailer is completed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3385OpenMr. Deng Shin-Wen, Deputy Director and Chief Engineer, Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant, Shanghai, CHINA; Mr. Deng Shin-Wen Deputy Director and Chief Engineer Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant Shanghai CHINA; Dear Mr. Deng: This responds to your November 17, 1980 letter in which you requeste information about the steps your manufacturing plant must take to comply with this agency's requirements for selling tires in the United States. Your letter stated that your main products are truck tires.; All truck tires (for both light and heavy-weight vehicles) importe into the United States must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information. You will see that the standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, and high speed performance), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.; Concerning the performance requirements, your letter asked how man sets of each tire size must be delivered to this agency for testing and how the costs are paid. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing before they can be sold, but this country does not. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. After the manufacturer determines that the tires comply with the requirements, the manufacturer stamps the letters 'DOT' on the tire to accomplish the certification. This agency then makes spot checks of tires, by purchasing some from a dealer and testing the tires according to the procedures set forth in Standard 119. However, there is no advance approval procedure by the agency.; It is a simple matter to check the tire to see that the markin requirements have been followed. I should note that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without a DOT marking to enter the United States.; With respect to the tire and rim matching, this information, as well a the loading schedules for the tire size (showing the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must either be set forth in a current trade association manual or be furnished by manufacturers to dealers of the tires and in duplicate to this agency. If you wish to obtain a copy of the current manual published by the American tire manufacturers to see if the tire sizes manufactured by your plant are listed therein, you may send $8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, OH 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims which you manufacture are listed in that manual, you have complied with this requirement. If the sizes are not listed, you may consult other trade associations, or you may exercise the option to furnish the information to your dealers and to this agency.; I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that would also apply t your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Record Keeping*. This requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see S574.5), including the manufacturer's identification mark. To obtain an identification mark, you should follow the steps set forth in S574.6 of this regulation.; Further, this regulation requires each manufacturer to furnish forms t its tire dealers to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers of these tires. The dealers must then return the completed forms to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive these forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires because they fail to comply with Standard 119 or because the tires have a safety-related defect. It may be necessary for you to make arrangements with some party in this country to store the completed forms for you.; Finally, I am enclosing a procedural rule, which applies to all partie subject to the regulations of this agency (49 CFR Part 551). This regulation requires all manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. This designation must be in writing and in a form which is valid and binding under Chinese law. Such designation must provide the information set forth in S551.45(b) and be mailed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; I hope that this information helps you and that the trade relationshi between our countries will be a long and fruitful one. If you need any further information, or clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4440OpenMr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 2l4l5 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969; Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager Engineering Isuzu Motors America Inc. 2l4l5 Civic Center Drive Southfield MI 48076-3969; "Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This responds to your letter asking about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, as amended by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 3244) on February 3, l987. We apologize for the delay in our response. You described a proposed design for a radio and asked whether the requirements of section S5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for the radio and, if so, whether your design would meet those requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. As discussed below, the requirements of section S5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for your planned radio. Your current design would meet the requirements of that section. You described your planned radio as follows: In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned 'on.' Likewise, when the switch is turned 'off,' this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single intensity, but the intensity is not 'barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.' The current language of section S5.3.5, which reflects an amendment made by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 334l6) on September 3, l987, is as follows: S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin 'H' point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated. The first issue raised by your letter is whether section S5.3.5 would apply to your proposed design. The answer to that question is yes. You suggested that the section might not apply, since 'display illumination turns 'on' or 'off' simultaneously with the 'on' or 'off' operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion.' However, section S5.3.5's limitation of applicability to sources of illumination which are 'capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion' does not refer to illuminations which are provided only when the vehicle is in motion but instead incorporates all sources of illumination which are 'capable' of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion. The second issue raised by your letter is whether your proposed design meets the requirements of section S5.3.5. You suggested that the 'off' switch of the radio would be 'a means of being turned off,' under that section. We agree with your suggested interpretation. Section S5.3.5 requires that the 'source of illumination' have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. As discussed in the preamble to the February 3, l987 final rule, the purpose of providing section S5.3.5's three options was to meet concerns raised by commenters, while maintaining essential limits on glare. Although a driver may use the radio while driving at night, he or she will have the means to remove the radio as a source of glare by turning the radio off. In our view, this meets section S5.3.5's third option. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1642OpenMr. Heinz W. Gerth, Assistant Vice President, Engineering, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This responds to your September 18, 1974, request for clarification o the vehicle requirements set out in S4. and S6. of a recent proposal to amend Standards Nos. 207, *Seating systems*, and 202, *Head restraints*. As published March 19, 1974 (39 FR 10268), S5. provides:; >>>S5. *Requirements*. Each vehicle shall be capable of meeting any o the requirements set forth under this heading, when tested in accordance with the procedures of S6. and the conditions of S7., except that any vehicle which is capable of meeting the requirements of S5.3(e) is not required to be capable of meeting S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), or S5.3(c) as applied to forward-facing seats. However, a particular vehicle (i.e., a test specimen) need not meet further requirements after having been subjected to any one of the following groups of requirements:; Group I: S5.2, 5.3(a), S5.3(b), S5.3(d), S5.5.1(b), and S5.5.1(a). Group II: S5.2, S5.3(c), and S5.3(e). Group III: S5.2 and all S5.4 requirements.<<< The first statement in S5. is that each vehicle must be capable o meeting any of the requirements listed, with certain exceptions. The second statement in S5. does not modify the first statement, but only makes clear that, for test purposes, a particular test specimen is not required to successfully undergo each of the destructive tests without a failure. To accomplish this end, the destructive tests of the standard are separated into three separate groups, each of which is calculated as appropriate for sequential testing of one vehicle.; The first statement in S5. can be interpreted as offering an option t the manufacturer between compliance with S5.3(e) or compliance with S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), and S5.3(c). In fact, all passenger cars and all multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) and trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less would be required to meet S5.3(e). A review of comments on the proposal demonstrates that manufacturers and other commenters did not misinterpret these requirements as an option. Therefore, the NHTSA concludes that the language, while it could be made more clear, adequately notified interested persons of the NHTSA's intent to apply the rear barrier crash requirement to all passenger cars and to all light MPV's and trucks subject to the standard.; Because a particular vehicle is only required to meet either S5.3(c) o S5.3(e), we agree that the Group II series of tests applicable to any one vehicle would be better expressed as 'Group II: S5.2, and S5.3(c) or S5.3(e).' Such a wording change would appear in any final rule issued in this format.; Section S6. is a statement of test procedures and, as such, it does no state further or conflicting requirements. In the case of Group II testing, it reflects the requirements of S5. that a vehicle meet either S5.3(c) or S5.3(e), but not both.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0950OpenMr. R. H. Dobson, Industrial Fibers Division, Marketing--Technical, E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Wilmington, DE, 19898; Mr. R. H. Dobson Industrial Fibers Division Marketing--Technical E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company Wilmington DE 19898; Dear Mr. Dobson: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1972, to Mr. James S Gilky concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' and its possible application to infant restraint harnesses.; Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket materials or components it applies only to those original components or materials of new vehicles specified in Paragraph S4.1 of the standard. Since an infant restraint harness is an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, it is not subject to the requirements of the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5601OpenMr. William Meurer President Green Motorworks 5228 Vineland Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91601; Mr. William Meurer President Green Motorworks 5228 Vineland Avenue North Hollywood CA 91601; "Dear Mr. Meurer: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995 responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process. You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c). 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency 'decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events.' Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain 'a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation.' The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported. The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project. Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point, when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs. Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must 'at all times retain title to and possession of' vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and 'shall not lease' them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project. I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes 'on terms NHTSA decides are necessary.' Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers. The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest. If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4913OpenWilliam Engel, Assistant Chief Covington Fire Department 100 E. Robbins St. Covington, KY 41011; William Engel Assistant Chief Covington Fire Department 100 E. Robbins St. Covington KY 41011; "Dear Mr. Engel: This responds to your letter asking whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that 'components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommmodations shall conform to this standard.' S4 Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0403OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI, 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1971, raising question concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 that were initially asked by Ford at a meeting held with Administration representatives on March 9, 1971. Since the time of your letter, as you know, the Administration has proposed an amendment to the standard to clarify the requirements for separate and composite materials and one aspect of the test procedure. As the Administration intends that this proposal become effective on the standard's present effective date of September 1, 1972, our answers to your questions are based, where appropriate, on the proposed amendment as well as the present text of the standard.; We have restated your questions below, and have modified the answer you have provided where appropriate.; >>>1. What interior parts are covered by this standard . . .<<< A list of components which we believe to be included is attached. Your statement that ' . . . parts specifically named in the standar (are) included, as well as padded or crash-deployed elements designed to absorb energy in a crash' is incomplete, as it limits energy-absorbing elements to only padding or crash-deployed elements. S4.1 of the standard refers to padding and crash-deployed elements only as examples of energy-absorbing elements.; With reference to the list of components you have provided, it i difficult to determine without the exact configuration of each component whether it is subject to the standard's requirements. However, based upon the literal wording of S4.1, of those items you have listed, the following are specifically subject to the standard: arm rests (seat mounted) including pad and base, arm rests (door or trim panel mounted) including pad and base, package tray trim panels, truck rear compartment shelves, convertible backlight curtains, truck rear compartment curtains, floor carpeting including backing and sound deadener, floor mats, seat cushion and (seat) back pads, seat cushion and (seat) back covers, including threads and welts, window shades, convertible tops, engine compartment covers, headlining, head restraints, truck mattress covers, seat belts and shoulder harness, webbing and seat belt covers, sun visors, trim panels, including door, front, rear, side, station wagon cargo, and cowl side trim panels.; The following items that you have listed are not specificall enumerated in S4.1 of the standard, but apparently closely resemble or are merely different descriptions of items that are enumerated. If so they are subject to the standard: Exposed instrument panel package shelves, pillar covers, roof console, scuff plates, ash tray covers, storage boot for convertible tops, glove compartment box if not covered by door, and glove box doors (instrument panel or console).; The following components that you have listed, depending on thei actual configurations, would quite possible be covered under the language 'any other materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Some components previously listed are repeated here, as they may fall within more than one category: instrument panel crash pads, crash- deployed elements (air bags and air bag-deployment doors), steering wheel pad assembly, hub emblem, cover assembly, emblem assembly, horn-blowing assembly, button assembly, and buttom (sic) assembly medallion, glove compartment doors, and ash try covers.; The following item would also be included as it is incorporated into surface or component that is subject to the requirements of S4.1: radio speaker grilles on doors or package tray trim panels.; We do not know the nature of the following components, and offer n opinion concerning whether they must meet the requirements: dash insulators, truck floor heat deflectors, door and quarter watershields, if exposed, and truck heater cover when mounted on engine cover.; The information provided above is based solely on the list provided and does not apply to any interior component that is not listed. Furthermore, we offer no opinion as to whether this list is exhaustive with regard to interior components, and point out that other components that are not listed may have to comply with the standard's requirements.; >>>2. Should seat welts be tested as loose pieces or attached t covers?<<<; Seat welts are considered part of the seat cover and should be teste as part of the seat cover.; >>>3. How is a part which is less than the specified size for a sampl to be tested?<<<; A part smaller than the specified sample size should be tested usin the thin, heat-resistant wires described in S5.1.3.; >>>4. A foamed-in-place trim panel could have several burn rate result because of varying shapes and thickness. How should samples be taken for testing?<<<; The sample should be chosen so that it will produce the most advers result when tested to the standard's requirements.; >>>6. Some package tray trim panels may include speaker holes or grill cloth in localized areas. How should the sample be taken for testing?<<<; The speaker grille cloth should be tested separately from the tri panel material.; >>>7. A given seat cover may employ several different kinds o material. Should all variations be tested?<<<; Yes. The requirements of the standard must be met by each variation i the materials.; >>>8. Are sewing threads considered surface materials?<<< Any material that contains threads that are used in sewing it t another should be tested with the threads as they appear in the material.; >>>9. Does bonded mean all methods of adhering materials?<<< The use of the term 'bonded' is intended in the sense that th materials adhere to each other at every point of contact. The proposed amendment eliminates the use of this term.; >>>10. Does underlying material refer only to the layer immediatel beneath the surface cover?<<<; No. It applies to all materials beneath the surface material. There i no depth limitation. The half-inch specification refers only to maximum sample thickness of S5.2.1.; >>>11. Paragraph S4.2(b) describes a composite. If a component is onl partially bonded should the composite be tested or individual parts.<<<; For purposes of the standard you have described two components, on that is bonded, and one that is not. Both must meet the standard's requirements.; >>>12. When padding materials are not bonded to surface materials, bu are bonded to substrate boards, are they considered as composite or separate pieces. The sun visor . . . was discussed as an example.<<<; Under both the present and the proposed wording of S4.2, an underlyin material that is not bonded to surface material would be treated as a separate material even if it is bonded or similarly attached to another underlying material. However, surface materials include more than the exposed surface of the vehicle interior. They include as well any undersurface, such as in certain vehicle seats or package shelves. In some cases, therefore, a substrate board may be a surface (undersurface) material, and thus be required to meet the requirements for surface materials. With reference to the sun visor, a sample of which was left with us, it should be treated as a component having two surfaces. The interior materials should be treated as underlying padding or cushioning material.; >>>13. Paragraph S5.1.3 calls for the use of support wires if errati burning results. At what point should this be done?<<<; The statement, 'NHTSA believes that support wires will not influenc the results' is correct, and the manufacturer may use the support wires whenever he wishes. Erratic burning includes, but is not necessarily limited to, burning at a non- uniform rate.; >>>14. Paragraph S5.2.1 -- Should samples from contoured, foame assemblies be cut so that a uniform 1/2 inch thickness results?<<<; We believe that samples of uniform thickness are preferable to thos that are not. The standard requires only that the specimen not exceed 1/2-inch thickness at any point.; >>>15. Paragraph S5.2.2 -- Is warp and fill testing for yard good adequate or should bias testing be conducted?<<<; The sample should be tested so as to produce the most adverse results. >>>16. Paragraph S5.3(d) -- Should flame be removed or shut off afte beginning of the test?<<<; While not specified in the standard, we are of the opinion tha shutting off the flame is preferable to withdrawal of the burner as the former will produce less change in the ambient conditions inside the test cabinet.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5251OpenMr. John P. Gach Marketing Coordinator North American Lighting, Inc. P.O. Box 499 Flora, IL 62839; Mr. John P. Gach Marketing Coordinator North American Lighting Inc. P.O. Box 499 Flora IL 62839; "Dear Mr. Gach: We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the 'Blu-Lite.' You would like our views on this product 'in both OEM and aftermarket applications.' The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three- compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light 'that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights.' The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a 'red stop light.' It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment. With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part' any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a 'rendering inoperative' as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu- Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use. Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu-Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
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.