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: aiam3216OpenMr. David Martin, Director, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David Martin Director Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your recent request for an interpretation of th term 'capacity', as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard provides that 'the fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent....' You ask whether 'capacity' should include the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of the fuel filler pipe when filling a fuel tank for compliance purposes. (Total tank volume = usable capacity + unusable capacity + vapor volume + fluid in the filler pipe.); The vapor volume can be filled with solvent if the solvent is adde very slowly to force the air vapors out of the dome. This has been done in past compliance testing by the agency. Upon reconsideration, however, it is our opinion that the term, 'capacity', should not be interpreted to include the vapor volume in the air dome, since fuel tanks are never filled to this level by vehicle users. Fuel tanks are designed to include and area for fuel vapor and pressure build- up. Vehicle users never fill their tanks so slowly that this area is displaced with fuel. Therefore, it would be an unrealistic test to require manufacturers to fill tanks in this fashion. Apparently, fuel is actually squeezed out of the filler pipe during compliance testing if the tank is filled to this absolute level. This would not seem to be an accurate test of fuel tank integrity, since it is leaks or punctures in the tank itself that generally cause fuel loss in real-world crashes.; In consideration of these facts, the agency interprets 'capacity' t mean 'usable capacity', as used in the vehicle manufacturer's Part I submission to the EPA, plus 'unusable capacity' (i.e., the volume of fuel left in the tank when the engine fuel pump sucks air).; It should be emphasized that the 'usable capacity' should be determine only after the tank has been filled to its 'unusable capacity'. In other words, residual fuel level should be reached before the 'usable capacity' is added to the tank. If this is not done, the actual volume of fuel in the tank will be somewhat below the 'usable fuel capacity'.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1381OpenMr. G.W. Way,Correct Manufacturing Corporation,P.O. Box 689, Delaware,Ohio 43015; Mr. G.W. Way Correct Manufacturing Corporation P.O. Box 689 Delaware Ohio 43015; Dear Mr. Way:#This is in response to your letter of January 14,1974 asking about the category into which a Divco truck would fall and the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 121 (Air Brake Systems) and 105a (Hydraulic Brake Systems) to them.#The vehicles you have described are 'trucks' for purposes of the safety standards. The applicability of the braking standards is simple: trucks equipped with air brakes must conform to Standard 121, and those equipped with hydraulic brakes must conform to Standard 105a.#I enclose a sheet telling you how to obtain copies of the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4479OpenMr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 888 W. Big Beaver P. O. Box 3951 Troy, Michigan 48007-3951; Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America Inc. 888 W. Big Beaver P. O. Box 3951 Troy Michigan 48007-3951; "Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in response to your letter regardin Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II of your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown. You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the 'levels required for driving visibility.' These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a 'glazing shade band' as 'an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by ANS Z26.1.' SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at 'levels required for driving visibility,' the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205. Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term 'levels required for driving visibility.' In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, 'We consider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes.' You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are 'requisite for driving visibility.' You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that 'ceramic dots in the area defined in the EEC directive very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'.' Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in areas beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no. We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicitly states how one determines whether or not an area is 'requisite for driving visibility.' Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes. We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was 'requisite for driving visibility,' and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps. Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is 'requisite for driving visibility,' except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicle. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving. You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being driven, but also the road and traffic to the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26. See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly. As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II. Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directive has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendations of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205. Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter. Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for driving visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 205. I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at 'levels requisite for driving visibility,' within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, 'While there currently are no requirements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing.' Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows that are at 'levels requisite for driving visibility.' As we stated in the enclosed June 19, l987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3646OpenMr. Jim Cowen, Manager, Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, MO 64802; Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. Box 1868 Joplin MO 64802; Dear Mr. Cowen: This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of 'sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks' indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacturer, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.; When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuan to 49 CFR 573 *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. Under this regulation either a component or a vehicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles or more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.; We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Bod and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4183OpenMr. Joel Silidker, 323 Jefferson Drive, Guilford, CT 06437; Mr. Joel Silidker 323 Jefferson Drive Guilford CT 06437; Dear Mr. Silidker: This is in reply to your letter of July 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of m staff, bringing to our attention the lack of a center high-mounted stop lamp on your 1986 Nissan Stanza wagon, and asking us to look into this matter. You have enclosed a letter from Nissan informing you that your wagon has 4-wheel drive and thus is not certified as a 'passenger vehicle' required to have the light. However, you believe that manufacturers of other 4-wheel drive vehicles are providing the new lamp.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires the new lamp a original equipment on all 'passenger cars' manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. It is not required on other types of motor vehicles such as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles'. This latter category is defined for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as a vehicle constructed on a truck chassis, or with special features for occasional off- road operation. The principal feature for such operation is 4- wheel drive. If a 4-wheel drive vehicle is built on a passenger car chassis, its manufacturer may treat it as either a 'passenger car' or 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for purposes of compliance with the safety standards, and for purposes of certification to those requirements. We believe that the certification plate permanently attached to the door post of your Stanza identifies it as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' and that Nissan is therefore not required to provide the center mounted stop lamp.; As for the reason that the lamp is installed on other 4-wheel driv vehicles, it may be that they are certified as passenger cars, or that their manufacturers have voluntarily chosen to equip them with the new lamp.; Thank you for your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0969OpenMr. L. B. Bornhauser, Vice President, Vehicle Safety Quality and Service, Chrysler Corporation, Post Office Box 1919, Detroit, MI 48231; Mr. L. B. Bornhauser Vice President Vehicle Safety Quality and Service Chrysler Corporation Post Office Box 1919 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Bornhauser: By letter dated October 2, 1972, you were advised by Andrew Detrick Director, Office of Defects Investigation, that the defect reports required by 49 CFR Part 573 are required to be filed with this agency when a safety related defect has been determined in a class of vehicles regardless of whether or not these vehicles were sold to the general public. In his letter, Mr. Detrick had directed his inquiry as to why no defect report had been filed with respect to certain 1973 model year Chrysler Corporation vehicles which appeared to have a safety problem in their ball joint assemblies. In your letter of response dated October 23, 1972, you advised that although Chrysler had undertaken to repair some 11,998 vehicles upon which the ball joint assembly in question had been installed through a notice to dealers dated August 17, 1972, the corporation had made a determination that no defect report was required to be filed under 49 CFR 573 because all of these vehicles were either in the hands of the manufacturer or the dealer and had not passed to the first purchaser. This is contrary to the position taken by this agency. Subsequently, on November 3, 1972, you advised us that some 2,560 vehicles had not been repaired an undetermined number of which had passed into the hands of purchasers. With respect to these 2,560 vehicles you filed an untimely defect report on November 3 and issued a notification to the purchasers. No defect report, however, has been received regarding the remainder of the vehicles in this class.; This is to advise you that we do not agree with your lega interpretation to the effect that defect reports are only required if the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. In our view, the reports are required to be furnished to this agency within five days of the determination of the existence of a safety related defect with respect to all vehicles subject to the defect that have been delivered to the distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public. Accordingly, Chrysler Corporation has failed and refused to file a timely defect report for the remainder of the vehicles in the defined class. You are hereby directed to file such report within five days of receipt of this letter.; In addition to the foregoing, we have been advised informally by Mr Kittle of your staff that in the future Chrysler Corporation will file timely defect reports irrespective of whether or not the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. Please advise us in writing within ten days of the date of receipt of this letter of whether or not Chrysler Corporation intends to comply with the defect reports regulation by filing timely defect reports with respect to all vehicles subject to a safety related defect that have been delivered to a distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public.; We have fully considered the legal arguments, contentions and fact presented in mitigation of any legal remedies this agency might seek, including injunctive sanctions or civil penalties, for Chrysler's not having filed a timely defect report regarding those of the 11,998 vehicles in question which had been delivered to the distributor or dealer and have rejected Chrysler's position. Accordingly, before we accept any offer in compromise regarding the amount of civil penalties to be imposed for the violation or violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we will await your response regarding the matters hereinabove mentioned.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2954OpenMr. William J. Baldridge, City Manager, City of Royal Oak, P.O. Box 64, Royal Oak, MI 48068; Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak MI 48068; Dear Mr. Baldridge: This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.; Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncomplianc with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the 'unloaded vehicle weight' that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle *users*.; The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible fo certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.; The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by th implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient 'unloaded vehicle weight' to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3996OpenMr. H. Miroyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., 24402 Sinacola Court, Farmington Hills, MI 48018; Mr. H. Miroyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills MI 48018; Dear Mr. Miroyoshi: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1985, requesting an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. You specifically asked whether a design alternative you are considering for an interior storage compartment would have to meet the requirements of S3.3 of the standard. As explained below, we would consider your design to be an interior compartment door assembly and thus subject to the requirements of S3.3 of the standard.; You described your design as an interior surface with an integrate map/magazine compartment. Your proposed design consists of a compartment with a rigid exterior surface that remains open at a fixed width. You said that when a motorist wanted to stow a thicker package in the compartment, the opening could be expanded to a greater width. The drawing accompanying your letter shows that the exterior surface (i.e., the surface nearest to a vehicle occupant) is hinged, the movement of the hinged surface is restricted by a spring. It appears from your drawing that if the spring broke or otherwise became disengaged in a crash, the exterior surface of the compartment would swing open on its hinge and be struck by a vehicle occupant. Such an action is similar to what could happen with the conventional hinged glovebox or other doors in a vehicle. We would therefore consider your proposed design to be an interior compartment door assembly.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5141OpenMr. Thomas L. Wright Coordinator, Technical Support Unit State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Motor Vehicles Trenton, NJ 08666; Mr. Thomas L. Wright Coordinator Technical Support Unit State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Motor Vehicles Trenton NJ 08666; "Dear Mr. Wright: This responds to your letter to Patrick Boyd of th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, concerning window tinting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. Your questions relate to a January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the tinting requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' You ask about the status of the NPRM. The agency received a large number of comments on this rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments and are analyzing the issues raised in this rulemaking. You also ask about a statement in the NPRM about Federal preemption of state window tinting laws. You ask whether Federal law preempts a state law that permits add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons. As explained below, the answer is no, provided that the state law regulates conduct other than that regulated by Federal law. Your question was addressed in the NPRM's discussion of the Federalism implications of the proposed rule (p. 2507). By way of background, NHTSA issued Standard 205 under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act provides that: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either 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. Whether state law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205. Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The effect of this is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law. I have enclosed a copy of the Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which you requested. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2684OpenHonorable Stephen L. Neal, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Stephen L. Neal House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Neal: I have been asked to respond to your October 19, 1977, letter to th Department of Transportation in behalf of a constituent who asks whether the operator of a vehicle manufactured to comply with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, may legally disconnect portions of the brake system.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of safety systems by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses. A person that does not fall into these categories is not prohibited from disconnection of a safety system. However, the NHTSA urges that no one disconnect safety systems without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.