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: aiam4452OpenC.D. Black, Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance Product Development Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605; C.D. Black Engineering Manager Legislation Compliance Product Development Jaguar Cars Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07605; Dear Ms. Black: This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and Octobe l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the 'zero' position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the 'zero' position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that 'no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation.' The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the 'zero' position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load. We hope the information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3397OpenMr. Norman B. Echelberry, 2514 Sherman Street, Hollywood, FL 33020; Mr. Norman B. Echelberry 2514 Sherman Street Hollywood FL 33020; Dear Mr. Echelberry: This is in response to the vehicle owner's questionnaire you forwarde on March 9, 1981, concerning the installation of computer terminals in patrol cars assigned to the city of Miami Police Department. The questionnaire was recently forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the installation violated any safety standards.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection i Interior Impact*, a copy of which is enclosed, specifies performance requirements for the instrument panel. It can't be determined from the information you provided whether the terminals are located within an area of vehicle covered by that standard. The standard generally regulates only the upper portion of the dashboard. If it is located within the regulated zone, the installation of the computer terminal on the vehicle's instrument panel may be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides 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....<<<; Modification of the instrument panel by a manufacturer, distributor dealer or motor vehicle repair business during the installation of the computer terminals so that it no longer complies with Standard No. 201 would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1650OpenMr. John R. Lutz, Assistant General Counsel, Skyline Corporation, 2520 By-Pass Road, Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. John R. Lutz Assistant General Counsel Skyline Corporation 2520 By-Pass Road Elkhart IN 46514; Dear Mr. Lutz: This is to confirm conversations you had on October 16 and 24, 1974 with Mr. Michael Peskoe of NHTSA's Chief Counsel's Office, regarding defect notification campaign 74-0149, which involves safety related defects in certain Skyline travel trailers. We wish to confirm our understanding that Skyline has agreed to send notification letters identical to that forwarded to us by your letter of October 4, 1974, to all owners of Skyline travel trailers involved in this campaign who have not at the time of mailing had their vehicles inspected, regardless of whether such purchasers were mailed a copy of an earlier notification letter.; We will consider the notification letter forwarded to us on October 4 1974, to conform to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for purposes of this particular campaign. The October 4 letter is based on our letter to you of September 23, 1974, in which we reviewed an earlier notification letter forwarded to us on September 12, 1974. However, it now appears that while we indicated certain areas in which this earlier letter failed to conform to 49 CFR Part 577, we inadvertently overlooked certain other instances in which the letter did not conform. Consequently, both the earlier letter and the letter of October 4 fail to contain information in response to the requirements of S 577.4(e)(1)(ii) and (iii). These requirements specify that the manufacturer must include an estimate of both the day by which repair parts will be available at repair facilities and the time necessary to perform the work involved in correcting the defect. The former calls for the manufacturer to specify a given day, while the latter calls for an estimate in terms of hours. While we do not request further revision of the letters sent in this campaign, these information items should be included in notifications sent in any future campaigns.; We appreciate your cooperation in the recall and repair of the Skylin trailers involved in this campaign, and trust we can rely on your continued cooperation in the future.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1547OpenMr. H. Miyazawa, Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. H. Miyazawa Director Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of June 27 concerning the location o motorcycle turn signal lamps relative to a combination stop lamp and reflex reflector.; The minimum edge to edge separation distance specified in Table IV o FMVSS No. 108 for motorcycle turn signal lamps is to be measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of both lamps.; The answer to your question 2 is therefore applicable, '2. edge to edg of tail and stop lamp so drawn in sketch C?'; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3080OpenMr. William Lynch, 313 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226; Mr. William Lynch 313 Clarkson Avenue Brooklyn NY 11226; Dear Mr. Lynch: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of m office when you telephoned on June 19 with regard to your intention to establish a business for the manufacture of 53.6 gallon replacement gasoline tanks and for the installation of these tanks in used Cadillac limousines. You specifically asked what Federal law is applicable to your proposed activities and whether any Federal law establishes a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amende (the Act) authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard applicable to passenger cars and other vehicles which requires that fuel spillage occurring during and after any crash of the vehicle into a fixed or moving barrier not exceed established limits. As explained below, this standard indirectly affects both the installation and manufacture of replacement gasoline tanks.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits certain entities and person from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>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 . . .<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a person or entity listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) removes th original gasoline tank from a used vehicle and installs a replacement tank, the section is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicles structure. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be more readily pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; Consequently, as a manufacturer of replacement gasoline tanks, yo could be liable for a penalty under section 108(a)(2)(A) if you replace the gasoline tank in a used Cadillac limousine with one or your tanks, knowing that the performance of the replacement tank as installed would be inferior to that of the original tank.; Please note that should you decide to install your tanks in ne vehicles prior the their first sale for purposes other than resale, you would also be required to certify that the vehicle as altered still complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Should these provisions become relevant to your business, I would be happy to provide further information.; Sections 151-155 of the Act, which are enclosed, would also apply t your activities as a manufacturer of gasoline tanks. These sections provide that if the agency or you find that your tanks contain a safety-related defect, you would be required to notify purchasers of the hazard and to remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.; I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federal la discussed above, there may be state products liability law applicable to your proposed activities. As a manufacturer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. As an installer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; Finally, with respect to your inquiry about maximum allowable capacit for gasoline tanks, neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration nor the Department of Transportation as a whole has established such a limit.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4745OpenMr. Hiroshi Ozeki Executive Vice President Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. 1203 Woodridge Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki Executive Vice President Mazda Research & Development of North America Inc. 1203 Woodridge Ave. Ann Arbor MI 48105; Dear Mr. Oseki: This is in reply to your letter of April 10, l990, wit respect to the use of the hazard warning system concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear. You enclosed two interpretations of the agency which appear to be conflicting, and you have asked for a clarification. In our letter of June 16, l983, we informed Safety Alert Company that its flashing deceleration warning system could operate through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 allows to be used for signalling purposes, such as the turn signal or hazard warning system, provided that the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed. However, in our letter of December 8, 1986, we informed Flxible Corporation that their flashing deceleration warning system was unacceptable under Standard No. 108 because 'simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.' We do not believe that there is a conflict. The system described in the Safety Alert letter would utilize a vehicle's original lighting equipment that is intended to flash, and that the motoring public is accustomed to seeing flash. The system described in the Flxible letter, on the other hand, would employ a series of new lamps, not required by the standard but supplemental to the required lighting equipment, and whose presence and function would be unfamiliar to motorists following. Thus, that unfamiliar system, if flashing, could have a confusing effect, as we stated in our l986 letter. I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1793OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato, Staff, Safety, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Staff Safety Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1975, asking whether th name of your distributor may be inserted as the alterer for purposes of the alterer label required pursuant to 49 CFR S 567.7. You indicate that the alteration will be performed on a Datsun Pickup by a dealer, at the request of a customer, but would be the responsibility of the distributor. The labels would be preprinted with the distributor's name, and the dealer would insert only the date on which the vehicle is altered.; We do not believe the alterer label requirements (49 CFR S 567.7 permit the insertion of the name of the distributor as the alterer in the situation you described. The requirements specify that the person making the alteration insert his name on the label, and provide no exceptions from this requirement. Of course, the dealer can rely on the authorization of the distributor to perform the alteration should that issue arise in a subsequent compliance action.; You have also asked why section 567.2 does not specifically apply t dealers. That section was not amended at the time the alterer requirements were issued. However, the NHTSA considers the alterer requirements to apply to any 'person', as stated in that section, and not only to manufacturers and distributors.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0881OpenMr. W. Dershko, Engineering Manager, Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Pembina, ND 58271; Mr. W. Dershko Engineering Manager Motor Coach Industries Inc. Pembina ND 58271; Dear Mr. Dershko: This is in response to your requests of July 12 and August 25, 1972 for interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in our response.; *S5.1.2* Minimum Surface Dimensions The installation of a metal bar across the rear corner windows so tha the minimum surface dimension between the bar and the edge of the glazing would be less than 8 inches would exclude the window from the window retention requirements of S5.1, as you suggest.; *S5.3.2* Emergency Exit Release The motion of the release mechanism, which you clarified in a telephon conversation on October 13 with Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Motor Vehicle Programs staff at NHTSA, meets the directional and clearance requirements of S5.3.2, since the initial motion is perpendicular to the exit surface and the required 2-inch clearance is afforded during the operation of the mechanism.; *S5.5.2* Emergency Exit Identification You are correct in your assumption that normal nighttime illuminatio may include reading lights and that it is not the intent of the standard to require self-illuminated exit identification.; *Figure 3* Access Regions for Exits Without Adjacent Seats You are correct in assuming that Figure 3B requires a 2-inch clearanc around the release mechanism and is not intended to specify the required outline for a rear shelf.; Sincerely yours, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1269OpenMr. Virgil V. Stanciu, Executive Vice President, Falcon Enterprises, Inc., 3960 South Marginal Road, Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Virgil V. Stanciu Executive Vice President Falcon Enterprises Inc. 3960 South Marginal Road Cleveland OH 44114; Dear Mr. Stanciu: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1973, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.' You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; >>>1. 'It is our understanding that we are not required to seek o secure prior DOT approval to market helmets manufactured after March 1, 1974, but that we must satisfy ourselves that our product meets this specification. Is this correct?'; Yes. 2. 'It is also our understanding the DOT does not issue any approval o certification even if we present documents of compliance. Is this correct?'; Yes. 3. 'We are interested in your comments as far as the disposition o existing inventory of helmets manufactured prior to March 1, 1974, but available for retail sale following March 1, 1974.'; The standard will apply only to helmets manufactured on or after it effective date, it will not apply to helmets manufactured before its effective date but sold to the public after that date. Accordingly, you will be free to sell after the standard's effective date any helmets you have in stock which were manufactured before the standard's effective date.; 4. 'What mechanism do you foresee being set up to police our industr to assure the public of continued compliance?'; 5. 'In the event that a helmet is tested by DOT and found to b deficient with respect to the DOT requirements, we would like to know what action would be taken by DOT?'; Once any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard becomes effective violations of such regulations are federally enforced. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) purchases items covered by the standard in the open market, and tests them for compliance. Under section 109(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, whoever violates any regulation issued under the Act, including selling nonconforming equipment, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation to a maximum of not more than $400,000 for any related series of such violations.; 6. 'Presently our helmets are marketed as universal size with sizin bands included. Per section 5.6.1 (labeling), we are required to show the size of the helmet. We are somewhat at a loss as to which size we would show, since the helmet can be either small, medium, or large at the selection of the purchaser. Would you please comment?'; If the size of a helmet is adjustable, then the range of sizes withi which it can be adjusted must be given.; 7. 'Would you please furnish us with the method and the name of th person or persons whom we would communicate with for specific interpretation of the individual sections of this standard?'; Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; 8. 'Could you provide us with a list of DOT approved testing agencies?' Neither the DOT nor the NHTSA certify or approve testing agencies. Th basis upon which a manufacturer determines whether his product conforms to a standard is a matter within his own discretion.; 9. 'Does this standard supersede and set aside the current Stat regulations pertaining to motorcycle helmets?'; The motorcycle helmet standard is a comprehensive regulation coverin all relevant aspects of safety performance. Any State or local requirements for the design or performance of motorcycle helmets must be identical to the requirements of the Federal standard when that standard becomes effective. Any differing requirements will be void.<<<; A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which includes the referenced sections you are concerned about, and a copy of the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 are enclosed in accordance with your request.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4591OpenMabel Y. Bullock, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629; Mabel Y. Bullock Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh NC 27602-0629; "Dear Ms. Bullock: Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of m staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, l987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulating this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was not preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.). Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles. The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1392(d)). This section provides that: w henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard. The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent specified in Standard No. 205 for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State. Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statute is preempted by Federal law. 1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new vehicles or for new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser with a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single application of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. 2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the 'render inoperative' prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tinting, if it results in less than 70 percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above. 3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing no longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law. 4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would not prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in North Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law. We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the 'render inoperative' provision in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standard, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting material results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car. To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones 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.