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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4255OpenMr. William Wallace, Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities, New York City Transit Authority, 25 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207; Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207; Dear Mr. Wallace: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1985, concerning how ou regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that work, the side glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings, 'Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI Z 26-1, Camplas, NY.'; Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additiona information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for 'AS-5' glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as 'AS-5' material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply with the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*.; Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements fo glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as 'items' in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving visibility.; In addition to setting performance requirements for different items o glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that 'item' of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.; Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to th applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance. Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials, however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.; Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency. I you need further information, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2204OpenMr. John L. O'Connell, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109; Mr. John L. O'Connell State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles State Street Wethersfield CT 06109; Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.; In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 21 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).; Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effectiv October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by S103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since S103(d) requires the State regulations to be identical' to the Federal standard.; It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut ma not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.; In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and othe similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for Item 12' rigid plastics.; Item 12' is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastic which comply with all tests required of Item 5' rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - *Rigid plastics*, provides that Item 5' safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles *only* in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include Standee windows in buses' and readily removable windows'. However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of Item 12' plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.; Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having GVWR of more that 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.; I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4309OpenMr. Nobuyoshi Takechi, Technical Manager, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Takechi: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 101, *Controls and Displays.* Your questions are responded to below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Your first question concerns the identification requirements for master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol other than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer has an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.; Section S5.2.1(a) states: >>>Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand- operated control liste in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in form to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table.... Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity....<<<; Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown in your letter for th master light switch. Also, footnote 2 of the Table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting switch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.; A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of th master lighting switch identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2.1(a) permits words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.; Your second question concerns identification requirements for an uppe beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symbol.; Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements fo an upper beam control, regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, if so, how to identify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) telltale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbol's drivers must familiarize themselves with for the same function.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3782OpenThe Honorable Tom Ridge, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Tom Ridge House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Ridge: This responds to your letter of November 28, 1983, requestin information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. William H. Hull, Sr. Mr. Hull is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. He believes that this is a dangerous practice because it prevents police officers from seeing inside the vehicles. You asked if we were considering the issuance of a regulation outlawing the use of such film and, if so, when such a regulation might be promulgated.; While our authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (the Act) enables us to limit the practice of installing tinted film on vehicle windows, it does not permit us to issue a regulation prohibiting every individual from engaging in that practice. As explained below, while commercial establishments are prohibited from adding the film, we cannot prohibit a vehicle owner from doing so.; Pursuant to the the (sic) Act, we have promulgated Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; Tinting films such as the type referred to in Mr. Hull's letter are no glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.; A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.; However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment t have the film installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles b their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Hull may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, IL 6-2-4) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing tinting film on their automobile windows.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
ID: aiam0212OpenMr. Royal Leeman, Project Engineer, FWD Corporation, Clintonville, WI 54929; Mr. Royal Leeman Project Engineer FWD Corporation Clintonville WI 54929; >>>Re: *Petition for Rulemaking*<<< Dear Mr. Leeman: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting a exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ('Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses'), to allow the use of *Lexan* and *Plexiglas* in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the City of New York.; You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protectio for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR SS 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.; It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawin where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use *Lexan* and *Plexiglas* are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that *Plexiglas* meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that *Lexan* does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexan is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders it unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.; With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fightin vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test Z26.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partititions (sic), are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.; Sincerely, F. C. Turner, Federal Highway Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5142OpenMr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren, MI 48090-9055; Mr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren MI 48090-9055; "Dear Mr. Bennett: We have received the petition by General Motors (GM for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures. First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until 'resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . .' We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV. We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be 'slightly below' the minimum requirements 'at a few test points'. Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points? Similarly, GM has argued that 'preliminary testing has indicated that' the GMEV will 'substantially comply' with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide '. . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . .' Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition. Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that 'the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles.' The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above. When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3771OpenThe Honorable Robert A. Young, Member of Congress, 4150 Cypress Road, St. Ann, MO 63074; The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann MO 63074; Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potentia hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, th agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistances. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film an other materials used to make windows opaque are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance of abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter th vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 'Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance performance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use o vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.; I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potentia problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
ID: aiam5295OpenCheryl Graham, District Manager Northeast Region ARI P.O. Box 5039 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054; Cheryl Graham District Manager Northeast Region ARI P.O. Box 5039 Mt. Laurel NJ 08054; "Dear Ms. Graham: We have received your letter of November 10, 1993 asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps 'at each side of the rear window.' By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not 'knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the 'device or element of design', then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps. NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp). Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would 'render inoperative' the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. You have also asked 'if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?' This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4851OpenMs. Jessie M. Flautt 4405 Lafayette Street Bellaire, TX 77401; Ms. Jessie M. Flautt 4405 Lafayette Street Bellaire TX 77401; "Dear Ms. Flautt This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke o my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle. You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4204OpenMr. T. E. McConnell, Prince Lionheart, 2301 Cape Cod Way, Santa Ana, CA 92703; Mr. T. E. McConnell Prince Lionheart 2301 Cape Cod Way Santa Ana CA 92703; Dear Mr. McConnell: Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federa safety standards that apply to roll-up window shades designed to be attached to a vehicle's window by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. 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. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples you provided th agency. If you need further information, please let me know.; 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.