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: aiam2521OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, CO 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver CO 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, *Certification* and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (S 567.4(g)(4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire- ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle . . . shall be equippe with tires that meet specified requirements ' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that (sic) necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2576OpenHonorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Warren G. Magnuson Chairman Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1977, expressing you concern over a perceived pattern of delay in the implementation of the Federal motor vehicle safety and damageability standards. You expressed particular concern about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent proposal to delay for one year the effective date for the second phase of requirements in the Part 581 bumper standard.; I am aware that there have been instances in the past when th effective dates of final rules have been delayed or when the final rules have been modified or rescinded. I do not intend to pass judgment on whether the actions of my predecessors in those particular instances should have been taken. However, I agree with your view that changes in the substantive requirements and effective dates of final rules can have undesirable effects and should be avoided if possible.; I believe that the most effective means of reducing the necessity fo changes in final rules is to ensure that each proposed rule is thoroughly examined prior to issuance in final form. Every significant issue should be explored and comments and data from all interested persons should be carefully analyzed. Where gaps in our knowledge appear, the information-gathering authority given the NHTSA should be utilized. For example, extensive use of that authority has been recently made in connection with rulemaking under Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended, to establish average fuel economy standards for model year 1981-1984 passenger automobiles. By making more careful analyses and obtaining needed information, we can minimize the possibility that belatedly discovered information or circumstances will necessitate a change in our requirements or implementation schedules.; Our taking these steps does not, of course, mean that there will no continue to be some instances in which effective dates and substantive requirements are changed. We must be responsive to new information and changed circumstances to ensure that our requirements continue to meet all statutory criteria. There will still be problems not completely foreseen by the agency or the manufacturers. New concerns such as those relating to fuel economy and noise will arise. Finally, there may be a need to adjust our standards to accommodate changes in other types of motor vehicle standards.; As to the second phase of the bumper requirements, I am currentl reviewing the reasons for the proposal to delay, and the comments on the notice are being analyzed. The statute, under which Part 581 was promulgated, requires that interested persons be given an opportunity for oral presentation of comments prior to the issuance of any amendment to the bumper standard. Thus, my decision on the proposed amendment will be made following a public hearing which will be scheduled in the near future.; Sincerely, Joan B. Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam2089OpenMr. Joe Steininger, Tiffin Metal Products, 450 Wall Street, Tiffin, OH 44883; Mr. Joe Steininger Tiffin Metal Products 450 Wall Street Tiffin OH 44883; Dear Mr. Steininger: This is in response to your request for an opinion on the applicabilit of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 to a road grader intended for use in highway construction.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards for 'motor vehicles.' Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:; >>>any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects wil use public highways as part of its intended function.; Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not moto vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.; Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary an recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work performing nature and as such their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, drill rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle. An exception to this is that occasional use of the highway in the immediate periphery of the work site, as is the case with some farm and construction equipment, would not by itself cause a finding that the vehicle is a motor vehicle. The motor vehicles described above generally qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, code of Federal Regulations.; There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicl classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. This would appear to include road graders whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour, if intended for use in highway construction.; From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether a piec of equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle.; Please write again if you are unable to make this determination. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3781OpenMr. Jeff S. Brantner, 316 Whitebirch, Wenatches, WA 98801; Mr. Jeff S. Brantner 316 Whitebirch Wenatches WA 98801; Dear Mr. Brantner: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mas Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority t govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as th type referred to in your letter 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 or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor 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 pursuant to the Federal safety standards. 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.; Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any furthe questions (202- 426-1834).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4547OpenMr. George Ziolo DOT Paperwork Processor 234l7 Everett Place Ramona, CA 92065; Mr. George Ziolo DOT Paperwork Processor 234l7 Everett Place Ramona CA 92065; Dear Mr. Ziolo: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988 asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible 'because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'.' You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that 'S4.4 appears to permit such a combination.' Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions, in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7' diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4' diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp headlighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 'Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles.' The SAE Standard establishes at two test points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and l0,000 candela. The Type 1C1 headlamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only l0,000 is allowable). Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehicle itself through creation of a 'veiling' glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5224OpenMr. Ron Marion Sales Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, N.C. 27261; Mr. Ron Marion Sales Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point N.C. 27261; "Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your inquiry about the applicabilit of Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, to school buses you wish to sell to a customer in the United States Virgin Islands. You stated that these buses will be built as right hand drive vehicles with the entrance door located on the left side, since vehicles are driven on the left side of the road in this jurisdiction. You asked whether you can install, on the right side of the bus, the stop signal arm that is required by FMVSS 131. The answer is yes. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 'Safety Act') requires new school buses sold in this country and in the U.S. Virgin Islands to comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. (See, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8) for reference to the Virgin Islands.) Standard No. 131 requires school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm 'on the left side of the bus.' (S5.4) The purpose of this standard is 'to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the school bus.' (S2) When NHTSA specified that the stop arm must be placed on 'the left side of the bus,' the agency meant the driver's side. Comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and preamble of NHTSA's final rule all assumed that the left side of the bus meant the driver's side. (56 FR 20363, 20367). For example, while endorsing the proposed requirement for the stop arm, several commenters stated that an arm is needed near the driver's window. Moreover, S5.4.1(b) states that, for locating the arm, 'the top edge of the stop signal arm is parallel to and not more than 6 inches from a horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge of the frame of the passenger window immediately behind the driver's window.' (Emphasis added). This provision indicates that the agency assumed that the 'left' side is the driver's side. Further, a stop arm would not be needed on the non-traffic side of the vehicle. Since the left side is not the driver's side for the school buses in question, the agency's general assumption was incorrect. In light of your letter, we will issue a technical amendment of Standard 131 so that S5.4 will require the stop signal arm on the driver's side of the bus. Until the amendment is issued, we will not take enforcement action regarding a manufacturer's locating a right hand drive school bus with a stop signal arm on the bus's driver's side. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2518OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver Colorado 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, *Certification* and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufacturers (S567.4(g) (4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle...shall be equipped wit tires that meet [specified requirements]' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirements that the tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such a avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires than necessary to confirm to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S567.4(g) (4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3955OpenMr. L. D. Pitts, Jr., P. O. Box 52592, Houston, TX 77002; Mr. L. D. Pitts Jr. P. O. Box 52592 Houston TX 77002; Dear Mr. Pitts: Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect o our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.; You described your product, which you call a glare- shield, as 1/8-inch thick sheet of 'Lexan' plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* (49 CFR 571.205) 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).; Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films o other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.; After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alte their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. 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 on their vehicles.; If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair busines installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5137OpenMr. Ron Marion Sales Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, NC 27261; Mr. Ron Marion Sales Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point NC 27261; "Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter asking whether there ha been any consideration given to excluding 'non-route-type' school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used. As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus. To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether 'non- route-type' school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking. We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard. We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for 'non-route-type' service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. I also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking"; |
|
ID: aiam4751OpenThe Honorable Lawrence J. Smith U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Lawrence J. Smith U. S. House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; "Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing in response to your letter forwardin correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or 'tint,' on automobile windows. You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Safety Act'), 15 U.S.C. 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 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)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), provides that 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' Thus, by installing tint film on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles 'inoperative,' in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards. You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules. I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.