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: aiam5370OpenMr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell, LA 70458; Mr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell LA 70458; "Dear Mr. Schaub: This responds to your letter asking us about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles. While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors. With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . . This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area. The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1104OpenMr. Ralph H. Ullenberg, President, Milwaukee truck Center, Inc., 10521 West Layton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53228; Mr. Ralph H. Ullenberg President Milwaukee truck Center Inc. 10521 West Layton Avenue Milwaukee WI 53228; Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4039OpenMr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, U.S. Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported them pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.; More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that hi vehicles was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity, he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle' as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final- stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without 'major components of the fuel system: no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.,' you believe that they are 'incomplete vehicles,' which are defined by S568.3 as 'an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle.'; We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 56 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, 'A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle.' (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).; I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 s that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufactured operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4412OpenMr. Roger M. Cox, R & R Lighting, Inc., Route 1, Box 190, Gadsden, AL 35901; Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting Inc. Route 1 Box 190 Gadsden AL 35901; Dear Mr. Cox: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect t whether a lighting product you intend to market is 'in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.'; You describe your product as a 'lighted decal' which can be mounted i the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville.; The decal will be wired into the brake system and when activated by th brake 'only the letters in the decal will be lighted.' You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer 'this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.'; In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federa requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, and that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replacement with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the rear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1987, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear lighting equipment.; By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicle under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system.; You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State an local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.; I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we hav answered your questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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 |
|
ID: aiam4455OpenMs. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset, NY 11767; Ms. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset NY 11767; "Dear Ms. Salvio: This responds to your November 10, 1987, lette asking whether the 'Guardian Gate' your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions. The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate 'is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus sic .' The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked 'on both its sides to the vehicle, the cab side, as well as the pump panel side.' The advertisement said this 'dual locking' feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of 'hazardous conditions' (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include). Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206 states: 'Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. ...' (S4 exempts certain types of doors from Standard No. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.) From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because 'seating accommodations' referred to in S4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206. Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefighters riding in the 'jump seat area' of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3534OpenThe Honorable James Abdnor, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; The Honorable James Abdnor United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Abdnor: Your February 23, 1982, letter to Secretary Lewis on behalf of Mr. Ric Johnson has been referred to this office for reply. Mr. Johnson inquired about Federal regulations applicable to a motorcycle helmet which was worn by a person involved in a fatal accident and which Mr. Johnson believes to have been manufactured in 1979.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets* (4 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.218), establishes minimum performance requirements for most helmets. The standard's applicability to a particular helmet depends on the date of manufacture and size of that helmet. The date of manufacture should be readily ascertainable. Paragraph S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the date and month of manufacture of each helmet subject to the standard appear on a permanent label affixed to the helmet.; The question of size is more complicated. As proposed, the standard wa to have applied to all helmet sizes. Compliance was to have been determined by placing the helmet on the appropriate headform (A, B, C or D, representing head sizes from small to large) and subjecting the helmet to certain tests. As initially implemented on March 1, 1974, the standard applied only to helmets which fit size C headforms since the other headform sizes were not available. Generally speaking, these were medium size helmets. As the enclosed notice explains, >>>'...helmets that fit headform size C' should be all helmets other than those that must be tested on the other headform sizes. To determine which helmets must be tested on a particular headform size, one follows the procedures of paragraph S6.1.3 of the standard.<<<; The other headform sizes did not become available as anticipated Consequently, the standard was extended to all helmets that can be placed on size C headforms. The substitution of 'placed on' for 'fit' brought all large helmets and many small helmets within the ambit of the standard. That extension became effective May 1, 1980. Again as explained in the enclosed notice, >>>'(p)laced' is a broader term than 'fit' primarily in that the former term does not imply any upper limit on helmet size.; Only small, child-size helmets (A) would be excluded since they coul not physically be placed on the size (C) headform. As noted in the procedures discussed above, normal fitting procedures would be used to determine if a particular helmet could be placed on the size 'C' headform, without the use of undue force.<<<; Thus, if the helmet mentioned in Mr. Johnson's letter was manufacture on or after March 1, 1974, and 'fits' the size C headform, it was required to comply with the standard. Likewise, if the helmet was manufactured on or after May 1, 1980, and can be 'placed on' the size C headform, compliance was required.; We have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 218 as it originally becam effective, as well as a copy of the amendment to the standard that became effective on May 1, 1980.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5249OpenMr. Richard Glover Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co. 1801 Commerce Dr. Piqua, OH 45356; Mr. Richard Glover Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co. 1801 Commerce Dr. Piqua OH 45356; "Dear Mr. Glover: This responds to your letter and telephone call about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard. You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on 'date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents.' You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible 'mis-keying' of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded 'quiet zone' to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded. It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following: No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a. The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not. Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form. We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words 'please print' after the instructions to the consumer 'just fill in your name and address.' 'Please print' is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, 'please print' is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted. I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3519OpenMs. Kathy G. Phillips, Manager, Vehicle Safety Division, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA 17123; Ms. Kathy G. Phillips Manager Vehicle Safety Division Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Harrisburg PA 17123; Dear Ms. Phillips: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concernin differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.; Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittanc requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, *Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices*. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.; As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider su screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.; You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. Th agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 *et seq*.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.; Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, i applicable part, that:; >>>No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authorit to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.<<<; Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides in applicable part, that:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde 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.<<<; Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Par 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.; Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the heigh of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4064OpenMs. Cynthia R. Syverson, Manufacturers Representative, P.O. Box 23314, Jacksonville, FL 32217; Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson Manufacturers Representative P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville FL 32217; Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with your letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended covers a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product.; 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 one 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.; If you need further information, please let me know. I am returning under separate cover, the sample you sent.; 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.