NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam5187OpenMs. Laura J. Platter 6662 Mohawk Court Columbia, MD 21046; Ms. Laura J. Platter 6662 Mohawk Court Columbia MD 21046; "Dear Ms. Platter: This responds to your letter to Senator Barbar Mikulski about the Federal government's classification of minivans for safety purposes. You were concerned that classifying minivans as trucks rather than passenger vehicles would permit these vehicles to be equipped with fewer safety features. Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In the last few years, NHTSA has extended nearly all the passenger car safety standards to cover light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). (Minivans are typically considered to be MPVs under our safety standards.) The only significant safety requirement for passenger cars that the agency has not extended to light trucks and MPVs is dynamic side impact protection. This is a new requirement that is being phased in for passenger cars beginning this September. NHTSA is currently in rulemaking to consider whether the dynamic side impact protection requirements should be extended to light trucks and MPV's, and published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in June 1992. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator cc: The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski"; |
|
ID: aiam5436OpenMr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527; Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan NY 14527; Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your facsimile transmittal lette to me of July 19, 1994. Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard. In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as A bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR. Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape. In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4948OpenMr. Robert A. Rogers, Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015; Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; "Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your request that this agenc determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change. As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413). As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as 'PASS-KEY II,' and differs from 'PASS-KEY' as follows. First, in 'PASS-KEY II,' if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In 'PASS-KEY,' this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in 'PASS-KEY II,' trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with 'PASS-KEY.' GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as 'PASS-KEY' since the 'PASS-KEY II' module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, 'PASS-KEY II' also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking /"; |
|
ID: aiam4114OpenMr. Doug Cole, Director of Public Relations and Membership, National Van Conversion Association, Inc., 2 West Main Street, Suite 2, Greenfield, IN 46140; Mr. Doug Cole Director of Public Relations and Membership National Van Conversion Association Inc. 2 West Main Street Suite 2 Greenfield IN 46140; Dear Mr. Cole: Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1985 to Stephen Oesch of m staff concerning how our regulations would affect the placement of a National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) certification decal on vehicle windows by a van conversion company. The material enclosed with your letter explains that the NVCA certification program is a voluntary effort by the van conversion industry to set minimum safety and quality standards for its products. You explained that the decal, which has a diameter of 2 1/2 inches, would be placed on the lower corner of the passenger's side of the windshield by a manufacturer whose products conform to the NVCA program.; Placement of the decals on a vehicle's windshield would be affected b 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% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield in motor vehicles).; Part 567, *Certification*, of our regulations requires each vehicl manufacturer to place a plate within the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A person, such as a van converter, who makes significant modifications to a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under our regulations. Under Part 567.7, an alterer must also add a plate to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, no manufacturer or alterer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screening devices or other opaque materials 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.; We have not previously ruled on whether these prohibitions apply to th installation of State vehicle inspection and private industry regulatory decals by commercial businesses. In general, these decals are small in size and placed in locations which minimize the obstruction, if any, to the driver's vision. In contrast, tinting films and other sun screening devices are generally applied to the entire window and thus can substantially obscure the driver's vision if they do not meet the light transmittance and other performance requirements of the standard. As with State regulatory decals, your proposed decal is small in size and would be placed in the lower right corner of the vehicle windshield, an area which should minimize any possible obstructing of the driver's vision. Given these considerations, we would consider the placement of the NVCA decal in the lower right hand corner of the windshield to be merely a technical violation of Standard No. 205, and would exercise our prosecutorial discretion and not bring an enforcement action.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have an further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3918OpenMr. Robert M. Levy, Manager, Design Engineering, Abex Corporation, Signal-Stat Division, P.O. Box 438, Somerset, NJ 08873-3492; Mr. Robert M. Levy Manager Design Engineering Abex Corporation Signal-Stat Division P.O. Box 438 Somerset NJ 08873-3492; Dear Mr. Levy: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Frank Berndt the former Chief Counsel of this agency, asking for clarification of an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 108 that this agency furnished last year to Wesbar Corp.; On May 16, 1984, Wesbar asked whether the correct minimum effectiv luminous lens area on stop lamps and turn signal lamps was 8 square inches or 12 square inches, when intended for use on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. This office advised Wesbar on July 3, 1984, that as specified in SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, the answer was 8 square inches. Your letter calls to our attention the fact that these SAE standards require each stop and turn signal lamp to have a minimum of 12 square inches in those vehicle configurations where two stop or turn signal lamps are mounted on the same side of the vehicle and are closer to each other than 22 inches.; Thank you for calling this oversight to our attention. Indeed, SA J586c and J588e establish this exception to the general minimum requirement of 8 square inches. We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Wesbar and apologize for any confusion that the earlier letter has caused.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3740OpenMr. Paul Scully, Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company, 4200 East 135th Street, Grandview, MO 64030; Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Company 4200 East 135th Street Grandview MO 64030; Dear Mr. Scully: This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of thi agency.; With respect to paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Standard No. 108 *Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* you have stated your understanding that that paragraph applies only to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1973, and that turn signal lamps must now comply with SAE Standard J588e, September 1970.; Paragraph S4.1.1.7 did allow vehicular compliance with SAE J588d as a option to J588e. J588d required that any turn signal lamp used on a vehicle whose overall width was 80 inches or more have a minimum of 12 square inches effective projected luminous lens area. On the other hand, SAE J588e requires a minimum of 8 square inches effective projected luminous lens area on all single compartment rear turn signal lamps, regardless of vehicle width. However, on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width, two turn signal lamps or compartments per side may be mounted closer together than 22 inches provided each meets single compartment photometric requirements and each has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches. Thus, your understanding is correct.; I would also point out that, pursuant to Section S4.7.1 of Standard No 108, the continued manufacture of turn signal lamps meeting J588d is permissible as replacement equipment for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978.; Mr. Cavey has provided the copy of BMCS regulations which is enclosed. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4427OpenMr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 18881 U.S. 31 North Westfield, IN 46074; Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing Inc. 18881 U.S. 31 North Westfield IN 46074; "Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor 'shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor.' Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no. The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only, see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in heavy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some newer designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said: Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retractor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339. This language explicitly states that the 'working of the retractor' is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the 'working of the retractor,' an ALR must comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's on heavy vehicles. This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that: 'NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209.' 53 FR 25340. The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure compliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208. In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's 'Komfort-Lok,' to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of Standard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the retractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5638OpenThe Honorable Bob Clement U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-4205; The Honorable Bob Clement U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515-4205; "Dear Congressman Clement: Thank you for your letter of October 3 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts. Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC 30122). In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209. In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position. A 'designated seating position' is defined by NHTSA regulations as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion...Any bench or split-bench seat ...having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts. The 'make inoperative' prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, it is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without 'making inoperative' the compliance of those belts and anchorages. I hope this information has been helpful. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4750OpenMr. John W. Garringer 158 E. Center Street Shavertown, Pennsylvania 18708; Mr. John W. Garringer 158 E. Center Street Shavertown Pennsylvania 18708; "Dear Mr. Garringer: This responds to your letter asking whethe Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement. Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5192OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993 regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. Your two questions and the answer to each follows. 1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21, Notice No. 2 proposed the use of 'one inch wide' retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a 'minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape.' The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a 'minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape.' Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available. You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801, July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to 'metric equivalents' in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term 'metric equivalents' was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. 2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that 'each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter.....' The retro- reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening. In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off. NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting 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.