NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 24322.ztvOpenMr. Jesus Cid Dear Mr. Cid: Senator Reid has asked us to reply to your e-mail to him requesting information on the legality of neon lights "on the outside or inside" of your car. I am enclosing copies of representative letters we have sent some other persons who asked this question. These are our letters of April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz of Tron Industries, and of July 29, 1993, to Charles D. Shipley, Director, Ohio Department of Public Safety. The views expressed in these letters remain unchanged today, in 2002 (however, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) no longer provides interpretations of State laws). You did not specify the location on the outside of the car where you would like to install neon lights. The most frequent location appears to be under the car, and the letters we are sending you address underbody neon lighting. However, these letters do not cover neon lighting in the interior (see discussion below). Federal law permits you as a vehicle owner to modify your vehicle personally in any way you wish. However, these modifications are subject to State law. We are not conversant with State laws, and, specifically, we do not know whether neon lighting on or in a motor vehicle is permitted by Nevada. We suggest that you call your local office of the Department of Motor Vehicles. If the neon lighting is to be installed by a person other than yourself (specifically, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business), there is an applicable provision of Federal law. This law is intended to ensure that the performance of original equipment installed as required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is not diminished by modifications after the vehicle is first sold. To avoid violating this law, the installer of the neon lighting should determine that its use would not have a negative effect upon the performance of the vehicle's original lighting equipment which has been installed, as required, by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (or any other equipment installed in accordance with such a standard). For example (see our letter to Mr. Schwartz), the intensity of neon lights on the exterior should not mask the intensity of turn signal and stop lamps. A neon light in the interior should not be placed in the rear parcel shelf to avoid confusion and diminishing the effect of the center highmounted stop lamp. Even if you and the installer decide that the neon lighting you desire would not have a negative effect upon the performance of other lamps, the legality of neon lighting remains subject to the laws of Nevada, or any other State where the car is driven. Sincerely, |
2002 |
ID: 2517yOpen Mr. Charles T. Thomas Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that "the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, l988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States." You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September l988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your l985 Jaguar remains in Germany. We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, l990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562. However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that l985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer. I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:59l d:7/3/90 |
1990 |
ID: 2519yOpen Mr. Charles T. Thomas Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that "the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, l988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States." You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September l988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your l985 Jaguar remains in Germany. We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, l990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562. However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that l985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer. I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:59l d:7/3/90 |
1990 |
ID: 2882oOpen Mr. Frank V. Tanzella Dear Mr. Tanzella: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation." Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "motor vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by adding the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles after installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA#108#207 d:7/18/88 |
1988 |
ID: 77-2.13OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/18/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: D. T. Schellhase TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a groove is cut around the tire and a white compound is inserted into the groove. Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed. If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard. SINCERELY, February 23, 1977 David T. Schellhase This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1977, concerning the manufacturing of tires. I have forwarded your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of this Department, which has regulatory jurisdiction over highway safety matters, including the establishment of safety standards, enforcement of standards, and the investigation of apparent defects in motor vehicles or automobile components. You will hear from NHTSA directly. (Miss) Antonia P. Uccello Director Office of Consumer Affairs Feb. 17, 1977 Dear Sirs, I have been refered to your office by the Highway Patrol. My question is this. I have been offered a business opportunity which consists of servicing car dealers and making whitewall tires out of existing blackwall tires on both new and used cars. This is done by a machine which cut a grove into the sidewall of the tire and then a white compound is flowed into the grove. My insurance agent told me that because of the cutting of the tire he could not write me business insurance. Is the alteration of tires like I have explained illegal, as I myself question weather the process may cause tire failure or a blow out. I would certainly appreciate, any information you could offer. Thank you! David T. Schellhase |
|
ID: 1984-2.28OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/13/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Linda Morrow TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677
Dear Ms. Morrow:
This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.
Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, 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 other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.
After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the 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 applying sun screens on their vehicles. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. 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 an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.
If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht79-3.13OpenDATE: 11/09/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Chief, Cleveland Fire Department TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 2, 1979, in which you asked for copies of any current or recommended standards concerning the use of plastic auxiliary fuel tanks. May I apologize for the delay in this response. I have enclosed a copy of a letter, which was sent to a company which planned to manufacturer auxiliary fuel tanks and to do some installation, that details the ways in which the safety standards and statutes administered by this agency apply to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks of all types. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that this agency issued with respect to a proposal to issue performance standards applicable to nonmetallic fuel tanks. At this time the agency does not have any standards applicable to the use of auxiliary fuel tanks. However, several months ago we issued a consumer advisory warning against carrying fuel in portable containers in the trunks of cars. We consider this advisory applicable not only to portable containers but to any fuel container mounted in an area not normally consigned to such use. I have enclosed a copy of this advisory for your information. In addition, we are planning to issue a press release in the near future specifically addressed to the dangers of using auxiliary fuel tanks. If you have any reports, case histories, photographs, or other material concerning any fires or fire problems caused by the use of auxiliary fuel tanks we would be most grateful if you would allow us to examine them. Your concern in this area of vehicle safety is deeply appreciated. Sincerely, City of Cleveland July 2, 1979 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Auxiliary Fuel Tanks for Motor Vehicles Gentlemen: Due to the gasoline fuel shortage, we are facing a new problem in the fire service. The use of plastic auxiliary fuel tanks has become more prevalent and responsible for vehicle fires. The concern for fire fighters, fighting a fire in a vehicle containing one of these tanks is paramount. A copy of any standards or recommendations in effect or being considered will be used to inform the fire suppression units of this Department. Please furnish any product manufacturers that have approval for installation. William E. Barry, Chief Division of Fire CC: LT. DEIGHTON |
|
ID: nht79-1.50OpenDATE: 11/09/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This letter is in response to your October 19, 1979, request for an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 and 49 CFR Part 575. Specifically, you inquired if it is permissible for Mazda to place information concerning the 185SR13 tire size on the tire placard, as required by section 4.3(d) of Standard No. 110, and in the consumer information booklet, as required by 49 CFR @ 575.102(c)(2), for vehicles which may have 185HR13 tires installed by dealers at a customer's request. This would be permissible. A 185SR13 tire and a 185HR13 tire are the same size and have the same load-carrying capacity. The "S" and "H" only denote different high-speed capabilities for what are, otherwise, identical tires. This agency requires the manufacturer to list recommended tire sizes on the tire placard and in the consumer information booklet for two reasons. First, the information is required to ensure that any replacement tires installed on the vehicle will be a proper size for the rims mounted on that vehicle. Second, the information helps to ensure that the tires installed on the vehicle will have sufficient load-carrying capacity to be used safely on that particular vehicle. Neither of these safety concerns would be frustrated by a manufacturer putting information on the placard and in the booklet about a tire with a lower speed rating. Therefore, your proposed plan would not violate any of our consumer information regulations. Sincerely, ATTACH. October 19, 1979 Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Sir, RE: Request for Interpretation on MVSS 110 & Part 575 MVSS 110 Sec. 4.3 (d) requires the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation on the tire placard and also Sec. 575.102 (c)(2) requires recommended tire size designations in the consumer information booklet. One of our MAZDA models has 185SR13 as the standard tires. Currently, we are considering 185HR13 as a dealer option because some customers want a higher performance tire on their cars. We do not believe that we should put 185HR13 as the recommended tire on the tire placard, for it is a higher performance than 185SR13 and it is not installed at our factory. Please grant us your interpretation. Your earliest response would be highly appreciated. Sincerely yours, M. Ogata -- Branch Manager, TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. OFFICE |
|
ID: nht93-4.15OpenDATE: June 2, 1993 FROM: Eddie Bernice Johnson -- Member of Congress, 30th District Texas, U.S. House of Representatives TO: Art Neill -- Division Chief, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-93 from John Womack to Eddie Bernice Johnson (A41; Part 571). TEXT: Dr. Way recently contacted my office concerning the resale of military vehicles for civilian use. The enclosed letter from Dr. Way should more clearly state issue. I would appreciate having the benefit of your review and consideration of Dr. Way's request so that I might better prepare a response. Please respond to my Dallas office at the District address above, where this case has been assigned to my staff assistant, Scott Rule. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
April 29, 1993
Congressman Martin Frost 400 S. Zang Dallas, TX 75208 Dear Congressman: As a concerned citizen of Dallas, Texas, I want to inform you of something I have been alerted to. I called to find out about the purchase of used military jeeps for possible use as a vehicle on my ranch. We would use this vehicle as an off-the-road vehicle and occasionally as a vehicle to travel back and forth to town. Upon contacting the Department of Defense at 800-222-3767, which is a recorded message describing the Department of Defense surplus sales, it states that the military jeep M-151 is a type of vehicle that for some reason the Department o+ Transportation has deemed unsafe to be used on public roads. Therefore, the military vehicles are not sold, but are destroyed by crushing. I called Carswell AFB and asked the surplus sales department there about sale of the jeeps. They gave me the same information, that they do not sell military Jeeps, and they are destroyed for safety reasons. I find this very unusual, because if they are found to be unsafe on our roads, how can we consider these vehicles safe for use by military personnel? I was in the military and rode in these vehicles on and off the road, and they were very safe depending on who was driving.
I would like you to investigate this situation, because I feel this is another waste of materials by the government. These vehicles could be sold and used by civilians after they have completed their military use. I think this is a situation that needs to be rectified. Sincerely yours,
Bill V. Way, D.O. Concerned Citizen |
|
ID: nht75-2.7OpenDATE: 11/03/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Walt Robbins, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 5, 1975, enclosing a copy of your patent for a tire described as a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire" and requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars. The tire would be constructed with three full body plies: two bias plies (angle 35 degrees) and one radial ply (angle 90 degrees). S4.3(g) of the standard requires permanent molding of the word "radial" into or onto both sidewalls if the tire is a radial ply tire and, by implication, prohibits the use of the word "radial" if the tire is not a radial ply tire. In S3., "radial ply tire" is defined as: a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the beads are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. The tire you have described is not within the scope of this definition because it includes ply cords extending to the beads which are not laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. Therefore, the word "radial" must not appear on either sidewall. SINCERELY, Walt Robbins Incorporated June 5, 1975 Mark Schwimmer National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Enclosed is a copy of our patent #3,672,423. I would appreciate it if you would review this and notify me as to what the labeling requirements would be for the tire construction as shown in this patent, with reference to paragraph S4.3, subparagraph h, of MVSS100. As I interpret your labeling requirements, the radial designation would be adequate as this is a full radial ply. In addition to the radial ply, we have two bias plies, so my question to you is should this be designated radial or radial/bias. I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible inasmuch as we have completed DOT testing and are ready for production. Your cooperation in this matter will be most appreciated. VENTURE TIRE CORP. Walter C. Robbins, Jr. President United States Patent Duduk [15] 3,672,423 [45] June 27, 1972 [54] RADIAL, BIAS PLY TIRE [72] Inventor: Alexander Duduk, 2300 S 24th Road Apt. #731, Arlington, Va 22206 [22] Filed: April 7, 1970 [21] Appl. No.: 26,411 Patent Omitted. |