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: 7067Open Mr. Nathan W. Randall Dear Mr. Randall: This responds to your letter of March 2, 1992, asking for confirmation that you will be a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles under the fact situation that you outlined and a previous interpretation of this agency. You intend to assemble replica vehicles which will incorporate new items of motor vehicle equipment except for "previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations." Because "its running gear is not new", you believe that we would consider your vehicle "as 'used' even thought its body and chassis are previously unused." In support you cite a l980 interpretation of this Office under which the then Chief Counsel stated that "the agency tends to view as 'used' a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused." In that instance, the vehicle for which the interpretation was given was to be constructed from new parts except for the front suspension and axle, engine, and transmission. Your letter has provided an opportunity for the agency to review its position on motor vehicles constructed from a mixture of old and new parts. When the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted in 1966, such motor vehicles were primarily "kit cars." A "kit car" in those days consisted usually of a new body placed upon the chassis of an older Volkswagen from which the original body had been removed. The resulting assemblage generally retained the title of the original vehicle. The agency termed this type of vehicle a "used" vehicle, and stated that the assemblage did not have to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to vehicles at the time they are manufactured. The primary reason for this interpretation was the realization that it would be impracticable, if not impossible, for a motor vehicle to meet all contemporary Federal motor vehicle safety standards if that vehicle used a chassis that was manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the Federal standards began to apply to motor vehicles. Over the years, the body-on-chassis type of construction has grown less, and more complex fact situations have arisen with respect to motor vehicles constructed from old and new parts. Yet with the introduction of an increasing number of new parts, including the construction of a new chassis, the agency has applied the same rationale. With respect to the use of an older engine, NHTSA realized that compliance with two specific standards could be affected by the design of the engine and its components: Standard No. 124 Accelerator Control Systems, and Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. Your letter affords the opportunity to review that rationale. Standard No. 124 has been in effect since September 1, 1973. Standard No. 301, initially effective January 1, 1968, contains upgraded performance requirements applicable to passenger cars as of September 1, 1977. Given the substantial number of motor vehicles that have been produced in accordance with these standards, and the probability that engines from these motor vehicles, though "used", are likely to be incorporated into the manufacture of vehicles that are otherwise new, we have concluded that this rationale no longer supports an interpretation that relieves the manufacturer of a motor vehicle that uses all new components, except engine and drive train, from the responsibility of producing and certifying a motor vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although you are correct that your situation appears analogous to the one in the 1980 letter, the passage of time has rendered that opinion untenable today. In a somewhat similar situation, on April 22, 1991, we informed Memory Motors, a replica manufacturer, that its product would be considered a "new" vehicle for purpose of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where the previously used chassis was retained in modified form, and the only used components retained included the rear axle assembly and front end components. As a small volume manufacturer of new motor vehicles, however, under 49 CFR Part 555 you become eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for a period of up to three years if immediate compliance with the standard(s) would create substantial economic hardship. Although NHTSA does not grant blanket exemptions from the standards, it is sympathetic to small manufacturers who appear to have attempted in good faith to meet the standards but whose economic circumstances do not permit total compliance before manufacture of the vehicle is scheduled to commence. If you are interested in pursuing this possibility, we shall be pleased to advise you accordingly. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:5/21/92
|
1992 |
ID: nht88-1.42OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/16/88 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mike Kaizaki -- Manager, Truck Tire Engineering, Yokohama Tire Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (A32; Std. 109; Std. 119); Undated letter from Erika Z. Jones to E.W. Dahl; 8/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (OCC 1951) TEXT: Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 601 S. Acacia Fullerton, CA 92631 Dear Mr. Kaizaki: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger cars. You asked whether it is permissible to place two tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters, on the same tire. The answer to your question is no. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual size markings." Dual size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consu mers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency conclud ed that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 PR 1195, January 26, 1971. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section 56.5 of the standard. Section @6.5(s) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications d esignated in @5.1. Section @5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manuf acturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations. While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section @6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section @6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in @5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel July 17, 1987 Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Jones: We at Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD are considering the double tire size designations (equivalent but different) marked on the tire sidewall of the medium truck tire. We believe that it is in compliance with Standard No. 119. New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars as far as the tire size designations are equivalent to each other and the tire dimensions, and other markings, meet with the estab lished standard, TRA, ETRTO, and so on. Accordingly, would you respond to our specific question below regarding this marking: Yokohama places 2 tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters. These sizes are different but equivalent to each other. The max load/inflation pressure marking is one specified by ETRTO for 385/65R22.5 but larger tha n one specified by TRA for 15R 22.5. Is this compatible with FMVSS 119? I would appreciate your specific response in writing at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering |
|
ID: nht95-1.70OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: February 15, 1995 FROM: Lee Rabie -- President, Enerco, Inc. TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Vehicle Air Bag Restraint Systems ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO LEE RABIE (A43; STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/19/90 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A. ERNST TEXT: Dear Sirs The purpose of this letter is to obtain information from you and your Agency regarding any legal requirements or regulations of the Federal government for recycling/remanufacturing of vehicle Air Bags. First, let us introduce ourselves. Enerco, Inc. is an industrial electronics firm that manufactures a line of industrial electronic products. Enerco has been in the electronic design and manufacturing business for over twenty years. Please find enclose d some of our data sheets that show a few of the products we manufacture which are used by local, state and federal governments for traffic control. For some time we have been interested in vehicle Air Bags and the possibility of recycling Air Bags. We are aware of the performance requirements for active and passive restraint systems for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes as promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, in 49 CFR Ch. V, Section 571.208; Standard No. 208; Occupant Crash Protection). We know that recycling of the Bags is physically possible because we have developed a me thodology for doing so. However, we are concerned about any requirements of the laws and regulations which your Agency has oversight responsibility as they relate to the acceptance and performance of recycled Air Bags. Air Bag systems are being required be installed in all cars sold in the United States. An Air Bag Restraint System is extensive and is comprised of the Air Bag and it's associated controls, sensors, computers, cables and indicators. The cost of the Bags themselves (2 Bags will be required for all cars) as purchased new from each manufacturer is very high. As the time period in which these systems have been required increases, and as the number of newer vehicles on the road increases, the number of Bag s which have actually been deployed in crashes is dramatically increasing. As it stands now, after a vehicle crashes with deployment of an Air Bag, the Bag is removed form the vehicle and is replaced with a new Bag supplied by the manufacturers. The original Bag goes to waste. Additionally, disposing of the blown Air Bag is a lso a problem due to fact that other environmental health regulations prohibit (actual label on the side of the Bags) the placement of Bags in landfills. Therefore wrecking yards and repair shops have a problem of disposing the Bags. In addition to the waste of reusable equipment and disposal problems there is another large expense problem. As indicated above the cost of a new Bag is very high. This is because the Bag is not recycled and usually the original manufacturers are the o nly source for the replacement Bags. The high replacement cost must be paid by the vehicle owner or his insurance company, even if the vehicle in which it deployed did not sustain major damage. All this points to the fact that there is a dramatic need in our society to have the choice of purchasing from a secondary source quality recycled Air Bags. Our proposed recycling program would take the original blown Bags which were made and supplied by the original manufacture of the vehicle, and remanufacture them to the original standards. Blown Air Bags and the vehicles in which they have been blown ha ve been examined by us. The vehicles metal structure and steering wheel are designed to withstand the Air Bag deployment. The Bag has a valve to allow deflation without damaging of the Bag. This means that washing, cleaning, refolding, supplying of a new squib and new chemical charge and resealing of the flap that is made to open to allow Bag deployment, would be the focus of the recycling/remanufacturing process. Enerco would appreciate any facts, information, discourse, thoughts or opinions from your department regarding our proposal to recycle/remanufacture Air Bags. This would include your opinion on whether the present law and regulations would allow recyclin g/remanufacture of the Air Bags (Bags only, not the sensors or computers) to the same MTBF standards using existing, proven technology. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Your timely reply will be very much appreciated. Brochures omitted. |
|
ID: 10-004142 -- Toyota CAFE credit transfer banking -- 5 Jul 11 final for signatureOpenTom Stricker Director-Corporate Manager Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Suite 910 South 601 13th Street, NW Dear Mr. Stricker: This responds to your letter dated June 10, 2010 concerning the definition of the term transfer, as used in relation to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) credits. You asked several questions relating to the revision to the definition of transfer in the April 2010 final rule establishing CAFE standards for model years 2012-2016. By way of background, credits are earned by automobile manufacturers for over-compliance with passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, and may be used by the manufacturer to make up shortfalls in different model years and different compliance categories, subject to certain statutory and regulatory constraints, and may also be provided to or acquired from other manufacturers. Manufacturers have been able to carry-forward[1] and carry-back[2] CAFE credits since the early 1980s, but NHTSA only gained authority to permit credit trading and transferring as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.[3] NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 536 in 2009 to implement a program pursuant to this authority, and defined credit transfer as the application by a manufacturer of credits earned by that manufacturer in one compliance category [domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, light trucks] or credits acquired by trade (and originally earned by another manufacturer in that category) to achieve compliance with fuel economy standards with respect to a different compliance category. For example, a manufacturer may purchase light truck credits from another manufacturer, and transfer them to achieve compliance in the manufacturers domestically manufactured passenger car fleet.[4] As a way to improve the transferring flexibility mechanism for manufacturers, as part of the rulemaking establishing CAFE standards for MYs 2012-2016, NHTSA clarified its interpretation of EISA, saying that EISA allowed the banking of credits for use in later model years. The agency amended the definition of transfer accordingly. Specifically, we added the following sentence to the end of the above definition of transfer: Subject to the credit transfer limitations of 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3), credits can also be transferred across compliance categories and banked or saved in that category to be carried forward or backward later to address a credit shortfall.[5] You have asked several questions with regard to this revision to the definition of credit transfer, which we will answer in turn below. 1. Does the revised definition apply to MY 2011 and later credits, and may such credits be transferred across compliance categories in the same or later model year and banked or saved in that compliance category, subject to the limitations specified by 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor specified at 49 CFR 536.4(c)? Answer: Yes, this is correct. We note that credits are not adjusted until they are actually used for compliance purposes. See 49 CFR 536.4(c) and 536.5(d)(5). 2. Once transferred, are such credits considered to be credits within the compliance category to which they were transferred, and may they be applied without further adjustment, in the same manner as a credit that was generated as a result of over-compliance in that compliance category? Answer: No, this is incorrect. 49 CFR 536.4(c) states clearly that the adjustment factor is applied to credits when traded or transferred and used, and 536.5(d)(5) similarly states that the value of traded or transferred credits is adjusted when used for compliance. (Emphasis added.) Thus, when credits are transferred and banked, they are simply stored in the compliance category to which they are transferred, but they retain their original character and value until they are used for compliance, at which time they are adjusted. 3. Does 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limit the credits that can be transferred into a compliance category in a given model year? Answer: 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limits the maximum CAFE increase in any compliance category attributable to the application of credits earned in a different compliance category to 1.0 mpg for model years 2011-2013; to 1.5 mpg for model years 2014-2017; and to 2.0 for model years 2018 and beyond. The statute does not limit how many credits may be transferred in a given model year, rather it limits the application of transferred credits to improve fuel economy in a compliance category. Thus, manufacturers may transfer as many credits into a compliance category as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits. 4. Given the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3), is there a limit on how many credits can be transferred out of a compliance category in a given model year, or a limit on transferring credits from one compliance category to multiple compliance categories in the same model year or across model years, as long as the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) are not violated? Answer: Again, manufacturers may transfer as many credits out of a compliance category to either of the other compliance categories as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits. Furthermore, the adjustment factor is only relevant when the transferred credits are used for compliance; they are not applied at time of transfer. 5. Is the expiry date of transferred credits established by the model year in which such credits are originally earned, regardless of the model year or compliance category to which they are transferred? Answer: Yes, this is correct. Please see the definitions for credits and expiry date in 49 CFR 536.3. 6. When a compliance category has a shortfall in a given model year, is there any restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transfer credits must be applied? E.g., could a manufacturer meet a shortfall by carrying forward available credits banked in that compliance category, and then transfer additional credits into that compliance category to be banked or saved, subject to the limitations of 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c)? Answer: Your example is correct. Part 536 is intended to give manufacturers maximum flexibility to apply credits in the manner that they deem most appropriate, thus there is no restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transferred credits can be applied to a shortfall. As long as the credit transfer cap of 32903(g)(3) is not violated, and as long as the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) is properly applied when the banked credits are used, the situation described should be permissible. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, /s/ O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Part 536 7/6/11 [1] That is, apply credits earned for a fleets over-compliance in one year to a shortfall for that same fleet in a subsequent model year (e.g., credit earned for over-compliance with the MY 2000 light truck standard could be applied to a shortfall with respect to the MY 2002 light truck standard). [2] That is, apply credits earned for a fleets over-compliance in one year to a shortfall for that same fleet in a previous model year (e.g., credit earned for over-compliance with the MY 2000 light truck standard could be applied to a shortfall (or deficit) with respect to the MY 1998 light truck standard). [3] See 49 U.S.C. 32903(f) and (g). [4] We note that credit transfers are also subject to the limitation in 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(4) , which requires manufacturers to meet the minimum standards for domestically-manufactured passenger cars without the use of transferred credits. [5] See 74 Fed. Reg. 49454, 49736-37 (Sept. 28, 2009) and 75 Fed. Reg. 25324, 25665-66 (May 7, 2010) for NHTSAs discussion of this issue in the MYs 2012-2016 CAFE standards rulemaking. |
|
ID: nht87-2.37OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/09/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen Kraco Enterprises, Inc. 505 E. Euclid Ave. Compton, CA 90224 Dear Mr. van Kreuningen: This responds to your letters asking about the effect of Federal law or regulations on an aftermarket steel "shelf" which you have designed for installation in the area above the windshield where the sun visors are located. The shelf would be used to hol d small items such as maps or glasses and would be provided with visors on its underside to replace the vehicle's original visors. I apologize for our delay in replying. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment which contains a safety defect. The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mountin g must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or i ts mounting with their heads. If your shelf were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visors attached to it would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard, and the shelf would have to meet the mounting requirements. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.
Although you propose to sell your shelf in the aftermarket, not as an item of original equipment, the standard can nonetheless affect persons who install the shelf. The Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehi cles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mounting. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your shelf, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your shelf complied with the s tandard. The sole exception to this rule is the individual owner, who may install a shelf in his own vehicle without regard to the standard. In addition to the requirements of the standard, our safety effect authority could have a bearing on your sale of the shelf. If the shelf would normally be installed so that its rear edge could be hit by an occupant's head in a crash, it would seem likel y to cause serious injury. It is thus possible that the shelf would be determined to contain a safety defect subject to recall. I urge you to examine the possibility of such injury before you make further plans to market the shelf. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen: On March 25, 1986, we sent a letter to you requesting what safety standards apply on an accessory shelf to be used in cars or trucks. As of this date, we have not received a reply. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Attached is a copy of the letter for your information. Sincerely, Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl. March 25, 1986
Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington. D.C. Subject: Accessory Shelf for Truck/Cars Gentlemen: Kraco Enterprises is a manufacturer/distributor of automotive aftermarket sound and accessory equipment. Presently, we are evaluating the feasibility of marketing a "shelf" which is to be installed in the general area where normally visors are located. The shelf is made of steel and is provided with new visors. It is to be used to place small items (cigaret te;, glasses, maps, etc.) within easy reach of the driver or front seat passenger. A sketch of the shelf, including mounting instructions, is attached for your review. Before pursuing this item further, we would like to receive the following information: 1) Is this type of product presently prohibited? 2) If not, what safety standards apply? Please supply us with copies of applicable safety standards. If you desire any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl. |
|
ID: Heller2OpenMr. Peter E. Heller Logo Brake Light 216 Redwood Road Sag Harbor, NY 11963 Dear Mr. Heller: This responds to your letter requesting clarification regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to your patented product, the Logo Brake Light. Your letter described the Logo Brake Light as the merger of the center high mounted stop lamp with the automobile manufacturers logo, symbol or trademark. On a vehicle equipped with your product, when the service brake pedal is depressed, the lighted portion of the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) will illuminate in a shape representing the vehicle manufacturer or its brand. You enclosed three product samples (two in red and one in a combination of red and yellow). Based on the information you have provided to the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your product would not comply with Standard No. 108. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571). It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567). FMVSS No. 108 sets forth the requirements for both new and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment. Turning to the specific issues raised by your letter, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for CHMSLs in light vehicles. First, paragraph S5.1.1.27(a) of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that each CHMSL shall: (1) have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 2903 square mm (4.5 square inches); (2) meet the visibility requirements such that a signal is visible from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle; and (3) have minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10 of the standard. In addition, Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, specifies that the CHMSL must be red.[1] (A CHMSL produced using a combination of red and another color, such as yellow or silver, would not comply with the color requirement set forth in Table III.) Because we have not had the opportunity to examine your product in use, we cannot offer an opinion as to whether your product would meet the applicable area, visibility, and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108. However, we note that your product appears to violate the color restrictions set forth in Table III. Furthermore, in discussing your request with the agency in phone conversations, you directed us to your website, www.logobrakelight.com. Upon review of this site, we saw examples of your product mounted below the rear glass (one on a trunk lid and another on an SUV liftgate). We note that your product apparently would not comply with paragraph S5.3.1.8(a)(2), which requires that no portion of the lens [CHMSL] shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars. Thus, the applications of your Logo Brake Light CHMSL currently shown would likely violate this location requirement. Finally, we should also observe that a lighting standard is premised upon consistency of the message intended to warn or alert other drivers or pedestrians. We are concerned that the presence of both regular red and multicolor stop lamps with logos on them could result in confusion of other drivers or pedestrians. Please note that we are returning your product samples to you under separate cover. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/07
[1] We note that there is a separate provision under S5.1.1.27(b) of Standard No. 108 that allows two CHMSLs (with specifications different from those above) on light vehicles other than passenger cars which have a vertical centerline that, when the vehicle is viewed from the rear, is not located on a fixed body panel but separates one or two movable body sections, such as doors, which lacks sufficient space to install a single CHMSL. Our analysis, however, would not differ for either version of the CHMSL. |
2007 |
ID: 1984-1.36OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/04/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Armond Cardarelli TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Armond Cardarelli Director, Safety Equipment Services American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Cardarelli:
Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1985, concerning the application of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to sun- screening materials used on vehicle glazing. I hope that the following discussion will answer your questions.
You first asked if Standard No. 205 regulates the use of sun-screening materials. Standard No. 205 affects the use of sun-screening materials in the following ways. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements that all glazing used in new motor vehicles and all glazing sold as aftermarket equipment for use in motor vehicles must meet. One of the requirements of the standard is that, as explained in more detail in response to your second question, all windows requisite for driving visibility must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Another is that glazing for use in those areas must meet specified requirements for resistance to abrasion.
Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Likewise, if a dealer or other person places sun-screening material on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.
Purchasers of new vehicles may alter the vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. There are no requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which would limit such alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install tinted film or other sun-screening material on windows if the combination of the sun-screening material and glazing cannot meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film or other sun-screening material on a used vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violators of this prohibition are subject to Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.
State laws which are inconsistent with these Federal requirements are preempted. Any State law or regulation which would permit any person to install sun-screening material on a new vehicle in violation of Standard No. 205 is preempted under section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a law would have no effect on the illegality of that installation under Federal law. Further, any State law or regulation that would permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to install sun-screening material on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is also preempted.
Your second question asked which windows in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. In particular, you asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to opera windows and sun roofs. The specification for light transmittance applies to all windows, including opera windows, in a passenger car. It does not, however, apply to car sunroofs . As to trucks , buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, it only applies to the windshield and the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver. Thus, none of those windows may be darkly tinted. However, the windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement and thus may be darkly tinted.
Your third question asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to the windows behind the driver in passenger cars or station wagons if those vehicles are equipped with an exterior mirror on the right side of the vehicle. The answer is that those windows must still meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205.
If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 1983-3.37OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/21/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA TO: Tom Ridge; House of Representatives TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
DEC 21, 1983 The Honorable Tom Ridge House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Ridge:
This responds to your letter of November 28, 1983, requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. William H. Hull, Sr. Mr. Hull is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. He believes that this is a dangerous practice because it prevents police officers from seeing inside the vehicles. You asked if we were considering the issuance of a regulation outlawing the use of such film and, if so, when such a regulation might be promulgated. While our authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) enables us to limit the practice of installing tinted film on vehicle windows, it does not permit us to issue a regulation prohibiting every individual from engaging in that practice. As explained below, while commercial establishments are prohibited from adding the film, we cannot prohibit a vehicle owner from doing so.
Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles. Tinting films such as the type referred to in Mr. Hull's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.
A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.
However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have the film installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to,$1,000 for each violation.
The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Hull may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing tinting film on their automobile windows.
Sincerely,
Diane K. Steed
November 28, 1983
The Honorable Elizabeth H. Dole Secretary U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Secretary Dole:
I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. William H. Hull, Sr., of Erie, Pennsylvania, regarding his interest in outlawing certain equipment on automobiles, specifically black plastic window coverings allowing occupants to see out, but preventing individuals from looking into the car. Mr. Hull takes an active interest in police work and feels cars equipped with these heavily tinted windows can pose a serious threat to the safety of a police officer, mainly by preventing him from observing activities inside a suspect car.
In view of Mr. Hull's interest, I would appreciate being advised if the Department has given consideration toward outlawing the use of this equipment, and if this has indeed occurred, do you have an indication when such a regulation may be promulgated.
Thank you, in advance, for your kind cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Tom Ridge Member of Congress
TJR:ef |
|
ID: nht90-1.90OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/29/90 FROM: JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL TITLE: U.S. SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS -- LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT S; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. TEXT: In the automobile-window tinting business, the government says the law is black and white. The defendants say it's not so clear. The Justice Department sued six Florida companies Wednesday for violating federal safety standards. It says the companies, including two in Central Florida are selling and installing tinting film that is too dark and unsafe for motorists. But some window tinters say it's the federal government that has kept them in the dark. They say they've been following Florida law that requires film to let at least 35 percent of the light pass through driver and front seat windows of cars, 1 and 20 percent through rear and back-seat windows. The company owners say they were unaware they were violating a federal law that requires automobile tint to let through at least 70 percent of the light David Spearin, operator of Shakespearin Inc. of Holly Hill, said he was shocked when told he was a defendant in the suit. He said he was unaware of the differences in the federal and state laws until told by a reporter Wednesday "We've never been asked to cease and desist," said Spearin, operator of five car stereo and window tinting stores in Central Florida. "We've never been informed there was any problem. This is amazing. We are complying with the [Illegible Word] in Florida. If the federal standards are different than the state standards, then they should get together." Blue Skies Protects, Inc., of Orlando, which operates as Flying Window. Tinters at [Illegible Word]. Semoran Blvd also was named in one of the suits. "This is total insanity," said Suzanne Turner owner of Blue Skies, "I really feel picked on. I haven't done anything bad." Officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Washington and the U.S. attorneys office in Tampa could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Turner and Spearin said they have lost business because they have refused to install film that is darker than allowed by state law. They argue they are legitmate window-tinting firms, compared with other operations that are willing to break the law t o make a buck. Turner said she received an inquiry from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration a few years ago asking about tinting products and records. She and her husband packed up their records and flew to Washington to investigate the query, but th e agency representative they met with was "incredibly vague," she said. Her husband, Tom Turner, who operates a Longwood window-tinting company, said federal transportation officials told the couple the Florida guidelines were considered substandard under federal law. He said he informed the manufacturers of the film, wh o are fighting the government standards. "They should go after the window-tint manufacturers," Spearin said. "They're the ones selling it. We're just the installers." A spokesman for Martin Energy Products in Fort Lauderdale, makers of car window tint film with more than 300 customers in Florida, said the tinting industry is trying to get uniform legislation passed that would mirror Florida's standards. "We are before Congress right now trying to make federal standards a 35 percent law," said company spokesman Glenn Hale. Hale, Spearin and the Turners say that window tint is not the hazard the government says it is. The tint placed on passenger windows of cars prevents glass from shattering in an accident, they say. Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Randy Harper in Orlando said troopers often write tickets for motorists who have dark windshield film that violates Florida law. Car owners who tint their rear windows are required to install mirrors on both sides of the veh icle, he said. Those who illegally install film darker than allowed by law face up to 60 days in jail and $ 500 in fines. Harper said dark tinting has contributed to many night accidents investigated by his agency and has prevented motorists from being able to observe the actions of other drivers helpful for defensive driving. "It's also a problem in law enforcement walking up to a car and not being able to see what is inside," Harper said. They should go after the window-tint manufacturers. They're the ones selling it. We're just the installers. -- David Spearin, Shakespearin Inc. |
|
ID: aiam5525OpenMs. Merridy R. Gottlieb 4 Duchess Court Baltimore, MD 21237; Ms. Merridy R. Gottlieb 4 Duchess Court Baltimore MD 21237; Dear Ms. Gottlieb: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995 requesting an 'exemption' from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states: I am disabled and need 3-4' of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all. You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would 'interfere with the functionality of the air bag.' In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. 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 FMVSS. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would 'make inoperative' the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the dynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff 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.