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: aiam4638OpenMr. Carlos Chavez R. General Manager Frenos Hidraulicos Automotrices, S.A. (FHASA/Wagner) Apartado Postal 404 Centro C.P. 06000, Mexico, D.F. San Juan Ixhuatepec, Edo. de Mexico; Mr. Carlos Chavez R. General Manager Frenos Hidraulicos Automotrices S.A. (FHASA/Wagner) Apartado Postal 404 Centro C.P. 06000 Mexico D.F. San Juan Ixhuatepec Edo. de Mexico; "Dear Mr. Chavez: This responds to your letter requesting informatio on a DOT 'registration' to enable you to sell your products in this country. You state that you manufacture brake fluid, hydraulic brake rubber cups and boots, brake hose and flashers. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake fluid, brake hose, and automotive lamps) sold in or imported into this country. These standards are issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), which establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.) The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) that would apply to the products you list are FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. These standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. (Please note that the October 1988 revision of 49 CFR inadvertently omitted Standard No. 116's requirements in paragraphs S5.2.2.2(a) through (g), and S5.2.2.3(a) through (e), with which a packager still must comply. These paragraphs are reprinted at the end of the 1988 revision of 49 CFR 571.116.) Your products must meet all applicable requirements of these FMVSS's, and be free from safety-related defects, to be sold in or imported into this country. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. We aren't sure what you mean by the DOT 'registration,' but we believe you are referring to one of several procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires manufacturers of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ('covered equipment'--e.g., brake fluid and hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States. Second, 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules (Subpart D) requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information: l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name, 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation, and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. Third, Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses) requires brake hose manufacturers to label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. You would file the designation in writing with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. I hope this information is helpful. I have also enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam5612OpenMr. Robert J. Ponticelli President American International Pacific Industries Corp. 1040 Avenida Acaso Camarillo, CA 93012; Mr. Robert J. Ponticelli President American International Pacific Industries Corp. 1040 Avenida Acaso Camarillo CA 93012; Dear Mr. Ponticelli: This responds to your letter asking about how th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel and the steering shaft. The device is activated by 'a key switch' and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stated that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below. First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti-theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts of a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards. Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to 'have a key- locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) t he normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) e ither steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.' Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by installing a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification with FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation. In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without realizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle. Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained in our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards. Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam5371OpenMr. Donald F. Lett Lett Electronics Company 410 North Plum Hutchinson, KS 67501; Mr. Donald F. Lett Lett Electronics Company 410 North Plum Hutchinson KS 67501; "Dear Mr. Lett: This responds to your letter to me in which you aske whether any 'pre- necessary authorization' is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume 'pre-necessary authorization' means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose. You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a 'D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire' into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self- certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations. We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above. Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters 'DOT' appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties. In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems. Finally, I note that you used the term 'previously D.O.T. approved' tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation 'approves' tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the 'DOT' code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials. 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 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5376OpenMr. Allan Garman M.F. Bank & Co., Inc. 2505 W. 2nd Avenue Suite 14 Denver, CO 80219-1655; Mr. Allan Garman M.F. Bank & Co. Inc. 2505 W. 2nd Avenue Suite 14 Denver CO 80219-1655; "Dear Mr. Garman: This responds to your letter and telephone cal asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a retail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding. You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the truck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems' (49 CFR 571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby withdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate 108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations. You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats were involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification. Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no, NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outside the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4899OpenDavid A. McClaughry, Esq. Harness, Dickey & Pierce 5445 Corporate Drive Troy, MI 48098; David A. McClaughry Esq. Harness Dickey & Pierce 5445 Corporate Drive Troy MI 48098; "Your ref: 0364-50108 Dear Mr. McClaughry: This responds to your lette of July 11, l991, with respect to the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy. The Navy has proposed specifications for the design of a zero-emission motor vehicle which may not meet some of the FMVSS. You are aware of the exemptions that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides for military vehicles, and that l5 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(C) provides, upon the Administrator's grant of a petition, for low-emission motor vehicles. These raise certain questions which you have asked us to answer. First, you would like our interpretation of 'military vehicle.' The definition of 'military vehicle' is that contained in section 571.7(c): a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. This means any vehicle that the military purchases. However, if the contractual specifications require compliance with the FMVSS, the military vehicle must be manufactured to conform to the FMVSS. You have asked whether the exclusion extends 'only for FMVSS or all safety standards.' The exclusion of section 571.7(c) is only from the FMVSS. However, vehicles that are owned by the United States Government bear Government registrations. They are not subject to State licensing laws, and, therefore, are exempt from State vehicle safety standards. You have also asked if there are other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy. We are unaware of any military safety standards, but, if such standards exist, they would be standards of the Department of Defense, and not those of the Department of Transportation. Finally, you have asked whether your client should attempt to obtain a low-emission vehicle temporary exemption under section 1410(a)(1)(C). Because of the existing exclusion from FMVSS compliance, we see no need for such an exemption if the vehicle is sold exclusively to the Navy or another branch of the military. However, if your client intends to sell the military-specification vehicle to an entity other than the Armed Forces of the United States, it must either comply with all applicable FMVSS at the time of manufacture and sale, or be exempted under one of the four subsections of section 1410(a)(1). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4131OpenMr. Rich Demski, Engineering, Federal Motors Inc., P.O. Box 5000, Ocala, FL 32678; Mr. Rich Demski Engineering Federal Motors Inc. P.O. Box 5000 Ocala FL 32678; Dear Mr. Demski: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No 101, *Controls and Displays*. You asked about the identification requirements applicable to a coolant temperature telltale. According to your letter and an accompanying drawing, you are currently identifying the telltale with the identifying symbol for the coolant temperature telltale specified by Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, and the words 'ENG WATER TEMP'. Noting that some of your vehicles have engines which are air-cooled rather than water-cooled, you asked if FMVSS No. 101 permits you to delete the word 'WATER' while otherwise continuing to identify the telltale as described above. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 101 states in relevant part: >>>Except for informational readout displays, any display locate within the passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4, shall be identified by that symbol. Such display may, in addition be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. . . . Informational readout displays may be identified by the symbol designated in column 4 of Table 2 or by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. . . .<<<; The coolant temperature telltale is a display listed in Table 2 o FMVSS No. 101, and the symbol pictured in your letter is the identifying symbol for that telltale specified in column 4 of the table. Therefore, under section S5.2.3 of the standard, your use of that symbol to identify the coolant temperature telltale is sufficient identification regardless of what, if any, identifying words you provide for the purpose of clarity.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3829OpenMr. Joel S. Premack, Research and Development Laboratories, U.S. Postal Service, Rockville, MD 20852-8101; Mr. Joel S. Premack Research and Development Laboratories U.S. Postal Service Rockville MD 20852-8101; Dear Mr. Premack: This responds to your March 7, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of thi office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111, *Rearview Mirrors*. In particular, you asked whether the covering of the rear and rear-side windows on Postal Service Vehicles would be consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111.; FMVSS 111 (copy enclosed) establishes requirements regarding rearvie mirror systems on new motor vehicles. New Postal Service vehicles would be required to employ one of three optional mirror systems. The first system is a system permitted for use on passenger cars, and includes an inside rearview mirror with a specified field of view and a plane, driver's side exterior mirror also having a specified field of view. The second permissible system is also a passenger car system and is identical to the first system, except that the inside mirror need not provide the specified field of view and an additional passenger side plane or convex rearview mirror must be provided to compensate for the more restricted field of view of the inside mirror. The third system has two plane mirrors of 19.5 square inches reflective surface area each, one mounted on each side of the vehicle.; Based on the materials you provided with your letter, it appears tha Postal Service DJ-5G Models employ the second system described above. In that case, further reduction of the field of view of the inside rearview mirror would not affect compliance with our standard, since an additional passenger side mirror is provided.; If the proposed covering of the rear windows is to be accomplished as modification to vehicles already delivered to the Postal Service, these modifications may not be subject to FMVSS 111 at all. Modifications to vehicles must be consistent with safety standards only to the extent those modification are performed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or private motor vehicle repair business which knowingly renders inoperative safety equipment installed on the vehicle. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Thus, if the window covering is done by the Postal Service itself, FMVSS requirements are not applicable.; If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free t contact us.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4020OpenMr. R.A. Bynum, Associate Director, Pupil Transportation Service, Virginia Department of Education, P.O. Box 6Q, Richmond, VA 23216-2060; Mr. R.A. Bynum Associate Director Pupil Transportation Service Virginia Department of Education P.O. Box 6Q Richmond VA 23216-2060; Dear Mr. Bynum: Thank you for your July 31, 1985 letter to Administrator Stee concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength,* to your school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.; In a telephone call with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained tha Virginia wants to purchase new school buses for deaf and blind school children and plans to equip those buses with bathrooms. The bathrooms will be installed by a commercial shop after the State receives the vehicles from a dealer. You explained that the joints of the body panels enclosing the passenger compartment would comply with FMVSS No. 221. However, you asked us whether the panels covering the inside of the bathroom, comprising a 'Formica-type' material, must comply with the standard. As explained below, the answer is no.; Our safety standards and regulations are not applicable t modifications of motor vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles for purposes other than resale, with one exception. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard...<<<; In your situation, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires the commercia business adding the bathroom to ensure that any device or element of design which was installed in compliance with Federal safety standards continues to comply with those standards after the work has been completed. For example, the installation of the bathroom compartment must not render inoperative the compliance of the school bus seats with FMVSS No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* or the emergency exits with FMVSS No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release.* However, the joints of the panels would not have to comply with Standard No. 221 since the panels are being placed in a used vehicle. The agency does, however, urge persons making modifications to follow voluntarily our safety standards.; We would note that this agency has a set of different requirements tha would apply if the bathroom were added to a new school bus before its sale to you. In that situation, the person who installs the bathroom would be an alterer under our regulations, and required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards, including FMVSS No. 221. (49 CFR Part 567.7); Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3975OpenMr. K. Weight, 65 E. 200 N., Provo, UT 84601; Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo UT 84601; Dear Mr. Weight: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows i automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.; FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a ne passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent, clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.; Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver t detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance *less* than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the 'black window' is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material i new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these 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.; Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so lon as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material 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 dark tinting material on their vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0706OpenJoseph C. Good, Esquire, South Carolina Attorney General's Office, P. O. Box 11549, Wade Hampton Office Building, Columbia, SC 29201; Joseph C. Good Esquire South Carolina Attorney General's Office P. O. Box 11549 Wade Hampton Office Building Columbia SC 29201; Dear Mr. Good: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of May 17, 1972 concerning the preemptive effect of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1392) on the authority of States to adopt laws regarding bumpers on passenger cars and other vehicle types.; You stated that you interpreted this section as preventing the adoptio by a State of a passenger car bumper law that was not identical to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS 215) on that subject. You stated further that this result (sic) obtained regardless of whether the State law were cast in terms of safety or property damage reduction.; We agree with both statements. This result is required by both sectio 103(d) and the Federal 'common law' of premption (sic), based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Were the result otherwise, States could adopt laws which frustrated not only the clear Congressional intent of establishing a uniform set of national regulations, but also the specific objectives of many of our safety standards.; You also asked whether, in view of FMVSS 215's application to passenge cars only, section 103(d) prevented the adoption of State laws regarding bumpers on multipurpose passenger vehicles. You indicated that you thought the answer to be 'no'.; Again, we agree. Section 103(d) provides that whenever there is Federal safety standard applicable to an aspect of performance of any motor vehicle, a State may not 'establish . . . any safety standard applicable to the *same aspect of performance* of *such vehicle* . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard. (Emphasis added.) The application of this section turns upon both of the underlined factors. Consequently, the existence of a Federal safety standard applicable to an aspect of performance of a particular vehicle type does not preclude the establishment of a State law regarding the same aspect of performance of another vehicle type unregulated by the Federal standard. Since FMVSS 215 does not apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, a State may regulate the bumpers of such vehicles without regard to the Federal standard. Of course, if FMVSS 215 is subsequently extended to multipurpose passenger vehicles, State laws regulating the bumpers on those vehicles would have to be made to conform with the Federal standard or they would be preempted.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. As requested, have enclosed a copy of the notice issuing FMVSS 215 (36 F.R. 7218) and related notices. Among the other notices is the notice of proposed rulemaking (35 F.R. 17999) which preceded issuance of the standard. The preamble of that notice contains a passage regarding the preemptive effect of the standard.; Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.