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: nht95-1.66OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: February 14, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Baysul Parker -- Manager, Safety Department, California Trucking Association TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/20/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO J. LESLIE DOBSON, 7/1/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO GENE FOUTS, 3/19/91 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JERRY TASSAN, 5/24/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN PAUL BARBER, AND 12/21/94 LETTER FROM BAYSUL PARKER TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 10622) TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 21, 1994, in which you state that you have received numerous inquiries regarding whether an alterer can change a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) before the vehicle's first sale. You state that you hav e received similar inquiries concerning changes to the GVWR on used vehicles. You describe these inquiries as coming generally from owners of vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 26,000 pounds who wish to lower the GVWR so that these vehicles may be driven by operators who do not possess a commercial driver's license. From your review of regulations governing vehicle certification that have been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), you express the understanding that only a vehicle manufacturer can assign a GVWR, but that either the manufacturer or "an alterer approved by NHTSA" can change the GVWR before the vehicle's first sale. This has led you to ask whether there is a list of NHTSA approved alterers. Under NHTSA's regulations on vehicle certification, found at 49 CFR Part 567, the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle is responsible for affixing a label to the vehicle that specifies, among other things, the vehicle's GVWR. Section 567.4(g)(3) of those regulations states that the GVWR assigned by the manufacturer "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." NHTSA requires a vehicle's GVWR to be specif ied on the certification label to inform the vehicle's owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load carrying capacity, and intended use. Section 567.7 of NHTSA's certification regulations provides that if a vehicle is altered before its first purchase in such a manner that the vehicle's GVWR is different from that shown on the original certification label, the modified GVWR must be specif ied on the label that the alterer affixes to the vehicle. Contrary to your understanding, NHTSA does not approve vehicle alterers, and consequently maintains no list of such enterprises. You stated that you have received inquires concerning whether the GVWR of a used vehicle can be changed. As detailed in the certification regulations discussed above, a vehicle's GVWR is assigned by its manufacturer as part of the certification process. To avoid statutory violations, the manufacturer must complete the certification process before the vehicle is first sold to a consumer. The GVWR is therefore fixed prior to this first sale. The only exception to this is if the manufacturer seeks to c orrect an error (such as an error in calculation or a typographical error) in the originally assigned GVWR. NHTSA recognizes no other circumstances in which an originally assigned GVWR can be changed. The agency has stated on a number of occasions that modifications to assigned GVWRs should not be made for reasons relating to the GVWR threshold of the commerc ial driver's license program. This is reflected in the enclosed letters to J. Leslie Dobson, dated November 20, 1992, Gene Fouts, dated July 1, 1992, and Jerry Tassan, dated March 19, 1991. The commercial driver's licensing program is administered by t he Federal Highway Administration. If you have any further questions concerning licensing requirements for operators of commercial motor vehicles, you should contact Mr. James Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-1, Federal Highw ay Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning NHTSA's certification regulations, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at 202-366-5263. |
|
ID: 07-004355asOpenMr. Guy Dorleans International & Regulatory Affairs Valeo Lighting Systems 34, rue Saint-Andr 93 012 Bobigny Cedex France Dear Mr. Dorleans: This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the activation of daytime running lamps (DRLs) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask whether various LED (light-emitting diode) lamp designs, incorporating a parking lamp function in addition to other functions, can be used as DRLs under the standard. Our answer is that this would not be prohibited by FMVSS 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. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. The relevant language in FMVSS No. 108 regarding the regulation of DRLs is paragraph S5.5.11(a). This paragraph reads, in part: Any pair of lamps on the front of a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps, may be wired to be automatically activated, as determined by the manufacturer of the vehicle, in a steady burning state as daytime running lamps (DRLs) and to be automatically deactivated when the headlamp control is in any on position In your letter, you described two scenarios in which an array of four LEDs that could serve as both a parking lamp and as a DRL. In the first scenario, one LED in the array is activated alone in parking lamp mode, while all four are activated in DRL mode. In the second scenario, all four LEDs in the array are activated at a low intensity in parking lamp mode, and all four are activated at a higher intensity in DRL mode. You indicated that for both scenarios the lamp would meet the specified photometric requirements for whichever function was activated, i.e., parking lamp or DRL. We believe that both designs would be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. In a 1997 letter of interpretation which we have enclosed,[1] we explained the rationale of prohibiting parking lamps to be used as DRLs. In that letter, we stated: [A] manufacturer may use any pair of front lamps for the DRL feature, other than parking lamps (too small to be effective) or fog lamps (too bright). For the purpose of S5.5.11(a), the array of LEDs that you described in your letter, which can serve the function of parking lamps or other lamps depending on how they are activated, would not be considered parking lamps in either of the scenarios that you described. In DRL mode, the lamps would be substantially brighter than the parking lamps, and according to your letter, their photometric output would comply with the requirements of S5.5.11(a)(1), which sets minimum and maximum output for DRLs. This would result in effective DRLs, which is the intent of the requirement in FMVSS No. 108. We also note that the use of multifunction lamps, including lamps that function, in part, as parking lamps, were considered in the development of the DRL standards. In a 1988 letter of interpretation,[2] we stated that: [A] lamp that functions both as a parking lamp and a DRL and which is operated in daylight could act as either a DRL or a parking lamp, depending on the intensity of the light emitted, but it would have to meet the photometric requirements for the function being exercised. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d.4/29/08 [1] September 29, 1997 letter to Mr. Walter E. Ellis, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] February 19, 1988 letter to Mr. M. Arisaka, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. This statement was analyzing the proposed language in FMVSS No. 108, later adopted, requiring that a DRL would have to be a lamp other than a parking lamp. [emphasis added] |
2008 |
ID: 2511yOpen Mr. C. Coleman Bird Dear Mr. Bird: This responds to your request for an interpretation by this office as to whether a portable back massage device capable of being used in an automobile and powered by the vehicle's electrical system constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The product you described in your letter consists of an inflatable cushion that conforms to the user's back and contains two electric massage units capable of massaging the upper and lower portions of the user's back. The device can also provide heat. It is designed for use either indoors or in a vehicle by means of an adapter which plugs into the cigarette lighter. When the device is used in a vehicle, it is simply placed on the seat, and does not require any additional installation, other than connection to a power supply. You have asked three questions about this device, which I have discussed below. Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? Section 102(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle..... (Emphasis added.) Since the portable back massage device is not original equipment or sold for replacment or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an "accessory." In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory," the agency considers the following two criteria: First, when a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, the product should be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Second, if the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of such motor vehicles, we would consider it to be an accessory. Based on the limited information you have provided, I am unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the back massage device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. However, I will explain the considerations the agency focuses upon when applying the above critieria to specific products. We would determine the expected uses of a product by considering the product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store which retails the product, as well as any available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. For example, if the device is portrayed in advertising as being in used in motor vehicles, includes as a standard feature a 12 volt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, and is sold through retail outlets specializing in automotive equipment and accesories, it would be more likely to be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment than a product which did not have these characteris- tics. In evaluating the second criteria, the agency looks at whether the product is intended primarily for the use of consumers, rather than by professionals such as automotive repair and service personnel. Your second question concerned whether the back massager would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the device is not determined to be an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is beyond the scope of the agency's authority to regulate it. Even if it is determined to be motor vehicle equipment, and therefore subject to other provisions of the Safety Act, there is no Standard applicable to this type of device. With regard to your final question, we do not generally provide advice about the authority of other Federal agencies. However, if it is not considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may have requirements governing such a device. It is also possible the Food and Drug Administration might consider it to be a medical device subject to that agency's regulation. In addition, some States may choose to regulate such devices. I am enclosing an information sheet which describes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards program, and how to get copies of the standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d:6/5/90 |
1990 |
ID: nht74-2.2OpenDATE: 03/08/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Certain-Teed Products Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your January 25, 1974, question whether failure of a "common" clampband assembly on the "Camtite" emergency and parking spring brake, which would cause complete loss of air to the service brake system and failure of the emergency/parking brake portion of one unit, would be in violation of paragraph S5.7.2.2 of Standard 121. The answer is no. S5.7.2.2 requires that failure of components common to the service and emergency braking systems shall not result in a loss of air that causes the parking brake to be inoperable. We interpret "parking brake" to mean the entire parking brake system. The failure you describe would not render the entire system inoperable, because all parking brakes other than the affected unit would remain operable. This letter will be placed in the public file for the information of other interested persons. Yours truly, ATTACH. CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION January 25, 1974 Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 - Air Brake Systems Dear Sir: We have been questioned by a customer for an interpretation as to the conformance of our CAMTITE emergency and parking spring brake design, as described in the attached brochure, to Paragraph S5.7.2.2., EMERGENCY BRAKING SYSTEM FAILURE, of FMVSS 121. This paragraph states: "In the event of a failure of a valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing that is common to the service brake and emergency braking systems, loss of air shall not cause the parking brake system to be inoperable." The service brake portion of our Camtite is "sectioned" in white and the emergency or parking spring brake portion in black on the Dimensional Drawing page of the enclosed brochure (SB-102). The clampband (Item #12 on the Parts List page) is common to both the service and emergency/parking brake portion of the unit. We would appreciate a reply to the question: "Would failure of the "common" clampband assembly during a service brake application which could cause both loss of air and the complete "disengagement" of the service brake pressure side, as well as the total emergency/parking spring brake portion of the unit, be in violation of the intent of paragraph S5.7.2.2. of FMVSS 121?". Very truly yours, C. W. Mohr -- Vice President-Marketing [Graphics omitted] [Graphics omitted] REPLACEMENT PARTS NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. TYPE 24 TYPE 30 TYPE 36 1 Cylinder Assembly 1 47-31737-9 -- 47-40108-9 2 Piston Assembly 1 47-31797-9 -- 47-40093-9 3 Felt Wiper Ring 1 47-31805-9 -- -- 4 Piston Seal Ring 1 47-31799-9 -- -- 5 Seal Ring 1 36-524615 -- -- 6 Nylon Bushing 1 47-31745-9 -- -- 7 Bulkhead Seal Ring 1 47-31800-9 -- -- 8 Retaining Ring 1 47-31804-9 -- -- 9 Bulkhead 1 47-31747-9 47-31738-9 47-40095-9 10 Machine Screw 1 47-36161-9 -- -- 11 Follower 1 47-31785-9 -- -- 12 Clamp Band Assembly 1 40-31061-9 40-31062-9 40-31063-9 13 Self Tapping Screw 2 47-40012-9 -- -- 14 Diaphragm 1 40-31251-9 40-31165-9 40-31252-9 15 Return Spring 1 47-31258-9 -- -- 16 Non Pressure Plate 1 47-31364-9 47-31267-9 47-40098-9 17 Filter 1 47-31971-9 -- -- 18 Stop Washer 1 47-31974-9 -- -- 19 Snap Plug 1 47-31975-9 -- -- 20 Release Bolt 1 47-31970-9 - 47-40105-9 21 Capscrew 8 46-31656-9 -- -- 22 Spring (Light) 1 41-31920-9 -- -- Spring (Medium) 1 41-31921-9 -- -- Spring (Heavy) 1 41-31922-9 -- -- Spring (Booster) 1 47-40112-9 -- -40101 Push Rod (8.00 Proj.) 1 47-36034-9 47-31986-9 47-40102-9 Spring Locator 1 47-40191-9 -- -- NOTE: The symbol -*- indicates part is identical to part number listed in first column. Parts that differ are listed under appropriate type number. Parts shown are for complete units. DIMENSIONAL DRAWING REFERENCES A. AIR INLET ORIENTATION STANDARD 22 1/2 degrees +/- 3 degrees B. CLAMP BAND ORIENTATION STANDARD 45 degrees +/- 3 degrees C. PUSH ROD PROJECTION (See back page) D. YOKE CENTER PROJECTION (See back page) CAMTITE NOMINAL SPRING FORCES (OUTPUT OF COMPLETE UNIT) [Graphics omitted] CAMTITE SPRING RELEASE PRESSURE NOMINAL RELEASE SPRING TYPE PRESSURE +/- 10% BOOSTER 30 LIGHT (40) 40 MEDIUM (50) 51 HEAVY (60) 62 MEDIUM PLUS 81 BOOSTER HEAVY PLUS 91 BOOSTER NOTE: FOR EASE OF INSTALLATION ALL UNITS ARE SHIPPED IN MECHANICALLY RELEASED POSITION. [Graphics omitted] PUSH ROD AND YOKE SIZES PUSH ROD PROJECTION: Push Rod Projection is the Distance the Push Rod Extends Out from the Mounting Face of the CAMTITE Chamber. When Replacing Service Brakes with CAMTITE Chambers, the Push Rod Projection Length will Remain the Same. CAMTITE Standard Projection Length is 1-3/4" TYPE OF PROJECTIONS PART CHAMBER AVAILABLE NUMBER 24 1-3/4" (Std.) 47-31512-9 24 8" 47-36034-9 30 1-3/4" (Std.) 47-31511-9 30 8" 47-31986-9 36 1-3/4" (Std.) 47-40101-9 36 8" 47-40102-9 Other projections available upon special request. (Illegible Word) ASSEMBLIES: CAMTITE Yoke Assemblies are Available and may be Ordered as Complete Assemblies Containing Yoke, Yoke Pin, and Cotter Pin, or the Assembly Components May be Ordered Separately. For Special Applications Requiring the Yoke to be Applied at Factory the Dimension from the Mounting Surface of the CAMTITE Chamber to Center Line of the Yoke Pin Should Be Specified. [Graphics omitted] ASSEMBLY DIMENSIONS PART NUMBER 1 2 3 4 D 1-3/ 40360479 1-27/32" 1/2" 9/16" 8" 3" 1-3/ 40360489 1-3/4" 5/8" 9/16" 8" 3" 13/ 1-3/ 40360499 1-7/8" 3/4" 16" 8" 3" **Figures for "O" Represent Standard Dimension Using Push Rods with 1-5/4" Projection. |
|
ID: aiam1258OpenMrs. Deborah D. Richards, Chairman of the Board, Action for Child Transportation Safety, 400 Central Park West, 2R, New York, NY 10025; Mrs. Deborah D. Richards Chairman of the Board Action for Child Transportation Safety 400 Central Park West 2R New York NY 10025; Dear Mrs. Richards: Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1973, concerning you organization and its support for improved child restraint and school bus safety standards.; We hope to issue notices of proposed rule making on child restrain systems and on the strength of structural joints of school bodies this fall. We are also actively involved in rule making action in the bus passenger seating and crash protection area.; Concerning Standard No 17, this is not a standard where full an immediate compliance by states is possible. A reasonable amount of time, which will vary from state to state, will be allowed for compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does, however, expect all states to reach substantial fulfillment of the requirements of this standard by the fall of 1977. According to our data, 16 states indicate complete compliance as of May 1973.; We are enclosing a copy of our May 1973 School Bus Task Force Repor which outlines recommendations for work in the school bus area. This may be of use to you as a resource for your newsletter.; When our dynamic test amendment to the child restraint standard i published as a final rule, we plan to revise our consumer information booklet entitled 'What to Buy in Child Restraint Systems.' We hope this publication will greatly improve usage of the proper type restraint by more and more children.; We appreciate your efforts in promoting safety for children who ar passengers in motor vehicles.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: 22151.drnOpen The Honorable Patsy Mink Dear Congresswoman Mink: Thank you for your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator Dr. Sue Bailey. Your constituent, Ms. Grace Fox works for the Lutheran High School in Honolulu. Ms. Fox's school was notified by their insurance company that the school's coverage would not be continued because the vans used by the school to transport students do not meet Federal safety standards. You wish to know what the Federal standards for school buses are and whether the standards apply to both public school and private school buses. Because you seek information about NHTSA's laws, Dr. Bailey has asked me to respond to you. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. (1) 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" sold to a school district, or to a private school, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or private school that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute. Some of the FMVSSs have additional requirements that apply to school buses, but do not apply to buses that are not school buses. In addition, some FMVSSs apply only to school buses. As an example of the former, additional exterior lighting and reflective tape are required that make these vehicles more visible and alert other motorists that school children may be in the roadway when a school bus is stopped. For the latter, school buses must be equipped with stop arm devices to reduce the instances where other motorists pass stopped school buses. Furthermore, school buses must provide crash protection in areas where pupils are seated. Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. A school district or private school can be sold a used bus, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash. I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses. Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. Enclosures
1. NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events. |
2000 |
ID: 17440.drnOpenJörg S. Mager, Vehicle Policy Engineer Dear Mr. Mager: This responds to your request for information on U. S. requirements for aftermarket tinting of motor vehicle glazing by means of self-adhesive films. You posed several questions which are answered below: The first question concerned the "current legal position" of motor vehicle tinting in the United States. You also wished to know what Federal policy is with respect to tinting. NHTSA has the authority under 49 USC 30111 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to all new motor vehicles at time of first sale to the consumer. Standard No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR Part 571.205) specifies performance requirements for glazing, and includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. In establishing the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for motor vehicle glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined that level met the need for motor vehicle safety. Although Standard No. 205 itself does not apply after the first sale of the vehicle, 49 USC 30122(b) prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The effect of Section 30122(b) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard No. 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. Note however, that NHTSA's regulations do not apply to certain parties or actions. Vehicle owners are not restricted by Federal law in the modifications that they make to their vehicles, and could tint their windows as dark as they like without violating Federal law (although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than Standard No. 205 allows). NHTSA recommends that vehicle owners not degrade the safety features of the glazing in their motor vehicles by tinting the glazing darker than Standard No. 205 allows. Federal law also does not regulate the operation or use of vehicles, which is under the jurisdiction of the individual States. Under certain circumstances, State laws would be preempted by Federal law. 49 USC 30103(b)(1) states "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [federal standard]." A State law would be preempted by the Federal law to the extent that it regulates the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permits something prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as modifications by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses that would violate Standard No. 205). A State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture and sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard No. 205. State requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as the state requirements do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a State could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. You asked about the outcome of the "Blue Skies" case in the Middle District of Florida. In a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking of January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) (copy enclosed), NHTSA noted the following regarding the "Blue Skies" case:
Please note that the U.S. government did not appeal the decision of the Florida District Court. Also, NHTSA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the January 22, 1992 Federal Register notice. You asked if NHTSA has a list of the "legal requirements with respect to the minimum visible light transmittance allowed by the states for windows of motor vehicles." Since NHTSA does not maintain such a list, we cannot provide it to you. You also asked if "the requirements in terms of permissible minium visible light transmittance spelled out in FMVSS 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1:1995 will be adopted on a state level in the foreseeable future." NHTSA has no information on any planned state actions in this area. As described in our answer to the first set of questions, depending on the conduct or aspects of performance it seeks to regulate, a State law reducing the level of window light transmittance below the Federal standard may be preempted by Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's March 1991 "Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows." Among other matters, the report discusses: (1) the current performance requirements in the Federal standard concerning window light transmittance, (2) how vehicles on the road at the time the report was written compare to the standard's requirements, (3) the rules and regulation other countries have in effect (at the time the report was written) on light transmittance through windows, (4) research on the effect of various tinting levels on depth perception, night vision, or other faculties that affect safety. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 1985-02.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/16/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Jeffrey Richard -- JBR Manufacturing TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556
This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).
Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. 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. After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.
If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.
I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel
Enclosure
JRB Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield, IA 52556 (515) 472-7249 Jeffrey Richard
To whom it may concern:
We are proud to have solved the problems of the glare form the sun, of the automobile driver and its passengers, with our all new Glare Stopper.
The Glare Stopper is a great help for stopping glare from babies eyes, while sitting in the required car seat. It is also a big help for the driver from glare when the sun is too low for the sun visor, or too far over. The Glare Stopper will easily stick, or adhere to, the glass, with its suction cups. It is easily moved with one hand. The Glare Stopper works well for coverage of the side mirror at night, when headlights blind driver from seeing ahead, one only has to stick it to the side glass over the mirror. Passengers also enjoy the Glare Stopper to cover the glare in the rear windshield, as well as rear side windows. Driver enjoys the Glare Stopper to cover glare off the hood as well as glare coming in the side window, or when the glare comes in just beside the rear mirror. Glare Stopper now makes it safer for drivers to drive into the morning or evening sun. Being just about the size of a persons hand, 4" x 6", makes it easy to see around while being used by a passenger. For added safety, a warning label has been placed on the back of the Glare Stopper where it will obstruct driver's view. Glare Stopper is made of a durable rubber called jolite. It can't be torn, just cut. It is a semi-transparent material. I have spoken to the law officers and officials which were of the state of Iowa. They said the Glare Stopper didn't violate any of Iowa's obstruction or tint laws for automobiles, because it didn't cover a large portion of the windshield.
I did, however, want the approval of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
This is my first invention and company establishment, therefore I'd appreciate full consideration of my product. I have enclosed one full sample, as well as, portions of the other colors, which they come in.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Truly,
JRB Manufacturing Jeffrey Richard Owner/Inventor Manager/Salesman
P.S. The Glare Stopper's rough backside keeps it from reflecting the sun from your car into the eyes of an oncoming car. Enclosures |
|
ID: aiam4915OpenWilliam Engel, Assistant Chief Covington Fire Department 100 E. Robbins St. Covington, KY 41011; William Engel Assistant Chief Covington Fire Department 100 E. Robbins St. Covington KY 41011; "Dear Mr. Engel: This responds to your letter asking whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that 'components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommmodations shall conform to this standard.' S4 Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4913OpenWilliam Engel, Assistant Chief Covington Fire Department 100 E. Robbins St. Covington, KY 41011; William Engel Assistant Chief Covington Fire Department 100 E. Robbins St. Covington KY 41011; "Dear Mr. Engel: This responds to your letter asking whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that 'components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommmodations shall conform to this standard.' S4 Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
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.