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: aiam4070OpenMr. Robert J. Crail, Theurer, Inc., Route 1, Box 300, Helenwood, TN 37755; Mr. Robert J. Crail Theurer Inc. Route 1 Box 300 Helenwood TN 37755; Dear Mr. Crail: This responds to your letter of August 20, 1985, requesting a interpretation of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR 571.121). You asked whether an extendable intermodal container chassis which adjusts to haul containers which vary in length between 40 feet and 48 feet is a 'heavy hauler trailer' as defined in Section S4 of Standard No. 121. Specifically, you would like to know whether the extendable container chassis described above must comply with Sections S5.2.1.2 and S5.3, and whether you or your customer may utilize the options available in Section S5.6 for parking brake systems and in Section S5.8 for emergency brake systems.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; The extendable container chassis trailers which you describe have brak lines which are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. According to Section S4 of Standard No. 121, a trailer whose 'brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame....' is, by definition, a heavy hauler trailer. Thus, your extendable chassis trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer within the definition of S4.; Section S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121 provides that trailers with ai brakes are generally required to have total service reservoir volume which is 'at least eight times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.' This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.2.1.2 which provides, 'However, the reservoir on a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet this requirement.'; Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with whic must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailer. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, 'However, a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet the requirements of S5.3.' Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly excepted from all of the requirements of S5.3.; Finally, you asked whether the trailer you manufacture may tak advantage of the options available in Section S5.6 for the parking brake system and in Section S5.8 for the emergency brake system. Both Sections S5.6 and S5.8 specifically give manufacturers of heavy hauler trailers the choice of complying with the requirements of those sections... 'or at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of sec. 393.43 of this title.' Title 49 CFR section 393.43 sets forth requirements for breakaway and emergency brakes. An extendable container chassis which comes within the S4 definition of heavy hauler trailer may comply with the section 393.43 requirements or the parking and emergency brake requirements of Standard No. 121 Sections S5.6 and S5.8, respectively.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4289OpenMr. George Ziolo, 16182 Arena Drive, Ramona, CA 92065; Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona CA 92065; Dear Mr. Ziolo: This letter responds to your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 111. I apologize for the delay. As I understand your question, you are concerned with a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror apparently does not meet the field-of-view specifications in S5.1 of FMVSS 111 and therefore that must have an outside passenger side mirror in order to comply with the standard. You wish to know whether the need to inscribe the convex mirror in accordance with S5.4.2 is eliminated when the passenger side of the car has both a complying mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror.; Please understand that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manfuacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicle or equipment complies with applicable standards. Therefore, this letter is an opinion based on the facts you provide in your letter.; The answer to your question is 'yes.' The passenger side of a new ca would need an outside convex mirror inscribed in accordance with S5.4..2 only if its inside rearview mirror failed to meet the S5.1.1 field of view specifications, and the manufacturer chose to comply with the requirement of S5.3 for an outside passenger side mirror by installing a convex passenger-side mirror. S5.4 provides that the requirements in S5.4.1 - S5.4.3 are applicable to a convex mirror only if that mirror is used to comply with S5.3. In your example, a mirror of unit magnification is used to comply with S5.3. I should add that the manufacturer would have to ensure that installing the convex mirror does not take the mirror of unit magnification out of compliance with FMVSS 111.; Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4014OpenMr. Richard A. Gomes, Supervisor, Technical Support, Room 28, New York City Transit Authority, 25 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207; Mr. Richard A. Gomes Supervisor Technical Support Room 28 New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207; Dear Mr. Gomes: This responds to your June 21, 1985 letter to this office concernin our requirements for emergency exits under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. I apologize for the delay in our response.; In a July 15 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, yo explained that your question concerns the side rear door on transit buses which is used to unload passengers. The door in question is not intended as an emergency exit, and the buses have the requisite emergency exits in compliance with Standard No. 217 without the need to count the rear exit door. Typically, passengers can exit the bus by pushing handles which open the door, after the driver activates a mechanism located in the driver's compartment. The Transit Authority would like to place another activating mechanism near the rear exit door that can be operated 'in an emergency.' You propose to place the second mechanism in a 'break-away' plastic case and ask whether we have standards specifying requirements for materials used for that purpose.; There are no safety standards setting requirements for the material yo wish to use to cover the secondary release mechanism. Your questions, however, raises the issue of the applicability of Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements to the rear exit door. This question arises in cases where a label is attached to a door indicating that it is to be used in an emergency.; From your description, it appears that a label would be attached to th mechanism at the rear door instructing passengers how to open the door in an emergency.; We have stated in the past that a door that is not labeled or intende as an emergency exit need not comply with the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217. However, if a door were labeled with instructions on how to open the door in case of an emergency, such as 'To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down,' then the label indicates that the door is intended for use as an emergency exit. Such a door must comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, since the label indicates to the occupants that the door is suitable for use in an emergency and it is likely that riders would use the door as an emergency exit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in emergencies.; One purpose of Standard No. 217 is to provide a means of readil accessible emergency egress. While the standard does not explicitly prohibit a plastic case around an emergency exit release mechanism, it is obvious that any type of design or device which would inhibit the release of the mechanism would not be allowed. We urge you to ensure that the release mechanism is easily accessible to bus occupants and that the plastic case does not unnecessarily impede its operation.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (1 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.), manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person selling you a new bus with the rear exit door marked as an emergency exit must ensure that the door meets Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. The Transit Authority may modify its buses by labeling the rear exit door with instructions for use in an emergency after it receives delivery of the vehicles without regard to our safety standards, since our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of vehicles by their owners. However, we would urge the Transit Authority to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2666OpenMr. William B. Maddox, Secretary-Treasurer, Bedell Trailer Company, 1506-14 South Flores Street, San Antonio, TX 78295; Mr. William B. Maddox Secretary-Treasurer Bedell Trailer Company 1506-14 South Flores Street San Antonio TX 78295; Dear Mr. Maddox: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking who is responsibl for compliance with the standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.; Compliance with Federal safety standards is the responsibility of th manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381; et seq*.) as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling o motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment ....' Therefore, in the cases to which you refer, the assembler of the vehicle would be responsible for ensuring the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal safety standards. The purchaser is not responsible for compliance with the requirements unless he assembles the vehicles, thereby becoming the manufacturer.; Dealers are prohibited by section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act from sellin any completed motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the standards. A dealer is permitted, however, to rely upon the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle conforms to the standards' requirements. Therefore, prior to sale of a vehicle a dealer should make sure that the manufacturer has complied with the certification requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, of our regulations which are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; A dealer is not prohibited from selling an 'incomplete vehicle' as tha term is defined in Part 568 of our regulations. Such an incomplete vehicle would require further manufacturing before its final certification for compliance with the standards. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer would need to fulfill it's (sic) responsibilities as outlined in Part 568. The person who completes the vehicle would then be responsible for the vehicle complying with standards. You should note that vehicles that lack merely readily attachable components are not 'incomplete vehicles.' They are completed vehicles. The sale of any such vehicle that was not certified for compliance with all applicable standards would be a violation of the Act.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement |
|
ID: aiam2892OpenMr. J. K. Novell, Alloy Trailers, Incorporated, P.O. Box 19208, Spokane, WA 99204; Mr. J. K. Novell Alloy Trailers Incorporated P.O. Box 19208 Spokane WA 99204; Dear Mr. Novell: This responds to your October 24, 1978, questions about the effect o the *PACCAR v. NHTSA* decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.; Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision Only the 'road testing' requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.; One question raised is whether the court invalidated these 'roa testing' requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation 'at the time [the standard] was put into effect' (573 F2d. at 640).; Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks 'no lockup performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.; A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have been antilock equipped, S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 ....<<<; The issue is whether the antilock was 'installed .... in complianc with an applicable .... standard.' Because the NHTSA concluded that the 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of S 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.; I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the firs retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.; The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different i the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under S 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety- related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken.'Adequate repair' is defined in S 159(4) not to include 'any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment.' The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safety-related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.; A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain 'road testing' portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, 'no lockup', timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.; Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes a importation in violation of S 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.; You also asked whether the 12- foot-lane requirement of S5.3.2 fo trailers remains in effect. The answer to your question is yes. Because trailers are not required to stop within a specified distance, we concluded that there would be no difficulty in coming to a controlled stop within the 12-foot-lane without 'no lockup' performance, as long as the 90-psi application requirement was also considered invalidated by the Ninth Circuit. If you have information that indicates this not to be the case, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible as the basis for reconsideration of our interpretation.; You undoubtedly noted that our October 19th *Federal Register* notic of interpretation of the *PACCAR* decision stated that requirements such as reservoir capacity were not invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, despite their indirect relationship to the 'no lockup' requirement. As for rulemaking to make such a change, I have enclosed a copy of our recent proposal on trailer parking and emergency brake requirements. You will find a discussion of the reservoir issue on page 41058 and a request for information from manufacturers. I encourage you to submit available information to the NHTSA, at the address noted in the proposal.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2049OpenLeonard A. Fink, Esq., Messrs. Friedman, Medalie, Ochs and Jacks, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Leonard A. Fink Esq. Messrs. Friedman Medalie Ochs and Jacks 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1975, concernin Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards. You ask for confirmation that there is no Federal requirement for turn signal lamps or a dual beam headlamp on a motor-driven cycle whose maximum speed does not exceed 30 mph, and that a State is preempted from requiring such items of equipment on these vehicles.; As you noted, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that where a Federal moto vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not establish or maintain in effect a different standard that covers the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), establishes the Federal requirements for motorcycle lighting. All motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and October 14, 1974, were required to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, effective October 14, 1974, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose top speed does not exceed 30 mph need not be manufactured with turn signal lamps as required lighting equipment (S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108). Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, *Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps*, April 1964. See Table 1 of J584). This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one. It also means that, if a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 mph is not equipped with turn signal lamps, a State may not require them.; I hope you will find this of assistance to your clients, Steyr Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5325OpenMr. Darryl Cobb Route 2 Box 685 Abbeville, GA 31001; Mr. Darryl Cobb Route 2 Box 685 Abbeville GA 31001; "Dear Mr. Cobb: This responds to your inquiry about how Federa regulations would affect the sale of an aftermarket rearview mirror you plan to import into the United States. You stated that this mirror system would be installed on the driver's side of a passenger car. A brochure accompanying your letter indicated that the mirror system contains both a portion that is a flat mirror of unit magnification and a portion along the outer edge that is convex. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA issued performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in Standard No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type. Please note that since Standard No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under the Safety Act, the mirror is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: '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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced a complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of the render inoperative provision. The Safety Act does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4959OpenMr. Paul N. Wagner President Bornemann Products Incorporated 402 Industrial Drive P.O. Box 427 Bremen, IN 46506; Mr. Paul N. Wagner President Bornemann Products Incorporated 402 Industrial Drive P.O. Box 427 Bremen IN 46506; "Dear Mr. Wagner: This responds to your letter seeking furthe information about the extension of the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection to light trucks and vans. You indicated that you were particularly interested in the application of the dynamic testing requirements to vehicles manufactured in more than one stage. Your letter stated that throughout 1991 your company was repeatedly led to believe there would be no delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the application of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans. Your letter also indicated that, after proceeding with testing to ensure that your company's van conversions would comply with the dynamic testing requirements, you found additional complications hampering your testing efforts. In response to these complications, your company filed a petition asking that the applicability of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage be delayed from the scheduled September 1, 1991 date until April 1, 1992. NHTSA received your petition on August 29, 1991. This petition was rejected as untimely and you were notified of the rejection in an October 10, 1991 letter from Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your company proceeded with further testing after you learned that NHTSA had not accepted your petition, and have been able to certify that your conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. Your letter estimated that the total cost of the research and testing performed by your company to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements was nearly $200,000. Then, on January 21, 1992, your company received a memorandum from the trade group Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), announcing that representatives of RVIA had met with representatives of this agency on January 14, 1992. You believed that the RVIA memorandum 'indicates a delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the dynamic testing requirements is on the horizon.' Your letter suggested that there is now confusion among van converters and other multistage manufacturers about the status of the dynamic testing requirements for vehicles manufactured in more than one stage. You asked us to state whether a delay in the effective date for the dynamic testing requirements as applied to multistage vehicles is now being considered by the agency. The answer is no. There was a meeting between representatives of this agency and the RVIA on January 14, 1992. From our perspective, the meeting was informative and constructive, and provided us with further insights into the efforts that were needed for van converters to ensure that their vans complied with the new dynamic testing requirements. We hope to maintain such dialogues with RVIA and any other interested multistage manufacturers. However, our January 14, 1992 meeting did not change some facts. First, the dynamic testing requirements took effect for light trucks and vans on September 1, 1991, including light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. This means that each light truck and van manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 had to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the dynamic testing requirements. Second, any member of the public can petition the agency to modify any of its standards, including the dynamic testing requirements as they apply generally to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. If RVIA should submit a petition to modify the dynamic testing requirements, as it suggested it would in the memorandum you received, NHTSA would consider that petition according to the same procedures followed in the case of your company's petition on this subject or any other petition from the public. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further concerns or questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3938OpenMr. Gerald A. Lakas, Custom Window Tinting Services, 5016-A 46th Avenue, Hyattsville, MD 20781; Mr. Gerald A. Lakas Custom Window Tinting Services 5016-A 46th Avenue Hyattsville MD 20781; Dear Mr. Lakas: Thank you for your letter concerning our regulations that affec tinting businesses, such as yours. I hope that the following discussion will clarify our regulations and answer the questions you raised.; Please note that in all the correspondence the agency has had with you your attorney, and others concerning your business, we have never stated that it is illegal to add all tinting to the glazing of a motor vehicle. We have stated, however, that it is illegal to add some types and levels of tinting. Let me explain further the effect our regulations on tinting.; *Federal Law* The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In 1967, the agency issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. (A copy of that standard and the American National Standards Institute's code incorporated by reference in our standard has been previously provided to you.); The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulatin the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. A manufacturer 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 tinting film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to the 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 tinting film 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 abrasion resistance and other requirements of the standard.; In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act to address the problems of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle after its first sale. The 1974 amendments added section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 . . . .<<<; Thus no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add tinting to the glazing materials of a motor vehicle, if that tinting would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. Again, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not prohibit tinting, it merely limits the use of tinting. The agency has consistently attempted to explain our interpretation of section 108(a)(2)(A) in letters to vehicle, glazing, and tinting manufacturers, state governments, and individual tinting shops. You indicated that we need to do a better job of conveying our interpretation to all affected persons. We will look at ways to accomplish that goal.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on a individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any tinting they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that tinting would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205. The agency, of course, urges individual owners not to install dark tinting on their vehicles.; *State Law* Although the agency does not have the authority to regulate the action of individual vehicle owners, States do have such authority. The agency is aware that a number of States have adopted laws which address the tinting of motor vehicles. Let me emphasize that State laws which are inconsistent with these Federal requirements are preempted. Any State law or regulation which would permit any person to install tinting 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 in new vehicles 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 tinting materials on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is also preempted.; *Requirements for Different Vehicles* You asked for an explanation of why there is a difference between th visibility requirements set for passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The agency has generally applied more stringent safety requirements for passenger cars, the most prevalent type of vehicle on the road, and has subsequently applied the same or similar requirements to other vehicle types.; In the case of the glazing requirements, the agency has considered al the windows in a passenger car requisite for driving visibility. The agency has applied different requirements to other vehicles such as vans, because of traditional differences in their construction and use. Many vans are constructed without any windows to the rear of the driver. In addition, the space behind the driver in vans is frequently used to haul objects which prevent an interior view to the rear of the vehicle. Because of this situation, the agency has required trucks, buses and van-type vehicles to have dual outside mirrors to ensure that the driver will have a view to the rear of the vehicle.; *VESC Guidelines* You also asked about the guidelines adopted by the Vehicle Equipmen Safety Commission (VESC). In 1958, Congress authorized the creation of VESC for the purpose of encouraging State cooperation in the establishment and carrying out of traffic safety programs. VESC, however, had no authority to adopt regulatory standards that would directly affect individuals, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses. Although VESC could recommend guidelines, those guidelines would have to be adopted by the States to have the force of law. VESC ceased operations in January 1984. In 1980, VESC adopted a guideline, designated as VESC-20, on the tinting of glazing on used vehicles. Several of the provisions in VESC-20 conflict with the requirements of Standard No. 205. As discussed above, the adoption of VESC-20 by a State would govern the use of tinting by an individual vehicle owner. However, that State law would not affect the use of tinting by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, whose conduct would still be affected by our regulations.; You asked about Maryland's adoption of a regulation based, in part, o VESC-20. Since VESC- 20 is merely a guideline, Maryland is free to choose the portions of VESC-20 it wishes to adopt, but those portions conflicting with Standard No. 205 are subject to Federal preemption.; *AAMVA Approval* You asked about the effect of a 'notice of equipment compliance' issue to tinting manufacturers by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), which apparently is a certification by the AAMVA that the material complies with VESC-20. Our regulations do not require a manufacturer of tinting materials to obtain a notice of equipment compliance from AAMVA. Individual States may have adopted regulations which require tinting manufacturers to obtain such notices.; Whether a manufacturer has an AAMVA notice or its tinting material ha been approved by a State has no effect on our regulations. As explained above, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business install tinting film which would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with Standard No. 205, there would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5626OpenMr. Glenn J. Vick, National Account Manager Marketing and Sales Office Commercial Truck Vehicle Center Ford Automotive Operations Regent Court, Suite 950 16800 Executive Plaza Drive Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. Glenn J. Vick National Account Manager Marketing and Sales Office Commercial Truck Vehicle Center Ford Automotive Operations Regent Court Suite 950 16800 Executive Plaza Drive Dearborn MI 48126; "Dear Mr. Vick: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis. I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221. As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as 'the incomplete vehicle document.') This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard: 1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, 2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or, 3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221. As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the final-stage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle. I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff 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.