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: aiam5635OpenMr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9 13, Nakaameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9 13 Nakaameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; "Re: Accessory Lamp with LEDs Dear Mr. Matsui: This responds to you letter of September 18, 1995, describing a combination tail, stop, and rear turn signal lamp which incorporates incandescent bulbs to perform assigned functions, and which contains light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a compartment along the outboard side. With respect to red LEDs adjacent to the tail and stop lamp, you state that the lamp is designed to conform to Standard No. 108 using the incandescent bulbs only, and that you regard the LEDs as an 'accessory' acceptable to NHTSA (Your Question 1). We agree. Because the LEDs are not necessary to conformance with Standard No. 108, they are considered supplemental lighting equipment. Such equipment is permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You state that when the taillamp and LEDs are lit simultaneously, the total intensity does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for a one-section taillamp. It would therefore appear that the presence of the LEDs does not impair the effectiveness of the taillamp (or the stop lamp, which will have a higher intensity). The red LEDs will provide a red color through the amber lens that covers the turn signal lamp, and will remain on when the turn signal is activated (Your Question 2). This design also appears permissible. We have never considered contiguous rear steady-burning red and flashing amber lamps to be prohibited by Standard No. 108 (the basic design of your lamp), and we do not believe that the supplemental red LEDs will impair the effectiveness of the amber turn signal lamp. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3402OpenMr. William G. Finn, Merchandizing Manager, Continental Products Corporation, 1200 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. William G. Finn Merchandizing Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Finn: This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1981, regardin marketing of Continental's ContiContact steel belted mud and snow tire as an all-season tire. You ask whether there are any governing criteria for what constitutes an all- season tire, and, if a tire is advertised as an all-season tire, whether it must be graded under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also ask whether it would be legal to market this tire as an all-season tire.; As you know, deep tread, winter-type snow tires are not within th coverage of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR S575.104(c)(1)). On May 24, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published in the Federal Register its interpretation that all-season tires are not considered deep-tread, winter-type snow tires within the meaning of the regulation (44 F.R. 30139). All-season tires were described in that notice as those with a tread depth which permits safe operation throughout the year. The notice indicated the agency's intention to exempt from the coverage of the standard 'a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger cars inadvisable.' Thus, a tire offered for sale by its manufacturer or brand name owner as suitable for all-season use could not be considered a deep tread, winter-type snow tire for UTQG purposes.; With regard to the legality of marketing the ContiContact tire as a all-season tire, mud and snow tires must meet Federal safety standards in the same manner as other passenger car tires. Also, a tire not suitable for its intended use could be considered to contain a safety-related defect in performance, construction, or materials, for purposes of the recall authority of Title I, Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411, *et seq*.). Beyond these limitations, statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA do not restrict the sale of all-season tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3725OpenMr. Robert J. Ainsworth, President, TOPAC International Trading Company, 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd., City of Industry, CA 91746; Mr. Robert J. Ainsworth President TOPAC International Trading Company 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd. City of Industry CA 91746; Dear Mr. Ainsworth: This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1983, with respect t UTQGS requirements and tires you intend to import form Shanghai, China. You have asked whether it is permissible, as an interim step to cover your initial order, if the factory affixes a label stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to its 'Warrior' tires, subsequent tires will have this information molded into the sidewalls.; We understand from Mr. Vinson's phone conversation with you on July 2 that the tires have not been imported for sale previously and indeed are the product of a new factory which has recently opened. According to the UTQGS regulation, a tire need not have information molded into its sidewalls if it is 'a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line' (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)). We interpret this time frame as meaning within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States. Therefore, your initial shipment would appear to come within the exception established by the regulation.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3723OpenMr. Robert J. Ainsworth, President, TOPAC International Trading Company, 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd., City of Industry, CA 91746; Mr. Robert J. Ainsworth President TOPAC International Trading Company 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd. City of Industry CA 91746; Dear Mr. Ainsworth: This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1983, with respect t UTQGS requirements and tires you intend to import from Shanghai, China. You have asked whether it is permissible, as an interim step to cover your initial order, if the factory affixes a label stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to its 'Warrior' tires, subsequent tires will have this information molded into the sidewalls.; We understand from Mr. Vinson's phone conversation with you on July 2 that the tires have not been imported for sale previously and indeed are the product of a new factory which has recently opened. According to the UTQGS regulation, a tire need not have information molded into its sidewalls if it is 'a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line' (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)). We interpret this time frame as meaning within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States. Therefore, your initial shipment would appear to come within the exception established by the regulation.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1884OpenMr. Jim Kielty, 1700 N. North Part - 3P, Chicago, IL 60614; Mr. Jim Kielty 1700 N. North Part - 3P Chicago IL 60614; Dear Mr. Kielty: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1975, requestin information concerning the odometer disclosure requirements contained in Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).; I have enclosed copies of the package that was sent to the Stat Attorneys General requesting their assistance in attacking the problem of odometer tampering and the report made by the agency pursuant to Section 413 of the Act.; You ask whether odometers are now tamper-proof and whether a Federa standard exists which requires their use. As far as we know, there is no item which could be called a 'tamper-proof' odometer currently in use on motor vehicles. Some vehicle manufacturers have tamper-resistant odometers, but, I do not know if these are installed as standard equipment on vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not promulgated a standard requiring the inclusion of tamper-resistant odometers in motor vehicles. The concept has been examined, but the problems inherent in specifying objective criteria for tamper-resistance appeared great. It became apparent that development of a 'tamper-proof' odometer specification was not possible, since we are uncertain if there is any way of making an odometer truly tamper-proof. We are open to suggestions as to how we might develop criteria that would ensure some level of tamper resistance.; Since the Federal odometer disclosure statement is mandatory throughou the United States, there is no pressure on States to make the Federal statement mandatory via State law. Some States have retained the odometer laws of disclosure that were in effect in their State prior to the enactment of the Cost Savings Act. In these States, the State law is not affected by the Federal requirements, as long as the Federal requirements are fulfilled. We do not know how many States have adopted disclosure requirements identical to the Federal ones. However, we support such a move, since it would then enable the State to enforce its provision and utilize any State remedies that might be available for noncompliance.; To date, the NHTSA has not prepared any model State odometer tamperin legislation. We do, however, intend to develop a model State law sometime in the near future. Any State that requests assistance in preparing odometer tampering legislation for presentation to the State legislature would be provided with the model law.; Based on a survey conducted by the NHTSA concerning the level o compliance with the disclosure requirements of the odometer law, it became apparent that a large number of used car dealers are not complying with the disclosure provisions. We have been attempting to solve this problem by enlisting the aid not only of the National Automobile Dealers Association but the Dealers Safety Mobility Council and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. In addition, a public information campaign has been initiated by the NHTSA that hopefully will ameliorate the current odometer disclosure problem.; Private civil actions have been brought under the Cost Savings Act Since they are private actions, it would be very difficult for us to monitor them. Thus, we must rely on individuals to report cases to us. For this reason, we do not know how many actions have been initiated, nor how they have been resolved.; We have received numerous reports alleging repeated violations of th Act by single dealers. However, since we have no investigative authority under the Act, we are unable to investigate the reports to obtain evidence necessary to bring an injunctive suit (the only Federal enforcement remedy under the Act). We were able to obtain sufficient evidence to bring such a suit in Florida. That case is currently in progress and had the advantage of two informants who were prior employees of the defendant and willing to testify against him.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3826OpenMr. Fred J. Clark, Vintage Cars & Restoration Center, 560 N.E. F Street, Grants Pass, OR 97526; Mr. Fred J. Clark Vintage Cars & Restoration Center 560 N.E. F Street Grants Pass OR 97526; Dear Mr. Clark: This is in response to your letter of March 5, 1984 in which yo request the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding whether you are permitted, under the Federal Odometer law (Title IV of the Motor Vehicle and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S1981, *et seq*.), to turn the odometers, on the restored vintage automobiles which you sell, back to zero. It is the opinion of this agency that you may not.; Section 404 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. S1984, makes it unlawful for an person to 'disconnect, reset, or alter or cause to be disconnected, reset, or altered, the odometer of any motor vehicle with intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon.' The term odometer means an instrument for measuring and recording the actual distance a motor vehicle travels while in operation. Although each motor vehicle which you sell has been restored and although each may be, as you claim, 'better than it was as a new car', the odometers must continue to reflect the actual miles which these vehicles have travelled.; The Federal odometer law also requires that a written disclosure of th mileage registered on the odometer by provided by the seller of a motor vehicle to the purchaser at the time ownership of the vehicle is transferred. If the odometer mileage is incorrect, the Act requires that the purchaser be furnished with a written statement to that effect. 15 U.S.C. 1988, 49 C.F.R. S580.4. All dealers and distributors of motor vehicles are required to retain a copy of each odometer disclosure statement which they issue or receive. These statements are to be retained for four years at their principal place of business. 49 C.F.R. S580.7.; NHTSA found, however, that the value of antique vehicles is determine not by the number of miles travelled by such vehicles, but rather by their age, condition and scarcity. The Agency therefore exempted from the odometer disclosure requirements of section 580.4, vehicles which are 25 years old or older. 49 C.F.R. S580.5(a)(3). NHTSA also exempted from these requirements, vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVW) of more than 16,000 pounds, S580.5(a)(1), and vehicles which are not self- propelled, S580.5(a)(2). Please note that these are exemptions from the odometer disclosure requirements only. They do not permit tampering with the odometer.; Before you decide whether or not to issue odometer disclosur statements for the 25 years old and older vehicles which you sell, however, you should consider that at least two Federal District Courts have declared the exemptions to be void. The courts found that NHTSA had exceeded its authority in fashioning exemptions to the odometer disclosure requirements. *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, 428 F.Supp. 778 (D.Neb. 1977), *Davis v. Dils Motor Company*, 566 F.Supp. 1360 (S.D.W.Va. 1983). These cases did not address the validity of the exemption of 25 year old and older vehicles. They addressed instead the validity of the exemption of vehicles having a GVW of more than 16,000 pounds. Their finding, however, that the Agency lacked authority to create the exemptions, may equally apply to this case.; Their findings are not binding on other courts, and the Agenc continues too believe that the exemptions it created are valid. It is important that you consider these decisions, however, since another court could find them well-reasoned or persuasive, and follow the findings that they reached.; If you have additional questions regarding the requirements of th Federal odometer law, please call Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff at (202) 426-2992 or write to her attention.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2432OpenMr. Robert H. Gaines, 210 East 73rd Street, New York, New York 10021; Mr. Robert H. Gaines 210 East 73rd Street New York New York 10021; Dear Mr. Gaines: This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1976, requestin information concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulation of motor-driven cycles (moped) and in amplification of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz of this office. We are sorry for the delay in our response, but your letter was misdirected.; The NHTSA has authority to regulate mopeds under two statutes. th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle safety Act (15 U.S.C. 11381, et seq.) authorizes the NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles. Section 102(5) (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) of the Act defines a 'manufacturer' of a motor vehicle to include 'any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' In those instances where the foreign manufacturer itself has not complied, the importer would therefore be responsible for the compliance of the vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and with the requirements imposed on manufacturers.; The principal standards and regulations applying to the manufacture an sale of motorcycles, of which the motor-driven cycle is a subcategory, can be found in the following sections of the Code of Federal Regulations:; >>>49 CFR Part 551 - Procedural Rules 49 CFR Part 566 - Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567 - Certification 49 CFR 571.106 - Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses 49 CFR 571.108 - Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, an associated equipment; 49 CFR 571.112 - Standard No. 112, Headlamp concealment devices 49 CFR 571.116 - Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids 49 CFR 119 - Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic tires for vehicles othe than passenger cars; 49 CFR 571.122 - Standard No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems 49 CFR 571.123 - Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays 49 CFR 571.205 - Standard No. 205, Glazing materials 49 CFR Part 573 - Defective Reports 49 CFR Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping 49 CFR Part 575 - Consumer Information Regulation 49 CFR Part 576 - Record Retention 49 CFR Part 577 - Defect Notification<<< Generally, a moped must meet requirements which apply to motorcycle except when a provision of a standard sets forth a lesser requirement for motor-driven cycles. Currently, these lesser requirements are found in Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard Nos. 108, 122, and 123 (49 CFR 571.108, 571.122, and 571.123).; The NHTSA also has the authority to regulate the operation of moped under the provision of the Highway Safety Act (23 U.S.C. 401, et seq.). This legislation provides that each State shall have a highway Safety program designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Each State program shall be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated by the NHTSA. The NHTSA has not yet used its authority to issue standards regulating moped licensing, inspection, insurance, or other highway safety program areas related to moped operation and use. Many States, however, have established their own requirements.; The NHTSA on November 28, 1975, published a notice in the *Federa Register* requesting comments from the public concerning the safety aspects of motorized bicycles. We are currently reviewing the comments which have been submitted, but have reached no decision to initiate rulemaking or to issue a directive to regulate mopeds in the highway safety program area. No hearings have been held relative to mopeds, but the written comments to the docket are available at a cost of 25 cents for the first page and 5 cents for each page thereafter. Information may be obtained by writing to:; >>>Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5108 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590<<< and referring to Docket Number 75-29. I trust this information is helpful. Should you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0159OpenRichard Hoffman, President, Cony America, 16216 S. Broadway, Gardena, CA 90247; Richard Hoffman President Cony America 16216 S. Broadway Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Hoffman: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1969 in which you asked whethe the Cony vehicle, model AF11SFC, which you import, must be equipped with a windshield defrosting and defogging system in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103.; You describe the vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle having a open cab configuration, and your letter states that defrosting and defogging of its windshield is accomplished by natural air currents while the vehicle is operating. You also indicate that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways.; On the basis of the information contained in your letter and study o the two photographs of the Cony that accompanied it, it is our view that, subject to the exceptions noted below, models of this vehicle that have windshield or are fitted for installation of windshields must also have windshield defrosting and defogging systems.; Vehicles which are operated in the continental United States ma encounter icy or snowy conditions in which the absence of a windshield defrosting system may pose an unreasonable safety hazard. The fact that the vehicle lacks an enclosed cab does not appreciably reduce that hazard. However, we do not interpret Standard No. 103 as requiring a defrosting and defogging system in a vehicle that has no windshield and on which a windshield cannot be installed without such major modifications as would make the installer himself a motor vehicle manufacturer. One of the photographs you submitted shows your vehicle without a windshield, but it does not contain enough detail to enable us to determine whether the vehicle falls into the latter category I have described.; You should be aware of two exceptions to the requirements of Standar No. 103, either of which may apply to the Cony. First, section 371.7 of our regulations provides that the standards apply only to vehicles which have a curb weight of more than 1,000 pounds. Hence, the Cony need not conform to the requirements of the standard if its curb weight is 1,000 pounds or less. Second, Standard No. 103 applies only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the continental United States. Therefore, your vehicle could be imported into jurisdictions such as Hawaii and the Virgin Islands even though it fails to conform to the requirements of that standard. The contents of your letter do not furnish enough information to permit us to ascertain whether either exception would apply.; If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesistate (sic) t call upon me for it.; Very truly yours,Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Assistant Chief Counse for Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam2171OpenMr. Robert J. Geurink, 4595 Angelo Drive N.E., Atlanta, GA 30319; Mr. Robert J. Geurink 4595 Angelo Drive N.E. Atlanta GA 30319; Dear Mr. Geurink: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1975, to the Departmen concerning 'general policies on recalls and any rules you may have on them.'; From September 9, 1966, when the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act was enacted, until December 27, 1974, a manufacturer was required to notify purchasers of the existence of a safety-related defect or a non-compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, but there was no legal requirement to recall and repair the product. To implement the notification requirement, this agency adopted a regulation, 49 CFR Part 577, *Defect Notification*. It also adopted 49 CFR Part 573, *Defect Reports*, which requires a manufacturer to report to us periodically on notification campaigns.; Effective December 27, 1974, the Act was amended (Section 151 an following sections) to require mandatory notification, and remedy. We have proposed a new Part 577 to implement the new requirements. The public comments on the proposal are still being evaluated and the final rule has not been issued. I enclose copies of the Act, Part 573, Part 577, and proposed Part 577 for your information, and will be happy to answer any questions you have concerning them.; To address your specific concerns: the fact that a product fails one o our tests does not *per se* establish a failure to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In the usual case the manufacturer is afforded an informal opportunity to present its views regarding the test failure. Errors in testing or test machines may be brought to our attention which have the effect of negating the test results. Or the manufacturer may be convinced of its noncompliance and voluntarily announce a notification/recall campaign. Or the manufacturer may be directed by this agency to furnish notification after a public hearing on the matter. The agency in the latter circumstance will issue its own press release announcing the recall. Notification must be made 'within a reasonable time' after a determination of non-compliance or safety-related defect (Sec. 153(b)). If that determination is made by the government, it may prescribe a time period that it regards as reasonable.; There is no 'recent' Goodyear Tire recall of 12,500 tires as you state though the company did recall 12,602 tires in January 1973. Without knowing the size and type of the tires you are concerned about I cannot comment further.; I am returning your stamps. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3975OpenMr. K. Weight, 65 E. 200 N., Provo, UT 84601; Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo UT 84601; Dear Mr. Weight: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows i automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.; FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a ne passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent, clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.; Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver t detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance *less* than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the 'black window' is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material i new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so lon as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
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.