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: RVIA-MonacoCoach.ekmyOpenLawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Dear Mr. Henneberger: This is in response to your August 26, 2003 letter on behalf of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and Monaco Coach Company (Monaco), addressed to Mr. Kenneth N. Weinstein of this agency, in which you raised issues dealing with the submission of field reports under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations. As you are aware, these issues were previously discussed during an August 5, 2003 meeting between NHTSA officials and representatives of RVIA and Monaco. You asked whether Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) forms, Dealer Acceptance forms (DAF), and any other pre-retail sale documents "related to recreational vehicles which are still in the direct control of the manufacturer or dealer" fall under the definition of "field reports" and therefore subject to the requirements of the EWR regulations. In your letter, you explained that recreational vehicle manufacturers, prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle, typically require dealers to complete and provide back to the manufacturer what are known in the industry as PDIs, DAFs and similar materials. You further clarified that these "form documents . . . are essentially checklists for dealer completion which are intended to detect and correct, under warranty, any product deficiencies prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle." As we explained in the preamble to the EWR Final Rule, the term "field report" was not intended to cover every dealer-to-manufacturer communication. See 67 Fed. Reg. 45,855 (July 10, 2002). In response to requests to clarify the Final Rule, we amended the definition of "field report" in an April 15, 2003 Final Rule to exclude vehicles that are still within the control of the manufacturer. As amended, a "field report" is defined as "[a] communication in writing, including communications in electronic form . . . with respect to a vehicle or equipment that has been transported beyond the direct control of the manufacturer . . . regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, or any part thereof, produced for sale by that manufacturer, regardless of whether verified or assessed to be lacking in merit . . ." 49 C.F.R. 579.4(c), 68 Fed. Reg. 18,136 at 18,142 (April 15, 2003). Based upon your description of the documents identified in your letter, we confirm your understanding that those documents do not fall within the ambit of the EWR regulatory requirements. While vehicles in the possession of dealers are considered to be "beyond the direct control of the manufacturer" for recall purposes, NHTSA does not consider documents prepared by dealers that address particular vehicle prior to their first retail sale to be field reports for purposes of the EWR regulations. We also note that deficiencies would be corrected under warranty and therefore reported to NHTSA under the EWR provision pertaining to warranty claims. Should you have any further questions, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2003 |
ID: schaub.ztvOpenMr. Frank A. Schaub Dear Mr. Schaub: We are replying to your e-mails of February 27 and March 4, 2003, with reference to your citation by local authorities who concluded that the modulating headlamp on your motorcycle was a flashing light and prohibited under the laws of Connecticut. You have asked for our assistance. We have not reviewed Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles Regulation Section 14-137-99 which you reference, as we do not provide interpretations of State laws. However, I am enclosing a copy of a letter from this Office, dated June 20, 2000, to Michael L. Wagner which, based on facts you present, is squarely on point with your situation. In brief, we informed Mr. Wagner that, under Federal law, modulating headlamps are not flashing headlamps; modulating headlamps that comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are permissible for use on motorcycles; and a State (or a political subdivision of a State) is preempted by Federal law from having a local law that has the effect of prohibiting a motorcycle headlamp modulating system meeting Federal specifications. The letter to Mr. Wagner contains appropriate legal citations. This interpretation of June 20, 2000, remains in effect today. As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of S7.9.4, Motorcycle headlamp modulation system, which is part of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. I am also enclosing a copy of the section of the Federal statute governing the relationship of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with State motor vehicle safety standards, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption. If there are any questions, please contact Taylor Vinson, Senior Attorney, NHTSA, at (202)-366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures |
2003 |
ID: RVIA-MonacoCoach_new.ekmyOpenLawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Dear Mr. Henneberger: This is in response to your August 26, 2003 letter on behalf of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and Monaco Coach Company (Monaco), addressed to Mr. Kenneth N. Weinstein of this agency, in which you raised issues dealing with the submission of field reports under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations. As you are aware, these issues were previously discussed during an August 5, 2003 meeting between NHTSA officials and representatives of RVIA and Monaco. You asked whether Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) forms, Dealer Acceptance forms (DAF), and any other pre-retail sale documents "related to recreational vehicles which are still in the direct control of the manufacturer or dealer" fall under the definition of "field reports" and therefore subject to the requirements of the EWR regulations. In your letter, you explained that recreational vehicle manufacturers, prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle, typically require dealers to complete and provide back to the manufacturer what are known in the industry as PDIs, DAFs and similar materials. You further clarified that these "form documents . . . are essentially checklists for dealer completion which are intended to detect and correct, under warranty, any product deficiencies prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle." As we explained in the preamble to the EWR Final Rule, the term "field report" was not intended to cover every dealer-to-manufacturer communication. See 67 Fed. Reg. 45,855 (July 10, 2002). In response to requests to clarify the Final Rule, we amended the definition of "field report" in an April 15, 2003 Final Rule to exclude vehicles that are still within the control of the manufacturer. As amended, a "field report" is defined as "[a] communication in writing, including communications in electronic form . . . with respect to a vehicle or equipment that has been transported beyond the direct control of the manufacturer . . . regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, or any part thereof, produced for sale by that manufacturer, regardless of whether verified or assessed to be lacking in merit . . ." 49 C.F.R. 579.4(c), 68 Fed. Reg. 18,136 at 18,142 (April 15, 2003). Based upon your description of the documents identified in your letter, we confirm your understanding that those documents do not fall within the ambit of the EWR regulatory requirements. While vehicles in the possession of dealers are considered to be "beyond the direct control of the manufacturer" for recall purposes, NHTSA does not consider documents prepared by dealers that address particular vehicle prior to their first retail sale to be field reports for purposes of the EWR regulations. We also note that deficiencies would be corrected under warranty and therefore reported to NHTSA under the EWR provision pertaining to warranty claims. Should you have any further questions, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Chief Counsel |
2003 |
ID: Sealing_screen000519OpenMs. Erika Z. Jones Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your January 7, 2005, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. You ask if a sealing screen attached to an exterior door panel would be subject to FMVSS No. 302. Our answer is no. In your letter, you state that the sealing screen is installed between the door trim panel and the exterior door panel. It does not adhere to the door trim panel at any point, and is physically attached only to the exterior door panel. You state that the sealing screen serves the purpose of protecting the space behind the exterior door panel from moisture leaks and is not designed to absorb energy from an occupant in a crash. The sealing screen is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space. FMVSS No. 302 applies to new motor vehicles, and specifies burn resistance requirements for particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, used in the vehicle occupant compartment. Of those components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space must meet the burn limit requirements of S4.3 of the standard. The components listed in S4.1 are:
The question presented by your letter is whether we would consider the screen you described as a "trim panel, including door, front, rear, and side panels". Our answer is no. The screen is attached solely to the exterior door panel and is not incorporated into the interior door trim panel. We therefore conclude that it is not part of a "trim panel". Since the screen would not be part of a component listed in S4.1, it is excluded from FMVSS No. 302. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:302 |
2005 |
ID: SEMAOpenMr. Stephen B. McDonald Vice President, Government Affairs Specialty Equipment Marketing Association 1317 F Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. McDonald: This responds to your letter requesting clarification of our notice of interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, published in the Federal Register (70 FR 65972) on November 1, 2005. The interpretation addressed how FMVSS No. 108 applies to replacement equipment. The issues you asked about are addressed below. In our interpretation, we noted that FMVSS No. 108s current requirement for replacement equipment, set forth in paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard, reads as follows: Except as provided below, each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies shall be designed to conform to this standard. We explained: This language is relatively straightforward. For any particular item of lighting equipment, e.g., a lamp, FMVSS No. 108 states only that if a lamp is manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which the standard applies, it must be designed to conform to the standard. It does not say anything about the replacement lamps being required to have the same type of light source as the OE lamp. Moreover, while it is true that, unlike other lamps, FMVSS No. 108 specifically regulates headlamp systems including their light sources, neither the language of S5.8.1 nor any other language in the standard requires replacement headlamps to use the same light sources as the OE headlamps. 70 FR at 65974. In your letter, you stated that you agreed with this language, but asked for clarification of the immediately following paragraph, which reads as follows: Under our revised interpretation, it is our opinion that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment, as relevant) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which the standard applies is permitted under S5.8.1 so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to FMVSS No. 108 using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp it actually used. To the extent the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle using the replacement lamp, instead of the lamp it actually used, we believe the replacement lamp should be viewed as being designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108. This includes, but is not limited to, replacement headlamps using different light sources than the OE headlamps. You expressed concern that this paragraph could be construed as preventing new technologies from being used as replacement equipment, even though such equipment was in compliance with FMVSS No. 108. You stated, as an example, that if a technology could not have been certified in a new vehicle prior to 2005 because the technology was not yet developed, but was available in 2005, an unreasonably strict reading could limit the technology for use only in 2005 model year and subsequent model year vehicles. We confirm that the language was not intended to be so narrowly applied so as to prevent new technologies from being used as replacement equipment on earlier model year vehicles. With reference to your example, to the extent the manufacturer of the pre-2005 model year vehicle could have certified the vehicle using the later replacement lamp incorporating the new technology (had that technology been available at the time of vehicle manufacture), instead of the lamp it actually used, we believe the replacement lamp should be viewed as being designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108. You also asked to confirm that while the paragraph only references the vehicle manufacturer, it is not intended to exclude other segments of the industry that could have certified the vehicles lighting system using a replacement lamp. You stated that this could include a lighting manufacturer, dealer or alterer. As discussed below, for the sentence at issue, we agree that alterers (persons who make changes to vehicles prior to first sale) would be included along with vehicle manufacturers. However, lighting manufacturers and dealers would not be included unless they were also alterers. As indicated above, in the sentence at issue, we stated that it is our opinion that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment, as relevant) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which the standard applies is permitted under S5.8.1 so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to FMVSS No. 108 using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp it actually used. We referenced vehicle manufacturer because it is the vehicle manufacturer, rather than the equipment manufacturer, that is responsible for certifying new vehicles to FMVSS No. 108. The only entities other than vehicle manufacturers that could be certifying new vehicles to FMVSS No. 108 would be alterers. Under our regulations, alterers are persons who make changes to certified motor vehicles prior to first retail sale. Part 567.7, Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. Since alterers may be certifying a new vehicle to FMVSS No. 108, it would be correct to reference them along with vehicle manufacturers in the above-quoted sentence. However, it would not be correct to include any entities that would not be certifying a new vehicle to FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, lighting manufacturers and dealers would not be included unless they were also alterers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.8/24/06 |
2006 |
ID: Senator Collins2OpenThe Honorable Susan M. Collins United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Collins: This responds to the letter from your office regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) interpretation of the term motor vehicle for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and, in particular, the application of this interpretation to certain very small trucks, including Japanese mini Kei trucks, imported by B&M Mini Trucks and Tractors LLC, of Madawaska, Maine. Your offices letter says that any changes to NHTSAs interpretation of what is a motor vehicle could substantially impact this company, which has relied on this guidance in its business. Accordingly, your office enclosed a letter from Mr. Harvey B. Fox further detailing these concerns. The question of whether certain non-traditional vehicles, such as the Kei trucks at issue, are motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, and therefore subject to regulation under its provisions, is currently before NHTSA in the form of several letters requesting interpretive guidance on whether various non-traditional vehicles fall within this definition. NHTSAs legal interpretations are written with the intent to clarify the meaning of the statutes and regulations it administers. In making an interpretation, NHTSA seeks above all to promote vehicle safety, after due consideration of all relevant factors, including the impact of alternative interpretations. Changes in the marketplace and in the motor vehicle population, however, may cause an established agency position to become inconsistent with achieving the goal of protecting drivers, their passengers, and other roadway users. As such, refinements to our guidance is periodically indicated to consider and address new or emerging trends or developments in transportation. The agency has not made any decision yet to seek a change in its existing interpretation of motor vehicle, as that term might relate to certain non-traditional vehicles such as very small trucks. If we decide to consider a change, we would follow our common process for the consideration of significant changes to established interpretations - we would publish a draft new interpretation in the Federal Register, solicit public comment, and then publish a notice setting forth our final conclusions. Page 2 The Honorable Susan M. Collins I hope this explanation responds to the concerns of you constituent. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel cc: Phillip R. Bosse ref:VSA d.12/18/06 |
2006 |
ID: Sens_a_brake003065OpenMr. Gregory Gibb Dear Mr. Gibb: This responds to your inquiry regarding the regulations applicable to a trailer brake system that relies on a combination of air and hydraulics. You asked if a system manufactured by your company, the "Sens-a-Brake" system, would be classified as an air brake system under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems. As explained below, the "Sens-a-Brake" system would be defined as an air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem, and therefore would be an airbrake system under FMVSS No. 121. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. FMVSS No. 121 specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. S4 of the standard defines "air brake system" as follows:
S4 of the standard defines "air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem" as:
In your letter you explained that the "Sens-a-Brake" system consists of an electronic brake controller and an air compressor mounted on a trailer, which supplies air for the application of the trailers braking mechanism. Your companys web site states that the electric brake controller incorporates a "pressure sensitive film that enables accurate measurement of the force being applied to the towing vehicles brake pedal."The website further explains that this pad attaches directly to the brake pedal of the tow vehicle. The pedal controller then modulates the air pressure supplied by the air compressor based on the pressure applied to the brake by the vehicle driver. The air pressure then transmits a force to the mechanism used to apply or release the hydraulic trailer brakes. Based on the description you provided in your letter and the information on your companys website, the "Sens-a-Brake" system comes within definition of "air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem." The "Sens-a-Brake" system transmits a force applied by a vehicle driver to the brake pedal, first through an electrical signal and then through compressed air, to a hydraulic brake system. While the system does not use air as the initial means for transmitting force from the driver control to the hydraulic system, compressed air is used in the system to transmit force from the driver control. Therefore, the "Sens-a-Brake" system would be an "air-over-hydraulic system," which is regulated as an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121. In your letter, you referenced a previous interpretation letter the agency issued to Mr. Tom Brunson, in which the agency concluded that a system with some similarities to the "Sens-a-Brake" system was not an air brake system (April 4, 2000). However, the system addressed by the letter to Mr. Brunson had one significant difference; the air pressure in that system was controlled primarily through an inertial controller mounted on the back of the tow vehicle. The system in the Brunson letter permitted a driver to control braking through a dash-mounted switch, but the switch was not intended to modulate the pressure applied to the brake mechanism. The primary control for actuating the air compressor in the Brunson letter system was the inertial controller mounted on the rear of the tow vehicle and not the vehicle driver. In contrast, the "Sens-a-Brake" system relies on force generated at the driver control (the force applied to the brake pedal pad) to modulate the application of compressed air to a hydraulic brake. Similarly, in an October 22, 2001 letter to Mr. Gary Rudnik the agency concluded that a trailer brake system was not an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121 if a trailers brakes activated as a result of the tow vehicles brake lamps illuminating (copy enclosed). Under the system described in the Rudnick letter, the brake pedal would function solely as an on-off switch for the trailer braking system, with the trailers brakes being activated upon illumination of the tow vehicles brake lamps when the driver pressed the tow vehicles brake pedal. However, the system would not transmit force applied by the driver via air to modulate the brakes; the brake pedal merely served as an on-off switch for the trailer braking system. Again in contrast, the "Sens-a-Brake" system relies on force applied to the brake pedal to modulate the application of compressed air to a hydraulic brake. Thus, if a system were to modulate the amount of air pressure applied to a hydraulic trailer brake mechanism in relation to force applied to a driver control, then that system would be an air brake system. If, however, a driver control were merely to function as an on-off switch, then that system would not be an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121. We note that when the agency incorporated the definition of "air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem" into FMVSS No. 121, we did not anticipate its application to light duty trailers. At that time, the agency indicated that air-over-hydraulic brake subsystems were installed exclusively on single-unit vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 19,500 pounds (See 60 Federal Register 36741; July 18, 1995; copy enclosed). Unless the standard were amended through the rulemaking process, the Sens-a-Brake system is an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita, of my staff at (202) 366-2992 Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures |
2004 |
ID: Shih.3OpenMr. Simon S. Shih Dear Mr. Shih: This responds to your e-mail, in which you seek clarification regarding the legality of high intensity discharge (HID) headlamp conversion sets, specifically whether it is legal to manufacture or sell sets of HID headlamps to replace original equipment halogen headlamp sets. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. 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. As a preliminary matter, we would clarify that we have no authority either to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. We do advise correspondents of the relationship of their products to applicable FMVSSs and other regulations that we administer. If a product is covered by one or more of our safety standards, its manufacturer must certify compliance of the product with all applicable FMVSSs prior to its importation or offering such product for sale. The symbol "DOT" on replacement lighting equipment is often mistaken for "DOT approval" of the equipment, but, in fact, it reflects the manufacturers own certification of compliance. We believe that your questions are addressed by our March 13, 2003, letter of interpretation to Mr. Galen Chen (see enclosure). In that letter, we interpreted FMVSS No. 108 as requiring headlamps manufactured to replace original equipment headlamps to comply with all applicable photometry requirements using the replaceable light sources intended for use in the headlighting system on the vehicle for which the replacement headlamp is intended. Unlike other lamps, FMVSS No. 108 specifically regulates headlighting systems, including their light sources (see S7.1, S7.5, and S7.7). We adhered to this interpretation in a recent interpretation to Calcoast-ITL (69 FR 60464 (Oct. 8, 2004))(see enclosure). Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for an HID headlamp conversion set to meet the standards photometry requirements for an original equipment headlamp system using a halogen light source, so the replacement lamps could not be sold for this purpose. Furthermore, a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original halogen headlamps and install HID replacement headlamps without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We cannot comment on the specific replacement lighting products that you mentioned because we do not have sufficient information on them. Finally, in a subsequent e-mail, you asked whether our regulations require HID lighting systems to include "auto-leveling" and washing systems, similar to those incorporated in vehicles sold in Europe. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 108 does specify aimability performance requirements under paragraph S7.8 of the standard, but that paragraph does not require an "auto-leveling" capability. The standard also does not contain any requirement for a headlamp washing system. s it may be of interest to you, we also have enclosed a copy of our November 18, 2002, letter of interpretation to Mr. Jeff Deetz, which relates to kits that substitute the type of light source in existing headlamps. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman nclosures |
2004 |
ID: shokspotrOpenMr. Gregory S. Beck Dear Mr. Beck: This responds to your letter requesting information about the relevant safety standards for the "Shok-SpotRTM," a product designed to detect impacts that may have resulted in damage to a motorcycle helmet. The information you provided states that the Shok-SpotR is a "helmet impact sensor intended to raise the publics level of awareness to helmet impact damage and to visually warn helmet users of potential damage. "The instructions for the product indicate that the sensor is attached to the helmet on the "helmets centerline on the rear half of the helmet, behind the apex or highest point on the helmet. "Your website states that the sensor "mounts on your helmet shell permanently and easily, in a small, attractive, ultra-lightweight housing." By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," to reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users resulting from head impacts. Each new motorcycle helmet must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 218. If the Shok-SpotR were sold as part of a motorcycle helmet, the helmet would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard with the Shok-SpotR attached. We believe that a new helmet with the Shok-SpotR is unlikely to meet FMVSS No. 218. The standard at S5.5 prohibits rigid projections on the outside of a helmet shell except those "required for operation of essential accessories." In past interpretations, we stated that snaps for visors or face shields were considered required for operation of essential accessories while helmet lights were not. We cannot conclude that the Shok-SpotR is required for operation of essential accessories. Furthermore, S5.5 provides that the projection, if permitted, "shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm [millimeters])."By our measurements, at the thickest point, the Shok-SpotR protrudes approximately 6 mm from the helmet shell. If a new motorcycle helmet to which Shok-SpotR is attached could not comply with FMVSS No. 218, a manufacturer of a new motorcycle helmet could not certify or sell the helmet. FMVSS No. 218 applies to new motorcycle helmets and would not apply to the Shok-SpotR if it were sold in the "aftermarket" to helmet owners. However, while no FMVSS would apply in this situation, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. 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. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with the Shok-SpotR attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Shok-SpotR is used. There is another provision in our statute of which you should be aware. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make 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 . . . . " It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be attached by commercial businesses instead of helmet owners. However, if your product were installed on helmets by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, that could constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of 30122. Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, it is NHTSAs policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. We are returning to you the sample of the Shok-SpotR you enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:218 |
2004 |
ID: shulman.crsOpenMr. Burt Shulman This is in response to a letter that you sent by fax on August 5, 1999, requesting an interpretation of NHTSA's vehicle importation regulations at 49 CFR Part 591. Section 591.5(d) permits the importation of a vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards if the importer files a declaration at the time the vehicle is offered for importation that states that the importer is a nonresident of the United States, "is temporarily importing the vehicle for personal use for a period not to exceed one year," will not sell the vehicle during that time, and will export the vehicle not later than one year from the date of entry. You have asked whether the term "personal use," as found in this provision, would preclude anyone other than the nonresident importer from driving the vehicle while it is in the United States. You have more particularly asked whether the nonresident importer would have to be in the vehicle if it is driven by his consignee. In your fax, you have cited 19 CFR 12.73 and 148.45 in support of your belief that a consignee may drive a vehicle imported by a non-resident for "personal use." However, as you have noted, the regulations you cite are not those of the Department of Transportation, and we have no knowledge of how the Customs Service may have interpreted them. The Department of Transportation's importation regulations and the statute that they implement (49 U.S.C. 30141 through 30147) distinguish between vehicles that are imported "for personal use," and those that are imported "for resale." The term "personal use," as found in these provisions, identifies the purpose for which the vehicle is imported. Sec. 591.5(d) was adopted in recognition of international treaties to which the United States is a party, which are intended to assure the free flow of international road traffic. The primary beneficiaries of these treaty provisions are citizens of other countries who tour the United States and who wish to import their personal vehicles to use during their visits. These provisions also benefit American citizens who are in the United States temporarily between work assignments outside the United States and bring their vehicle with them. It is in the public interest that there be consistency among Federal regulations to the extent that this is possible. We have reviewed 19 CFR 148.45's provisions and believe that they are consistent with the purpose of Sec. 591.5(d). Sec. 148.45 exempts from duties automobiles imported by nonresidents "in connection with the arrival of the nonresident to be used in the United States only for the transportation of the nonresident, his family and guests, and such incidental carriage of articles as may be appropriate to his personal use of the conveyance." If we adopt a similar meaning for "personal use" for purposes of Sec. 591.5(d), we would say that "guests" means people unrelated to the nonresident's family who are being transported by the nonresident, and that "guests" does not refer to a "consignee" operating the vehicle. We understand from discussions with our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) that you have inquired about the various means by which you may import a 1999 Smart passenger car that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the course of your discussions with OVSC, you have indicated that you may wish to take advantage of the exemption from the prohibition on importing such a vehicle that is provided by Sec. 591.5(d) by finding a nonresident to import the vehicle, but then using the vehicle yourself as its "consignee." If this is in fact your intent, we wish to advise you that we would not regard the importation of the Smart by the non-resident, or you as the "consignee," as being an importation for the importer's "personal use" within the meaning of Sec. 591.5(d) as interpreted in this letter. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Coleman Sachs or Taylor Vinson of my staff at 202-366-5263. Sincerely, |
1999 |
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.