Skip to main content

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



Displaying 11151 - 11160 of 16490
Interpretations Date

ID: 1983-2.30

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leo J. Landry; Esq.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Leo J. Landry, Esq. 5959 West Loop South Suite 464 Bellaire, Texas 77401

Dear Mr. Landry:

This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1983, asking "whether the importation of automobiles directly into a foreign trade zone would eliminate the requirement for a bond imposed by the Department of Transportation." You have informed us that "Customs requirements for a foreign trade zone would insure that no automobile would leave the zone until conformity with Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation requirements are met."

The bond you reference is not imposed by the Department of Transportation, but is a bond required by Customs, one purpose of which is to insure that the importer produce a statement that a nonconforming vehicle has been brought into compliance with Department of Transportation safety standards. Under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) the bond is required whenever a vehicle enters the United States which was not originally manufactured to meet the safety standards and which is conformed before importation. The compliance documentation submitted at the time of importation, when the vehicle enters under bond, is forwarded to the Department of Transportation for its review. If the documentation is inadequate, the importer is notified and afforded an opportunity to complete the compliance work. Upon completion of the work and the submission of adequate documentation, the vehicle is released from bond.

Therefore, in answer to your question, the bond would still be required but would be deferred until the time the vehicle left the foreign trade zone and entered the United States.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel June 2, 1983

Administrator Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

I represent Jack's Conversion, a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The corporation is in the business of modifying imported automobile to conform to EPA emission control standards and DOT safety standards.

My client is contemplating participating in a foreign trade zone to be established in Houston in the near future. My purpose in writing this letter is to obtain a determination from your agency as to whether the importation of automobiles directly into a foreign trade zone would eliminate the requirement for a bond imposed by DOT. Customs requirements for a foreign trade zone would insure that no automobile would leave the zone until conformity with EPA and DOT standards is met.

After you have reviewed this letter, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with appropriate agency personnel in greater. I would appreciate a response from your agency at the earliest possible convenience.

Very truly yours,

Leo J. Landry

LL/jd

ID: nht95-3.83

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government & Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM D. L. O'CONNOR TO WALTER K. MYERS (OCC 11043)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995.

You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance b y the U.S. government.

As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but t hey do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government.

Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the F ederal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

8/9/95

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Tires Manufactured by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

United States law requires tire manufacturers themselves to certify that the tires they manufacture for sale in the United States comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no provision in U.S. law for approval or certif ication by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for implementing the Federal law. NHTSA enforces the standards by randomly selecting and testing approximately 100 passenger car tires and 70 other than passenger car tires per year to ensure the validity of the tire companies' self-certification programs.

NHTSA states that all motor vehicle tires of any type or size manufactured by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and bearing the symbol "DOT" are recognized by the United States as having been produced and certified in conformity with all applicable Federa l motor vehicle safety standards of the United States.

Any questions or requests for additional information regarding this matter may be directed to Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signed by S. Wood)

ID: nht95-6.6

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government & Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM D. L. O'CONNOR TO WALTER K. MYERS (OCC 11043)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995.

You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance by the U.S. government.

As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but they do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government.

Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the Federal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

8/9/95

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Tires Manufactured by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

United States law requires tire manufacturers themselves to certify that the tires they manufacture for sale in the United States comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no provision in U.S. law for approval or certification by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for implementing the Federal law. NHTSA enforces the standards by randomly selecting and testing approximately 100 passenger car tires and 70 other than passenger car tires per year to ensure the validity of the tire companies' self-certification programs.

NHTSA states that all motor vehicle tires of any type or size manufactured by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and bearing the symbol "DOT" are recognized by the United States as having been produced and certified in conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards of the United States.

Any questions or requests for additional information regarding this matter may be directed to Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signed by S. Wood)

ID: nht90-1.46

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/90

FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH; REDBOOK A35; VSA 102[5]; PART 575.6

TEXT: This letter is to request your interpretation regarding the recent amendment to NHTSA's Consumer Information regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 575. This amendment, published on November 27, 1989, requires that vehicle Owner's Manuals contain specifie d information regarding NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i) of the regulations specifies a statement that must appear in Owner's Manuals effective September 1, 1990. In two locations within the statement, the "name of manufacturer" must be inserted. We request your opinion as to whethe r we may, consistent with the regulations, use the name "Infiniti" in these spaces, for manuals used with our new Infiniti line of vehicles.

Infiniti is a Division within Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., the importer of Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The Infiniti vehicles will be assembled by Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., the parent corporation, in Japan. Vehicles sold through the Infinit i Division will be designated by the Infiniti nameplate, and we expect that consumers will identify the vehicles specifically with that name. The process is similar to that used with the Cadillac or Lincoln Divisions of General Motors Corporation or For d Motor Company, respectively.

We would provide an address and telephone number for the Infiniti Division adjacent to the required Hotline information, to facilitate consumers contacting Infiniti. This toll free number would be unique to the Infiniti Division, and calls would be a nswered by a staff separate from that of the Nissan Division. We believe that this approach would not confuse consumers and would, in fact, improve their ability to contact quickly the appropriate officials who are authorized to respond to any questions on defect or compliance matters concerning Infiniti models.

We would greatly appreciate your earliest possible response on this matter, so that we can arrange our printing schedules to meet the September 1 effective date. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

ID: 2632o

Open

Ellen A. Lockwood, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney
District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB
238 O'Hara Street
Agana, Guam 969l0

Dear Ms. Lockwood:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, l987, to Jim Marquez, the former General Counsel of this Department. You have asked about the applicability to the Commmonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) of l5 U.S.C. l38l, and l9 C.F.R. l2.80.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq., as you have noted, applies to the CNMI through Section 502(a)(2) of the "Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States," and is a "State" within the meaning of l5 U.S.C. l39l. This means that it is a violation of l5 U.S.C. l397(a)(1)(A) to import into the CNMI any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

As authorized by l5 U.S.C. l397(b)(3), the Departments of Transportation and Treasury issued joint regulations to enforce the importation prohibition of l397(a)(l)(A). As the authority of the Customs Service is limited to the Customs Territory of the United States, these regulations apply only to "States" within this Territory. They do not apply to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the CNMI, "States" that lie without the Customs Territory of the United States. It is our understanding that each of these "States" enforces l397(a)(1)(A) within its borders through an Executive Order issued by the Governor, designating an appropriate local agency for this task. In the Virgin Islands, for example, the Department of Public Safety will not register any vehicle that lacks the label required by 49 C.F.R. Part 567 Certification certifying compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose representative copies of correspondence that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has had with the Virgin Islands and the CNMI on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:MIS#VSA d:l2/30/87

1987

ID: nht91-6.11

Open

DATE: September 27, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phillip Ramos, Jr. -- Philatron International

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This letter concerns an issue you raised with Mr. Robert Hellmuth of NHTSA's Enforcement office about the oil resistance test requirement of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. Your company manufactures a hose assembly that is designed for use between a towed and a towing vehicle. You believe that the oil resistance test requirement does not apply to your product.

Your view is incorrect. Standard 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes" (S4 of 49 CFR S571.106). Your hose is encompassed within that definition of a "brake hose." S7.3 of the standard states that "Each air brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading...." The oil resistance requirement (S7.3.4) is included in S7.3. Thus, the requirement applies to your product.

We note that neither the standard nor the oil resistance requirement has any provision to exclude hose designed for use between a towed and a towing vehicle from the oil resistance requirement. In contrast, there are requirements of the standard that distinguish between brake hose used between a towed and a towing vehicle and hose used in other applications. (See, for example, the tensile strength test requirement of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies.) If the agency intended to exclude hose such as yours from the oil resistance requirement, the exclusion would have been set forth in S7.3.4 or elsewhere in the standard.

We also would like to remind you that, in the event your firm has or obtains knowledge that your brake hose and assemblies do not meet the requirements of Standard 106, you must submit to NHTSA a Noncompliance Information Report in accordance with 49 CFR Part 573. The report must be submitted within five days after you determine that your product fails to comply with a motor vehicle safety standard.

Mr. Hellmuth has informed me that the Enforcement office will include your firm's air brake hose assemblies in the agency's fiscal year 1992 compliance test program. The agency will keep you advised of the status of the tests and will supply you with a copy of the final report when the tests are complete.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: nht76-1.15

Open

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suplicy Cacique Trading Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversations of June 3 and June 21, 1976, with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to components of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars.

The performance of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars is the subject of Standard No. 105-75. The only standards that apply directly to components of a hydraulic brake system are Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Standard No. 106-74 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. These terms are defined in the standard as follows:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

"Brake hose end fitting" means a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.

"Brake hose assembly" means a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle.

"Vacuum tubing connector" means a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing.

Please note that vacumm tubing connectors are not presently subject to any safety standards.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specifies that

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered . . . .

With respect to an item of motor vehicle equipment for which there exists no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this section as not requiring any certification.

ID: 86-1.10

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert Juckett -- Transglobal Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Juckett Transglobal Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 98 Whitehall, New York 12887

This responds to your letter of September 9, 1985, regarding the applicability of Standard No. 121 to a partially used and partially new trailer. You asked whether your customer, who plans to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from you, is responsible for compliance with Safety Standard 121. Your customer plans to mount on his newly purchased frame his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals 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.

If your customer intends to use the trailer which he is assembling for his own use, then he is not governed by the Federal motor vehicles safety standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall:

(1) Manufacture for sale, sell or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this rule unless it is in conformity with such standard,

Section 102(5) of that Act defines "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles...for resale." Your customer is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless he is assembling the vehicle you mention for sale.

In the event that your customer is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, he may still be excepted from the requirements of Standard No. 121. You noted that your customer will mount a new trailer frame, air tank and air valve on his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles. 49 CFR Part 571.7(f) excludes from Standard No. 121 partly new and partly used trailers when the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. In addition, the reassembled vehicle must use the same vehicle identification number as the original trailer and the original trailer must be owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

09-09-85

Mr. Jeffery Miller Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller,

We are a new trailer manufacturer and have a question reguarding F.M.V.S.S. 121. I recently spoke to Mr. Edward Glancy of your office and he suggested writing.

We have a customer requesting to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from us. He has told us that he is going to mount his own old suspension, wheels, brakes, and axles on this frame.

Please inform me if my interpretation is correct.

As the owner is using his existing undercarriage, he is responsible for any F.M.V.S.S. 121 compliance, as with using his existing undercarriage the trailer retains its original Vehicle Identification Number.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours.

Robert Juckett Engineering

ID: 18033.ztv

Open

Mr. Edward F. Dugan
President
Soda Fountain
FAX 908-322-3026

Dear Mr. Dugan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1998, to the New York Regional Office of this agency, with respect to a lighting device that you wish to offer to funeral directors. This device is a battery operated lamp, 3 inches in diameter, intended to be attached by a magnet or suction cup to the roofs of cars in funeral processions. The lamp, which emits a white color, flashes, with the intent of assisting drivers in the procession to stay together. You also note your belief that, with the advent of daytime running lamps, headlamps alone "are no longer a sufficient identifier of a funeral procession." You have asked if we have any objection to the use of these lamps.

The use of these lamps would not violate any Federal statute or regulation. They are subject to the laws of the State or municipality in which they will be used. Some jurisdictions may prohibit the use of flashing lights except on police or emergency vehicles. However, we are not conversant with local laws and are not able to advise you about them.

Because our interpretations are a matter of public record, I would like to explain briefly, without legal citations, how we reached our conclusion that the use of these lamps is not prohibited under Federal law. A flashing white lamp cannot be installed on a new motor vehicle, before its first sale, because all lamps must be steady burning, except for turn and hazard warning signals, school bus warning lamps, and headlamps that flash for signaling purposes. After the first sale of a vehicle, the lamp could not be attached by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business because that would make inoperative the Federal lighting standard that applied to the vehicle when it was new. But this prohibition covers only the entities named, and installation of the flashing lamp by a person other than the entities named is not prohibited. That is to say, an employee of a funeral home or the owner of a vehicle in the procession can install the lamp without violating Federal law.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/98

1998

ID: nht92-7.46

Open

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc. (ALTECH)

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Larry Nunn (A39; Std. 108; Std. 218; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

LeGrand Systems Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan has contracted Automotive Lighting Technologies Inc. of Southfield, Michigan, to design and develop a helmet lighting system for use by motorcyclists, snowmobilers, moped operators, and other recreational vehicles. LeGrand applied for patent on the lighting system on February 13, 1990.

LeLite, the products assumed name, is intended to improve safety in the industry by increasing rider visibility. Many motorcycle accidents result from poor visibility or failure of other motorists to see motorcyclists in time to react.

The idea is consistent with reasoning for the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp introduced in 1986 to decrease rear end collisions. However, LeLite includes a wrap around rear stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals. (Enclosure)

The electrical system of the unit is accomplished via a three (3) wire cord which snaps into the base of the unit and connects to a simple harness unit mounted at a location of the operator's choosing on the handlebars, fairing, or rear portion of the motorcycle. This supply harness attaches directly into the associated brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal. Since it is wired directly in the motorcycle's existing wiring harness, the LeLite works in perfect harmony with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

Automotive Lighting Technologies is dedicated to excellence in vehicle lighting design and development and to any role it can play in the improvement of vehicle safety. We believe this product has merit and could prove effective in reducing accidents.

ALTech realize that there are no SAE or FMVSS requirements for this lighting system. However, it is our opinion that this system will not interfere with the function of any other lighting component on the vehicle but rather augment their purpose.

Due to size, weight, and heat limitations of mounting such a system on a helmet, it is not practical that the system can be design to meet vehicle standards. Therefore, ALTech will take every precaution insure the integrity of the product. During product development, we will keep you informed of test results on vibration, moisture, dust, heat, corrosion, photometry and any other area determined to be prudent.

ALTech is asking for your comments on any legalities which we should consider and your support in bringing this product to market in a manner that does not conflict any state or federal requirements. But more important, we ask for any comments or ideas that will enhance the practicality of our product and the safety of our customers.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office. I have enclosed a business card.

Your support in this matter is appreciated.

Attachment

Legrand Systems Inc. 1-800-848-0894

Welcome ...... to the Future

(drawing of helmet omitted)

We bikers have a right to be seen. It is the sincere goal of the people at LeGrand Systems to improve biking safety. With a soon to be introduced line of attractive helmet light packages, we can concentrate on what we enjoy most -- the joy of the road.

Look for our ads in your favorite cycle magazine coming soon - and SEE you on the road!

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.

Go to top of page