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: 07-001357drnOpenScott Willard, Regulatory Analyst Central Engineering Seating Systems Division Lear Corporation 21557 Telegraph Road Southfield, MI 48034 Dear Mr. Willard: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head restraints; Mandatory applicability begins on September 1, 2008. Specifically, you asked for clarification with regard to what is the lowest position of adjustment for a head restraint. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we have concluded that, for the design you ask about, the lowest position of adjustment refers to the position in which the head restraint is in contact with the top of the seat back. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. You noted in your letter that Head restraint design often allows adjustment travel below the lowest locking position because contact with the seat back serves as the stop for the lowest position. You stated that this is not considered a stowed position, but that usable head restraint adjustment travel includes this distance and may [a]ffect the determination of the mid-travel locking position chosen for the dynamic test. You asked whether the lowest position of adjustment under S5.3.4 was a locked position slightly above contact with the top of the seat back, or below that position, in contact with the top of the seat back. S5.3.4 of FVMSS No. 202a reads, in relevant part, as follows: At each outboard designated seating position, .If the head restraint is adjustable, adjust the top of the head restraint to a position midway between the lowest position of adjustment and the highest position of adjustment. If an adjustment position midway between the lowest and the highest position does not exist, adjust the head restraint to a position below and nearest to midway between the lowest position of adjustment and the highest position of adjustment. We interpret the phrase lowest position of adjustment to mean, for the design you ask about, the position where the head restraint is in contact with the top of the seat back. Most head restraint adjustment positions are the places where the head restraint locks or clicks into a detent. However, for designs where the head restraint may be adjusted below the lowest locking position, the position where the head restraint contacts the top of the seat back would be an adjustment position, even though it does not click into a detent at that point. The seat back provides a stop for the downward adjustment of the head restraint, just as a detent does at other positions of adjustment. Additionally, we note that many people leave or position the head restraint at this point. Therefore, we consider it the lowest point of adjustment for purposes of determining the mid-travel locking position for the dynamic test. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:202 d.7/23/07 |
2007 |
ID: nht90-3.26OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: July 23, 1990 FROM: Timothy Murphy -- Chairman Engineering Committee - Lights, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, Peterson Manufacturing Company TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated August 31, 1990 from P.J. Rice to T. Murphy (A36; Std. 108) TEXT: The Engineering Committee of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI) has reviewed your letter of February 26, 1990 to the Bargman Company. This specific letter was in response to a question from Bargman dated December 13, 1989 in which they specifically asked if an amber reflex reflector was permitted as an additional reflector on the rear of vehicles covered by FMVSS108. Your conclusion was that the installation of an amber tail lamp lens with an amber reflector would not constitute a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We respectfully disagree for the reasons stated below. You are correct in your statement that no additional reflective device may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of reflective equipment required by Standard No. 108. You then state, "It does not appear to us that an amber tail lamp lens with an a mber reflector would create an impairment." While amber is a permissible color for rear turn signal lamps, the referenced rear turn signal lamp is a flashing device. We are unaware of any state law or federal law which permits a steady burning amber signal to the rear and, therefore, your interpr etation is a distinct departure from past practice. We respectfully suggest that a steady burning lamp or reflector to the rear clearly would create confusion for following drivers. For example, on vehicles under 80 inches wide, the only devices required on the rear are two tail lamps and two rear red re flectors which are, in effect, operable at all times. That is, they are steady burning and represent a continuous signal. If one now introduces two additional amber reflectors, following motorists would then see the two required red tail lamps and two amber reflectors which would be about 2 1/2 times brighter than the required red reflectors if we consider the luminous tran smission difference between the red and amber colors. In short, the amber auxiliary add-on reflectors would normally be much brighter (by a factor of 2 1/2 times) than the required red reflector. It is our strong and unanimous conclusion that this woul d certainly represent an impairment of a required device. The states of California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and many other states, clearly specify that reflectors, visible from the rear of a vehicle, shall be red. We know of no instance where amber rear reflex is specifically permitted by any state. The last sentence in your February 26th letter to the Bargman Company states, "This agency presently has no plans to specify yellow as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors." We suggest that an agency interpretation letter which permits yellow o r amber reflex reflectors on the rear of a vehicle could be the source of considerable confusion. For example, a manufacturer might elect to install an auxiliary amber reflex on the rear of a vehicle manufactured in a state where the law is silent on th e subject of rear reflex color. However, when the user then travels to one of the many states which clearly prohibit steady burning amber lamps or reflex to the rear, they may find themselves subject to violations of specific state laws. You should als o consider that if amber rear reflex is permitted as an auxiliary add-on device, the next logical step might well be a steady burning amber auxiliary lamp on the rear of vehicles. We submit that such color to the rear would create an obvious impairment of the required devices. For the reasons outlined above, we would ask that you review the February 6, 1990 interpretation. |
|
ID: GF007048OpenJose M. Hernndez, President Dear Mr. Hernndez: This responds to your letter regarding certain rules and procedures that may be applicable to ambulance manufacturers. Specifically, you ask about the certification process for ambulance manufacturers. You also ask whether an ambulance manufacturer must obtain permission or a license in order to manufacture ambulances, and whether non-registered parties can rebuild existing ambulances using replacement chassis. We apologize for the delay in responding. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which all motor vehicle manufacturers, including ambulance manufacturers, are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. An ambulance manufacturer need not obtain permission or a license from NHTSA in order to manufacture ambulances. However, under the requirements of Part 566 (a copy of which is enclosed), all manufacturers of motor vehicles must submit to NHTSA certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Specifically, a manufacturer must indicate: (a) the full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the manufacturer; (b) the residence address of the manufacturer and state of incorporation, if applicable; (c) a description of the motor vehicle produced, including approximate ranges of the gross vehicle weight rating. The vehicle description should be specific enough to indicate the intended use. [1] NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles. However, if the rebuilding or re-manufacturing involved sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle could be considered to be newly manufactured. This would mean that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards.Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis. In the event your use of the term "rebuild" refers to converting, prior to first retail sale, a new vehicle or the completion of an incomplete vehicle chassis into an ambulance, then such a manufacturer would be considered either a "vehicle alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer." These entities are subject to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 567 and Part 568, which generally require the entities to certify that the given completed or modified vehicle meets or continues to meet all applicable FMVSS. We also note that under 49 U.S.C. 30122, 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" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, a manufacturer who undertakes to "rebuild" or convert a previously sold vehicle into an ambulance is subject to the prohibitions of this "make inoperative provision." I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] Please note that if the vehicle in question is produced in two or more stages (which is often the case with ambulances), the manufacturer must indicate the stage of completion for which this ambulance manufacturer is responsible (presumably the final stage), and include a brief description of the work performed. |
2003 |
ID: 9505Open The Honorable Paul David Wellstone Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA administers the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its school bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough." I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety reasons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congress also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs. Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In doing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:571 d:7/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: 3148oOpen Mr. Max J. Mizejewski Dear Mr. Mizejewski: This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether a product your company plans to import would be subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). According to your letter, this product, which you refer to as a "Roadreader," attaches to the front of a motor vehicle and has two sensors which give a visual and audible alarm when the vehicle drifts off a road. You indicated that this product would be connected to the wiring related to the turn signals. You noted that this device does not affect vehicle functions such as acceleration, braking, lighting, or visibility. You further stated that if required, you would provide the device to NHTSA or another government agency for inspection. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Title 49 CFR Part 571 contains the safety standards promulgated by the agency. Although you stated that this device does not affect the electrical wiring related to the turn lights, I suggest you closely review Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (Copy enclosed). This safety standard applies to both motor vehicle equipment installed in new motor vehicles and replacement equipment sold in the aftermarket. While I cannot conclusively say that this standard is or is not applicable to your product based on the limited facts in your letter, this standard may apply to your product because the wiring for your device is connected to components (i.e., turn lights) subject to the standard. For instance, S4.5.11 requires that components including the turn signal lamps must be wired to flash. More generally, S4.1.3 forbids the installation of an additional piece of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Therefore, a device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. As for the sale of your product in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, Section 108 of the Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a FMVSS. Since an importer is defined by the Safety Act as a manufacturer, you should assure that installation of your device does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, the turn signal lamp or any other item of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108. As for your second question concerning inspection and approval of your product, you should be aware that NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 114 of the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. Further, as you noted, you would be responsible for recalling any safety-related defects which you or this agency finds in your product. You also should be aware that laws from particular States may apply to your device. Therefore, you may wish to contact the State and local transportation authorities in the areas where you intend to market your product. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203) may also be able to provide information about State laws concerning devices similar to your product. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:VSA#108#108 d:ll/3/88 |
1970 |
ID: nht95-3.54OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 25, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: The Honorable Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE TO REGINA SULLIVAN TEXT: Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA admin isters the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its schoo l bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough." I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety rea sons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safe ty standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congr ess also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs . Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In d oing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While s chool buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-5.33OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 25, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: The Honorable Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE TO REGINA SULLIVAN TEXT: Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA administers the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its school bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough." I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety reasons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congress also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs. Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In doing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: SWIOpenMr. John W. McLeod Vice President and General Counsel Southwest Research Institute 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, TX 78228 Dear Mr. McLeod: This responds to your letter concerning two Honda scooters that Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) temporarily imported in September 2007, under the research provision specified at 49 CFR 591.5(j). You stated that you understand that once the research is complete, NHTSA requires final disposition of the scooters, which usually entails exportation or destruction. You stated that instead of exporting or destroying the scooters in their entirety, SwRI desires to remove the engines to comply with Environmental Protection Agency regulations and retain the rest of the scooters for further research, such as construction of prototype electric vehicles. You asked whether removal of the engine and keeping the remainder of the vehicle off public roads constitutes proper final disposition of a vehicle for purposes of complying with our temporary import requirements. As discussed below, the answer is no. However, there are procedures SwRI can use to request permission to keep the scooters in the country beyond the time already approved for further research. By way of background, a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) can be temporarily imported for certain statutorily prescribed purposes, including research, investigations, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events. See 49 U.S.C. 30114. If the importer is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles that are certified to the FMVSS, it must request written permission from NHTSA to temporarily import a motor vehicle for one of these purposes. See 49 CFR 591.5(j)(2)(i). NHTSA grants permission in annual increments for up to three years if duty is not paid on a vehicle, or for up to five years if duty is paid. See 49 CFR 591.7(b). Further written permission must be obtained from NHTSA if the importer wishes to keep the vehicle in the United States for longer than five years from its date of entry. Ibid. By letter dated September 19, 2007, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) granted permission to SwRI to import a 2007 Honda SH150 scooter (VIN: ZDCKF08A07F177413) for purposes of testing. By letter dated September 20, 2007, OVSC granted SwRI permission to import a 2007 Honda SH300 scooter (VIN: CNF02A07F018295), also for testing purposes. The letters informed SwRI that the vehicles could remain in the United States for a period not to exceed one year and that if additional time was required, a request for extension should be made to OVSC. The letters further noted that after the completion of the testing, the agency would require documentation that the vehicles have been exported or destroyed under Customs supervision. You have asked whether removal of the engine and keeping the remainder of the vehicle off public roads constitutes proper final disposition of a vehicle for purposes of complying with our temporary import requirements. Since such action would constitute neither exportation of the vehicle nor its destruction, the answer is no. See 49 CFR 591.5(j)(3). We note that the various letters of interpretation you cite in your letter were not related to the provision under which you temporarily imported the vehicles. If you wish to keep the vehicles in the country longer, you need to request an extension from OVSC, as described above. If you have any questions relating to this process, you may contact Coleman R. Sachs, Chief, Import and Certification Division, OVSC, at 202-366-3151. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:591 d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
ID: 04-005908drnOpenMr. Clemens Kaiser Dear Mr. Kaiser: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You ask us whether the Exatec 900, a "coated plastic glazing material", may be used in vehicle areas specified for Item 2 glazing (safety glazing material for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except windshields) if it meets the prescribed groups of tests in the standard. The answer to your question is yes. FMVSS No. 205 specifies at S5.1:"Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must conform to ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 unless this standard provides otherwise".ANSI Z26 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "Items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. Section 4 of ANSI Z26 states: "The groups of tests listed in this subsection and shown in Table 1, item by item, are deemed adequate for determining the locations in the motor vehicle for which the various safety glazing materials that qualify under this standard may be suitable."The section further states: "Safety glazing materials in motor vehicles shall comply with the applicable requirements listed in this subsection and shown in Table 1, item by item, in definite groupings of tests that are appropriate for the safety glazing material in question, and the location in the motor vehicle in which it is intended to be used. (Emphasis added. ) For Item 2 glazing, Table 1 specifies the following safety glazing materials: laminated glass, tempered glass, class 1 multiple glazed unit and class 2 multiple glazed unit. However, in the "Note:" at the bottom of Table 1, the following is stated:
The second sentence in the "Note:" to Table 1 permits Exatecs certifying the Exatec 900 as AS-2. It provides that if another material such as plastic glazing can be shown to "meet one or another of the prescribed groups of tests," the plastic glazing may be used interchangeably with the corresponding materials (i.e. , laminated glass) specified in Table 1. We note, however, there are issues--including weathering, chemical resistance, and flammability--particular to the use of a "coated plastic glazing material" such as the Exatec 900 that are not addressed in the grouping of tests for the certification of AS-2 glazing. Thus, the second sentence in the "Note:" to Table 1 results in removing the consideration of weathering for plastics being used for the first time in locations critical to visibility as substitutes for laminated glass. This is a concern because the loss of visibility due to haze caused by weathering is a typical failure mode of polycarbonate plastics under exposure to sunlight that does not occur at all in glass glazing. However, we also note that Exatec 900 is an advanced glazing material consisting of a core layer of polycarbonate which is surrounded by multiple layers of plasma deposited materials designed specifically to provide protection from the effects of solar radiation. Exatec states that the advanced technology incorporated into its Exatec 900 material provides significant weathering resistance protection that results in a useful life span of at least 10 years. The weathering resistance of EXATEC 900 has been independently evaluated by Batelle Laboratories of Columbus, Ohio. Batelle concurred with Exatecs predicted life span for its glazing material. We plan to undertake rulemaking to propose additional tests for polycarbonate glazing. We request that Exatec provide details for its accelerated aging test methodology for public comment in the rulemaking proceeding. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:205 |
2005 |
ID: 07-004899-Jan08--saOpenMr. Brent K. Faulkner PSC 476 Box 347 FPO AP 96322 Dear Mr. Faulkner: This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide you with a letter authorizing the importation of your 2005 Honda XR230 bike as a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle. You dispute the U.S. Navys denial of a request to ship your bike from Japan based on their interpretation of NHTSA regulations to prohibit the importation of motorcycles without DOT stickers or VIN numbers. Specifically, you disagree with the Navys classification of your bike as a motor vehicle because you would plan to import the bike exclusively for off-road use. As discussed below, we cannot provide the letter you request. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1), a person may generally not import a motor vehicle into the U.S. unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in place at the time the vehicle was manufactured, and the manufacturer certified the vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSSs under 49 U.S.C. 30115. Motor vehicle is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) as: [A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Accordingly, only vehicles that are intended to be operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles, and vehicles which are manufactured solely for use "off-road" are excluded. In your letter you state that the XR230 is a dirt bike, intended for off-road use, but is manufactured with devices such as turn signals, brake lights, and mirrors. You indicated that, in Japan, it is lawful to drive dirt bikes on the road provided that they are equipped with these types of devices. You stated that this facilitates the transportation of off-road, recreational vehicles without the need for vehicles capable of towing trailers. You argue that while capable of on-road use in Japan, the vehicle is manufactured primarily for off-road use. We believe that the presence of lights, mirrors, and turn signals on a bike with speed capabilities above 20 mph, such as the XR230, indicates that the manufacturer intends the bike to be used on the public roads. Moreover, we have reviewed information on Hondas website concerning the XR230. Hondas 2005 Annual Report (which can be found under the Investor Relations section of Hondas website) indicates that Honda introduced the XR230 into the Japanese market in 2005 as a dual-purpose bike . . . that is suited for both on-road and off-road use. Given the available information, we believe that on-road use is one of the primary purposes of the XR230, and that the vehicle is thus a motor vehicle. You also state that you intend to remove the mirrors, turn signals and brake lights, and import the bike into the United States for your solely off-road use. However, an individual owners planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle. The statutory definition of motor vehicle directs us to consider the vehicle as manufactured. We also note that if removal of safety equipment from a motor vehicle had the effect of re-categorizing it as exclusively intended for off-road use and thus not a motor vehicle for importation purposes, nothing would prevent individuals from reinstalling such equipment after importation into the U.S. and using the vehicle for on-road purposes. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:571 d.3/11/08 |
2008 |
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.