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: aiam4331OpenMr. Nobuyoshi Takechi, Technical Manager, MMC Services Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Takechi: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1987, with reference t the legality of a proposed concealed headlamp design.; As we understand the proposed design, the headlamp could be used in th 'concealed' position as a forward warning (which you believe 'is similar to the daytime running light principle' and 'is useful to avoid accidents') and in the unconcealed position as a headlamp to provide visibility of the roadway ahead. A portion of the vehicle body in front of the concealed headlamp would be clear, allowing the beam from the concealed lamp to shine through it. The steady burning forward warning signal would be given by pulling a spring-loaded switch. Releasing the switch would turn off the headlamp. Thus, the concealed headlamp would not, as a practical matter, be used for providing visibility of the roadway ahead but as an alternative to the vehicle's audible warning device, the horn. The proposed use would be a visual 'horn.' Finally, you state that the beam pattern and intensity of the lamp 'is corresponding to the headlamp's,' although you do not explain how this is possible, given the potential for interference from the vehicle's body.; Standard No.108 prohibits covers or other styling features in front o a required headlamp when it is being used for purposes such as illuminating the roadway ahead or increasing the visibility of the vehicle in conditions of reduced visibility. We do not consider this prohibition applicable when a headlamp is being used, in all likelihood momentarily, for forward signalling as described. Further, use in this manner would not appear to impair the lighting equipment required by the standard. Additionally, headlamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes, as you have proposed, however, we are unable to advise you whether operation of this device is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. Your letter does not indicate whether the beam utilized is the upper beam or the lower beam, some jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Virginia prohibit use of the upper beam for signaling purposes. Others may restrict use of headlamps or a portion of them during daylight hours, we expect to learn more about this in comments to the docket on the daytime running lamp proposal. In the meantime, I would advise you to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, for its views on State laws.; You have stated that this use 'is similar to the daytime running ligh principle.' However, as proposed by the Government of Canada, and by the U.S. Government in the Federal Register (52 FR 9316) such 'DRLs' would be automatically energized, and not energized at the driver's choice as is your device. Therefore, we do not view the operation of your device as similar to the daytime running light principle.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4807OpenMr. Gordon Bonvallet 1686 Lighthouse Hill Road Homer, NY 13077; Mr. Gordon Bonvallet 1686 Lighthouse Hill Road Homer NY 13077; Dear Mr. Bonvallet: This is in reply to your letter of October 5, l990 with respect to a prospective headlighting system. It is contemplated that the lower beam on the system would be furnished by a gaseous discharge headlamp, an 'integral beam' headlamp under Standard No. 108. The upper beam would be furnished by a replaceable bulb headlamp using an HB3 light source. You comment that a combination system such as this is not specifically addressed by Standard No. 108, and you ask for confirmation of your opinion that the photometric requirements of Figure l5 would apply to both the upper and lower beam headlamps. At the present time, such a hybrid headlighting system is impermissible under Standard No. 108. The standard establishes separate requirements for integral beam headlighting systems (S7.4), and for replaceable bulb headlighting systems (S7.5). Though 'integral beam headlighting system' is not specifically defined by Standard No. 108, such a system would appear to be one that consists of integral beam headlamps. Standard No. 108 does define 'integral beam headlamp', and that definition specifically excludes 'a replaceable bulb headlamp' such as one containing an HB3 light source. Similarly, a 'replaceable bulb headlamp system' is one that consists solely of headlamps containing HB1, HB2, HB3, HB4, or HB5 light sources. It is true that Figure l5 is one of three lower beam photometric options that apply to an integral beam headlamp, such as one producing illumination through gaseous discharge. However, under the language of the standard, Figure l5 applies when the lamp is used in a four headlamp integral beam headlighting system (S7.4(a)(l)(i)). It is also true that the upper beam photometrics of Figure 15 apply to an HB3 replaceable bulb headlamp (S7.5(e)(3)(ii)), but only when used in a four lamp headlighting system in which each headlamp contains a single replaceable light source. As you know, the policy of this agency for the last decade has been to reduce design restrictions on headlighting systems. Removal of the implicit prohibition against hybrid headlighting systems would be a further step in this direction. If your client is seriously considering such a system, it may submit a petition for rulemaking at the appropriate time. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4691OpenMr. Victor Crisci 70 Lenox Road Wayne, NJ 07470; Mr. Victor Crisci 70 Lenox Road Wayne NJ 07470; Dear Mr. Crisci: This is in response to the telephone call you made t me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 furnished you on August 7, l989. To summarize, you wished to know whether a 'safety light flasher' to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light to the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. 108 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.l0(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams. You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. 108, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do not interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device does not contain this feature. We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. In our opinion, a device that switches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash (such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4352OpenDr. Ernst, Hella KG Hueck & Co, Postfach 28 40, 4780 Lippstadt, GERMANY; Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY; Dear Dr Ernst: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Va Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.; The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe i consist of two additional parts: 'the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two-component adhesive', and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier....' In your words, 'The two parts are held together by three screws', and you believe that 'the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded'.; Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a 'replaceable bulb headlamp in pertinent part as 'a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly....' In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a 'replaceable bulb headlamp' that is permissible for use on motor vehicle sold and used in the United States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical amiability is that the beam and aiming pad are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4333OpenMr. C.M. Mehta, Manager - Exports, Autolite (India) Limited, 469, Road No. 9, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, 302013 India; Mr. C.M. Mehta Manager - Exports Autolite (India) Limited 469 Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area Jaipur 302013 India; Dear Mr. Mehta: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1987, to the Departmen of Transportation. You mentioned an earlier letter dated January 9, 1987, enclosing a copy of your product catalogue, but I regret to say that this Office has not received it.; As a producer of motor vehicle lighting equipment, you have asked fo answers to the following questions:; >>>'1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlam Units 7 inch, 5 3/4 inch (Round) and Rectangular small and large'.<<<; In the United States no 'approval' is required to import the headlamp that you mention. However, the manufacturer must assure itself that the headlamp comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (essentially those of the SAE for round and rectangular sealed beam headlamps), and certify each one as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification is a DOT symbol on the headlamp lens.; >>>2. Can we market those lamps as referred in Para. No. 1 fitted wit 9004, 9005 and 9006 Bulbs. If There is any specifications/technical details available with you, please send us a copy.'<<<; The headlamps discussed in paragraph 1 are sizes traditionall associated with sealed beam headlamps, rather than with replaceable bulbs such as the DOT HB1 (9004), HB3 (9005), and HB4 (9006). However, it is permissible to produce headlamps in these sizes, which incorporate replaceable light sources that are specified by Standard No. 108. However, such headlamps must meet all the requirements of the standard applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps. I enclose(sic) a copy of Standard No. 108 for your information.; >>>'3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitte on Headlamps with Lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflectors made of metal?'<<<; Yes, a headlamp may have a reflector of either plastic or metal. >>>'4. Details of approval required for High Beam Driving Lamps to b use for off- road vehicle.'<<<; >>>'5. The details of specfications (sic) for Driving Lamps to be use on Cars, Trucks, etc.'<<<; Standard No. 108 does not require vehicles to be equipped with drivin lamps and it establishes no requirement for them. If there are any specifications or approvals required, they are those of the individual States in which these lamps would be sold and used. For further information on State requirements you should write: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.; It is the position of this Department that any headlamp unit which i capable of replacing a passenger car headlamp must meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, even if it may also be used on off-road vehicles.; You have also asked for copies of 'SAE F-80 Front Fog Lamps' an SAE-J-79 Motor Cycle Headlamps'. We are not familiar with these materials and advise you to write: Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., 400 commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa. 15096. As for 'Specification for Driving Lamps Using H3 Bulb', this appears to be a European specification unknown to us, as the H3 bulb is one that is not widely used in the United States.; The following is a listing of those requirements that must be complete before shipments begin. You must:; 1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).; 2. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, 'Manufacture Identification.'; If you determine in good faith that any lamp manufactured by you doe not conform with Standard No. 108 or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.; We are enclosing the following pertinent publications: 1. The Act 2. 19 CFR 12.80, 'Regulations for Motor Vehicle Importation' 3. 49 CFR 551, 'Procedure Rules' 4. 49 CFR 573, 'Defect and Noncompliance Reports' 5. 49 CFR 576, 'Record Retention' 6. 49 CFR 579, 'Defects and Noncompliance Responsibility' 7. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicl Equipment; If we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4615OpenCONFIDENTIAL; CONFIDENTIAL; "Dear CONFIDENTIAL: This is in reply to your letter of June 30, l989 to John Donaldson of this Office titled 'Request for Interpretation', submitted on behalf of your client. You request 'that all identifying references to myself, my firm and my client in this letter and the responsive letter of interpretation' be deleted. Your request is granted on the basis that it relates to confidential business information and may be withheld under applicable Departmental regulations, 49 CFR Part 512. You describe a lamp system as follows: 'The product is a headlamp consisting of a plastic lens and reflector, arc tubes (two each for high and low beam) and electronics for instant start and re-start of the headlamps as well as management of the operating current. A 12 volt connection is supplied for connection of vehicle line voltage'. You have asked for a letter 'confirming' that this lamp system is designed to conform to the integral beam headlamp requirements of paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, 'subject only to compliance with the appropriate photometric requirements of FMVSS l08.' A headlighting system of the nature described must be designed to conform to all the pertinent requirements of S5.5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.7, as well as S7.4, including mechanical aim and environmental requirements. However, since this headlamp does not use filaments for converting the electrical energy to light energy, certain configurations of such systems may not conform, because some requirements are predicated upon the existence of filaments (e.g., S5.5.9 and S7.4(f)). If the headlamp you describe meets all requirements, then it would appear to be an integral beam headlighting system designed to conform to S7.4. Whether the headlamp in fact meets those requirements is for the lamp manufacturer to determine, as it must assure the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed that he may certify compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. l08. Further, the headlamp manufacturer itself must certify compliance of replacement equipment. If the headlamp is incompatible with these requirements and cannot meet them, then it would not appear to be an integral beam system. In that case, rulemaking would be required to accommodate it within the framework of Standard No. l08. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /"; |
|
ID: aiam5454OpenMr. Rishi Gupta Autolite (India) Limited D-483 Road No. 9-A Vishwalkarma Industrial Area Jaipur 302 013 India; Mr. Rishi Gupta Autolite (India) Limited D-483 Road No. 9-A Vishwalkarma Industrial Area Jaipur 302 013 India; Dear Mr. Gupta: This is in reply to your FAX of August 29, 1994, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For future reference, requests for interpretations of U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety regulations should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel. You have asked whether the size and types of aiming pads you propose to place on headlamps manufactured by Autolite conform to DOT specifications. You describe these headlamps as 'a 7' round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beams which use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2).' You enclosed diagrams showing 'aiming pad's position as per SAE J1383 - 1992' (Figures 1 and 3), and in the manner you wish to place them on the Autolite lamps (Figures 2 and 4). We understand that these replaceable bulb headlamps are intended to be sold as replacements for sealed beam headlamps of the same dimensions. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the DOT specification that applies to Autolite's headlamps. The aimability performance requirements for non-sealed beam headlamps are found in S7.8. of Standard No. 108. S7.8 allows any aiming pad pattern that will fit on the headlamp and that will allow any one of the available aiming adapters described in SAE J602 to be used on the headlamp. Specifically, S7.8.1 in pertinent part allows non-sealed beam headlamps to be equipped with aiming pads to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR85 (not '1992' as you wrote) when being tested for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is installed on a motor vehicle. S7.8.5 allows an installed headlamp system to be aimable with an externally applied aiming device. Under S7.8.5.1, this aiming device shall be the equipment specified in SAE Standard J602 OCT80 Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units. You write that the aiming pad sizes and types you wish to use are identical to those on headlamps sold by Hella, and that ETL Testing Laboratories has told you that the aiming pad positions and types meet DOT specifications. This indicates that Autolite's headlamps would be mechanically aimable with SAE J602 equipment, and therefore permissible as meeting Standard No. 108. We recommend that Autolite verify mechanical aimability with SAE J602 equipment before certifying compliance with Standard No. 108. Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and asks that we point out the following errors in Autolite's Figures Nos. 2 and 4. Under both Figures, there is a reference to 'HB-2 (H4 P43t).' The HB2 light source is not the same as the H4 P43t light source. The HB2 is a light source permitted by Standard No. 108 while the H4 P43t is not permitted by the Standard for motor vehicles. Under the drawing, the dimension '68.5' should be '68.58 +/- 0.51' (see Figure 4-4 of Standard No. 108). The dimensions of '32' and '52.0' must be the sum of two dimension 'A's from Figure 4-4, thus the sum is 42.16 +/- 0.25 + 42.16 +/- 0.25 = 84.32 +/- 0.50, not 84 as nominally calculated. Finally, with respect to Figure 4 only, because this lamp is intended to replace a 200 x 142 mm sealed beam lamp, the position of the aiming pads are not, but should be identical to the 200 x 142 mm sealed beam to facilitate mechanical aim when only one headlamp is replaced. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5035OpenHerr Tilghman Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH Dept K2/ELS 11 Postfach 13 42 D-4710 Reutlingen Germany; Herr Tilghman Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH Dept K2/ELS 11 Postfach 13 42 D-4710 Reutlingen Germany; "FAX (49)7121-1792 Dear Herr Spingler: This responds to your FAX o July 9, 1992, asking for a 'quick answer' to your question regarding the aim of replaceable bulb headlamps. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement of 'a vertical aim range of +/-4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of +/- 2.5 degrees' means 'that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa?' The requirements to which you refer are found in paragraphs S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S7.7.3 requires in pertinent part that 'When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall be not less than +/- 4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application.' Paragraph S7.7.4 requires that 'When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall be not less than 2.5 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application.' We call your attention to paragraph S7.7.2.2. With respect to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa, the paragraph requires conformance with respect to the applicable photometrics 'with the lens at any position relative to the reflector within the aim range limits of paragraph S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 or any combination.' This clearly indicates that when a replaceable bulb headlamp that is aimable as provided in S7.7.2.2 is adjusted to the extreme of its range, and at all positions in between, it must continue to meet all applicable photometrics. We interpret this requirement as also applying to headlamp systems of replaceable bulbs subject to S7.7.3 and S7.7.4, but aimable in a manner outside S7.7.2 (such as movement of the entire headlamp, rather than its lens or reflector). I hope that this answers your question. Please note that under recent amendments to Standard No. 108, paragraphs S7.7.2.2, S7.7.3, and S7.7.4 have been renumbered respectively S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, and S7.8.4. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4283OpenMr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Department, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be titled 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle for use of mechanical aimers for headlamps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the type of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adapters. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporating on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.; However, there are some practical considerations that are important i you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adapters for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptor which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps, and replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for large ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have proposed.; In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your ne designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adapters do not exist in the service community.; Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidentia treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying references to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 *Development of MR (Multi- Reflector Headlamp)* and was discussed at SAE meetings in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5516OpenMr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252; Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana CA 92799-5252; Dear Mr. Shetler: We are responding to your FAX of March 29, 1995, t Taylor Vinson of this Office. On May 6, 1994, we advised you that a motorcycle headlamp with an upper beam projector on one side of the vertical centerline and a lower beam projector on the other did not comply with Standard No. 108. You now ask whether the headlamp would comply if an exterior housing were installed on the headlamp which 'provides the appearance of two headlamps.' This modification in the design does not result in a complying headlamp. Regardless of its exterior appearance, the lamp remains a single headlamp incorporating both an upper and lower beam projector. Since both projectors are within a single headlamp, both projectors must be on the vertical centerline, as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108. Even if the upper and lower beam projectors were in separate units, neither in itself would be a complying headlamp, and hence not a two-lamp system that could be mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. 108 does not permit motorcycles to have a headlamp system with asymmetrical beam location. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel; |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.