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: 7289Open Herr Tilghman Spingler FAX (49)7121-1792 Dear Herr Spingler: This responds to your FAX of 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 ref:108 d:8/3/92
|
1992 |
ID: nht92-5.1OpenDATE: August 3, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Tilghman (Tilman) Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Tilman (Tilghman) Spingler to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7502) TEXT: This responds to your FAX of 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. |
|
ID: 18780.ztvOpenMr. Henry S. Winokur Dear Mr. Winokur: This is in reply to your e-mail of September 22, 1998, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. You report having sent two prior e-mails to this Office with no response. I am not sure to whom they were addressed, but Taylor Vinson, the attorney who handles lighting matters, did not receive them. I am sorry that we have not been able to respond until now, but questions of Federal preemption are complicated and not easily resolved. Further, all opinions from this Office are coordinated with other Offices of the agency to ensure accuracy and consistency, and this process necessarily takes a little time. You report that the State of Maryland regards modulating motorcycle headlamps as lights that flash, thereby violating state laws reserving use of flashing lights for emergency vehicles. You wish to see this situation corrected by the agency's application of the Federal preemption provision. Mr. Van Iderstine has provided you with copies of two interpretations which he believed indicate that Maryland's law is not valid. These letters are those of February 1, 1990, to Tracey Powell of the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), and the letter of September 11, 1997, to Walter Jakobowski of Signal Dynamics Corporation. We have reviewed the Maryland Vehicle Law. Section 22-218 Audible and visual signals on vehicles, states in pertinent part:
Our review shows that the exceptions of paragraphs (1) through (9) deal with fire, police, ambulance, state, and service vehicles, and not with motorcycles driven by ordinary citizens. On the other hand, S7.9.4 Motorcycle headlamp modulation, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, specifies that a headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate, provided that it does so in accordance with the requirements prescribed in S7.9.4. I am enclosing a copy of S7.9.4 per your request to Mr. Vinson. We understand that a modulating headlamp is activated automatically when the ignition switch is turned on, and that a motorcycle operator cannot deactivate the modulation feature except by turning off the engine. With respect to Federal preemption of state laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)provides in pertinent part that:
This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State may have its own standard which allows a motorcycle headlamp to be wired to modulate in the same manner as prescribed under S7.9.4. However, since the Federal standard specifically allows a modulation of motorcycle headlamps, a State may not establish or continue in effect a standard prohibiting a headlamp that modulates in accordance with S7.9.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As our letter to AMA notes, we distinguish between a flashing lamp (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off) and a modulating lamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam). However, the Maryland prohibition against lamps that oscillate or feature any "other type of emission of light" could be interpreted to include any lamp whose light is not steady-burning when the lamp is activated, whether or not it is intended to apply to a motorcycle's modulating headlamp. Mr. Vinson has discussed the motorcycle headlamp modulation provisions of Standard No. 108 with Jon Acton of the Office of the Attorney General, Maryland, as well as your unsuccessful attempt to contact the Motor Vehicle Administrator. Mr. Acton seems willing to accommodate your request for a favorable interpretation of Maryland law, to indicate that it was not intended to prohibit a modulating headlamp on motorcycles. He surmises that you tried to communicate by e-mail, and remarked that such a message would be forwarded to him for reply, but that he had not received it. He invites you to communicate with him, either by letter (Office of Attorney General, Room 200, Motor Vehicle Administration, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, MD 21062) or by e-mail: If you have further questions, you may refer them to Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263). Sincerely, vsa#108 d.1/21/99 |
1999 |
ID: 20161.ztvOpenMr. Ron Woodward, P.E. Dear Mr. Woodward: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. S7.8.2.1(c) of Standard No. 108 states that:
Paragraph S7.8.5.2 requires each headlamp system that is capable of being aimed by equipment installed on the vehicle to include a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) that conforms to the remainder of the paragraph. Paragraph S7.8.5.2(a)(2)(iv)requires that the horizontal indicator of a horizontal adjustment mechanism of a VHAD
You ask for
You give as an example a lamp that has a +/- 1 degree of horizontal travel. You are asking for an interpretation that a system that adjusts a headlamp horizontally but which differs from the specifications of S7.8.5.2 is not a "horizontal adjustment system" within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c). We cannot provide the interpretation you seek. You admit that the headlamp is not fixed but is adjustable horizontally up to +/- 1 degree. As you note, "[t]he standard . . . states that the only acceptable type of horizontal adjuster is a horizontal adjuster which conforms to the horizontal VHAD requirements contained in the standard." Standard No. 108 is quite clear on this point: a manufacturer need not provide a horizontal adjustment mechanism on a headlamp that is visually/optically aimable and has a lower beam. But if the manufacturer chooses to provide a mechanism that adjusts the headlamp, it must meet all requirements of S7.8.5.2 including the +/-2.5 degree specification, even if the headlamp itself is designed for only +/- 1 degree of horizontal travel. Because we cannot concur with your desired interpretation, we are treating this matter as a petition for rulemaking in accordance with your request. We have forwarded your letter to the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards who will respond to your petition. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: aiam4645OpenMr. Takayoshi Chikada Manager of Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.; Mr. Takayoshi Chikada Manager of Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.; FAX 03-792-0007 (Japan) Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to you letter of June 16, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June l9 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) to December l, l989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed. Your third question is: How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations. This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the test procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathematical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance. Your final question is: It is acceptable to set up initial '0' point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically? You may determine the 'O' point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal 'O' point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal 'O' mark is required to be determined. In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. 108 to this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: nht87-2.13OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/17/87 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: C.M. METHA -- AUTOLITE[INDIA] LIMITED TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/23/87 FROM C.M. MEHTA TO NHTSA RE DOT APPROVAL ON HEADLAMPS, DRIVING LAMPS ETC FOR MARKETING IN USA TEXT: Dear Mr. Mehta: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1987, to the Department 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 for answers to the following questions: "1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlamp Units 7", 5 3/4" (Round) and Rectangular small and large". In the United States no "approval" is required to import the headlamps that you mention. However, the manufacturer must assure itself that the headlamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Dev ices, 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 with 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 traditionally 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 siz es, 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 a copy of Standard No. 108 for your infor mation. "3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitted on Headlamps with Lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflector 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 be used for off-road vehicles." "5. The details of specifications for Driving Lamps to be used on Cars, Trucks, etc." Standard No. 108 does not require vehicles to be equipped with driving lamps and it establishes no requirements for them. If there are any specifications or approvals required, they are those of the individual States in which these lamps would be sold a nd 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 is 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" and 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 completed 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, "Manufacturer Identification." If you determine in good faith that any lamp manufactured by you does 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 acc ordance 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, "Procedural Rules" 4. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports" 5. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention" 6. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility" 7. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment If we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, Enclosures |
|
ID: nht79-1.43OpenDATE: 01/12/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Mercedes-Benz TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 27, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether it is permissible to use symbols for the parking lamp functions of the headlamp switch, in addition to the headlamp symbols required in Table I of the Standard. The answer to your question is yes. Section 5 of the standard states that each passenger car "with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1, . . . shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display." Since no symbols or other designations are required under the standard for parking lamps where their control is not combined with that for headlamps or for "lamps-off" positions on controls, it is up to the manufacturer whether to label these additional functions and whether to use words or symbols. Footnote 2 of Table 1 of the standard does provide that a manufacturer must use the single headlamp symbol to designate several functions when clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps are all controlled with the headlamp switch. This footnote was not intended to preclude additional symbols for these other functions, however. In fact, S5.2.1 provides that "additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity." Regarding your drawings, clearance lamps are listed in paragraph S5.1 and in column 1 of Table 1 of the standard. Therefore, they must be identified by the symbols shown in column 3 of Table 1 or by the words "Clearance Lamps" or "Cl Lps". The "parking right and left" symbol shown on the drawing submitted with your letter would not satisfy the requirements for clearance-lamp designations. However, the symbol labeled "Clearance Lamps" that appears on the drawings which Mr. Gebhard M. Hespeler and Mr. Craig Jones submitted on December 20, 1978, would conform with the requirements. I have enclosed a copy of that drawing. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. SINCERELY, November 27, 1978 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Re.: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80 Dear Madam or Sir: Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays, specifies symbols for identifying certain functions of hand-operated controls, but does not address the parking lamp function of the headlamp switch other than the reference contained in Footnote 2 Table I. We suspect this footnote statement is to simplify requirements for providing symbols on those switches, all of whose functional positions cannot readily be identified, such as push-pull switches. An interpretation is therefore requested as to whether or not it is permissable to use additional symbols for the parking lamp functions in addition to the headlamp symbols required in Table I of this standard. An example of such headlamp switch markings is shown in the attached drawing. This rotary switch has the following corresponding functions: Full counter-clockwise; parking lamps, left-hand side of vehicle, ignition off. Next position clockwise; parking lamps, right-hand side of vehicle, ignition off. Vertical/middle position: all lamps off. Next position clockwise; parking lamps and side marker lamps left and right, - ignition on or off. Full clockwise; headlamps, parking and side marker lamps. We would appreciate receiving your interpretation of this standard at your earliest convenience. Do not hesitate to contact this office should you require further information on the switch described. HEINZ W. GERTH Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80 Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: 17490.ztvOpenTadashi Suzuki, Manager Re: Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1998, asking for confirmation of the acceptability of Stanley's aiming adjustment mechanism under Standard No. 108. This mechanism is intended for headlamps that will be used on vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998. On all such vehicles, each headlamp equipped with a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) must be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its manufacturer (S7.8.5.2(c)). The Stanley headlighting system consists of two headlamps, each equipped with two single-filament light sources. The headlamp is designed to be visually/optically aimable. Reflectors for both bulbs are integrally molded so that one aiming mechanism is sufficient to aim both the lower and upper beams. The headlamp system will be installed on a vehicle with an automatic leveling system which has a range of vertical movement of +/-2.5 degrees. The headlamps in question that are intended for use on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1998, are equipped with two aiming bolts to facilitate manual aiming. Bolt A is used for horizontal aiming. Both Bolts A and B are used for vertical aiming. From the drawings on Attachment 2 to your letter, it is evident that any independent movement of Bolt B also affects horizontal aim because it causes rotation around an axis that is other than horizontal. You have informed us that, with respect to vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, Stanley intends to provide headlamps that comply with S7.8.5.2(c) either by removing the VHAD from Bolt A or by permanently fixing its calibration (Stanley has not yet made its choice). With either choice, "the range of vertical adjustment by bolt B with less than 0.76 degree horizontal aim deviation is +/- 1 degree." You explain that "the automatic leveling system supplements the manual aiming system and covers the maximum variation of vehicle pitch, which depends on loading and the actual movement during driving and may exceed +/- 1 degree." We want to point out that if only Bolt B is used to adjust the lamp vertically by more than 1 degree, horizontal misaim will exceed 0.76 degree. This will result in a noncompliance, unless, pursuant to S7.8.5.2(b)(3), an advisory label is placed adjacent to the mechanism and instructions to be inserted in the vehicle operator's manual indicating that both Bolts A and B must be used to adjust vertical aim. Alternatively, Stanley could retain the horizontal VHAD function and permanently fix its calibration. Paragraph S7.8.5.3(b) states that "there shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD." Since the movement of either Bolt A or Bolt B affects the horizontal aim, it is not possible to use the fixed horizontal aim approach of S7.8.5.3(b) while allowing independent movements of Bolts A and B for vertical aim. Therefore, use of this alternative would require the addition of a second VHAD. In Stanley's design, finding the factory setting for horizontal aim depends on the relationship between the settings of two adjustment bolts rather than, as in the usual design, the absolute position of a single independent adjustment bolt. It would be necessary to equip both bolts with horizontal VHAD indicators with a fixed calibration so that the factory horizontal aim could be restored during the process of vertical aim adjustment. For example, having the VHAD indicators of each bolt read the same number could indicate the proper relationship for factory horizontal aim. We believe that this interpretation is consistent with the interpretation provided you on this subject by Transport Canada. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 17497.ztvOpenHerr Tilman Spingler Dear Herr Spingler: This is in reply to your fax of March 12, 1998, commenting on our letter to you of March 10 with respect to the visual/optical headlamp aiming provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In response to your question, our letter advised that it would not be permissible to install on new vehicles a mixed headlighting system in which a headlamp on one side of the vehicle would have a VHAD for vertical aim and on the opposite side a visually aimable headlamp. We also advised that the VHAD appeared to allow for vertical aim only and did not include a horizontal aiming feature. You comment that it was not the intent to have a headlamp with only a vertical VHAD but "to replace the vertical VHAD (bubble level) by means which allow optical/visual aim and to leave the horizontal VHAD as it is." We understand from your remark that both headlamps would have a horizontal VHAD and that one would have a vertical VHAD as well while the other would substitute for the vertical VHAD a means allowing optical/visual aim. This clarification, then, moots our previous comment. You have also commented that "mixed installation should only be permitted in the case of replacement of a damaged headlamp as indicated in my FAX of 1/14/98," and asked whether our advice that the headlamps on both sides of a new vehicle have to be identical "really only applicable for new vehicles." We do not seem to have received your FAX of January 14, 1998, in which you indicated that your question pertained to replacement headlamps rather than original equipment. While the prohibition against mixed headlamp aiming systems that was the subject of the March 10 interpretation applies only to new vehicles, the agency is concerned that the ability to correctly aim all headlamps on a vehicle could be lost as a result of certain mixes of replacement headlamps. Accordingly, the agency expects to propose shortly rulemaking that will address this issue. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht75-2.42OpenDATE: 09/17/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: L. A. Fink, Esq. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1975, concerning Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards. You ask for confirmation that there is no Federal requirement for turn signal lamps or a dual beam headlamp on a motor-driven cycle whose maximum speed does not exceed 30 mph, and that a State is preempted from requiring such items of equipment on these vehicles. As you noted, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that where a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not establish or maintain in effect a different standard that covers the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), establishes the Federal requirements for motorcycle lighting. All motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and October 14, 1974, were required to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, effective October 14, 1974, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose top speed does not exceed 30 mph need not be manufactured with turn signal lamps as required lighting equipment (S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108). Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table 1 of J584). This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one. It also means that, if a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 mph is not equipped with turn signal lamps, a State may not require them. I hope you will find this of assistance to your clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd. SINCERELY, FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS August 22, 1975 Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office Augusta, Maine Re: Federal Preemption In accordance with our telephone discussion of today, I am enclosing herewith copies of the following: (1) NHTSA Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108; (2) SAE J584 -- referred to in Table 3 of MVSS108; and (3) 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). As I explained to you we represent Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier Ltd., joint venturers for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles in the United States. We also represent their distributor for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Timberland Machines, Lancaster, New Hampshire. I appreciate your assistance in trying to clear up the federal state preemption problem. The particular problem here involves the possible conflict between the federal standard and the State of Maine regulation concerning headlamps. The federal standard requires only a single beam headlamp whereas the State of Maine regulation apparently requires a double beam. As I mentioned, the NHTSA in October 1974 prescribed motor vehicle equipment safety standards for a category of vehicles defined as motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle is in this category and fully complies with all NHTSA safety standards. The enclosed FVSS108 Table 3 prescribes the required federal standards for headlamps and refers to SAE J584. SAE J584 in turn provides that a single beam headlamp is acceptable; a dual beam headlamp is not required. A look at 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that in the area of motor vehicle safety equipment, this federal standard preempts any state standard dealing with the same aspect of performance. (See the first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).) As you will see the state standard must be identical with the federal standard; it cannot be higher or lower. In view of this I would appreciate your clarifying with the appropriate Maine officials, including the motor vehicle registration and inspection authorities, that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle and any others in the same category qualify for registration and inspection with the single beam headlamp. I hope this discussion and the enclosed information are sufficient for your purposes. Kindly contact me if you have further questions or need further information. I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the State Police inspection authorities, Sgt. Merservy (spelling uncertain), and your office in resolving this problem. I look forward to your early response. Leonard A. Fink FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS September 3, 1975 Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Federal Preemption of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards I am writing on behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd., joint ventures for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles (mopeds) in the U.S., to request your assistance in clarifying the subject of federal preemption. The issue has arisen in several states, including Maine, Massachusetts and Delaware, where our clients have encountered refusal by motor vehicle authorities to register or inspect the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle because it lacks either turn signals or dual beam headlights called for by the respective state regulations. The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, however, does fully comply with all NHTSA safety standards required for motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. MVSS108, revised effective October of 1974, specifically eliminates the need for turn signals on this type of vehicle. Furthermore, with regard to headlamp requirements, MVSS108 Table 3 refers to SAE J584 which in turn provides that a single beam headlight is acceptable. We have furnished the state authorities with copies of the NHTSA standards and also pointed out the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). The first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that the federal standards preempt any state standards dealing with the same aspect of performance and that states shall have no authority to continue in effect any different standards -- either higher or lower. While the respective legal authorities in the various states have been cooperative, I believe the matter could be more quickly and easily disposed of if you would send us a letter confirming that in fact MVSS108 does not require turn signals or dual beam headlights and that these, as well as all other federal motor vehicle safety standards, preempt any different state standards dealing with the same aspects of performance. My thanks for your cooperation. Please let me know if you have any questions or require further information. Leonard A. Fink CC: TAYLOR VINSON |
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.