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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: nht87-1.54OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/28/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: T. Chikada -- Manager, Automotive Lighting, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to a new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be tilted 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle - for use of mechanical aimers for headla mps, 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 types of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adaptors. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporatin g 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 if you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adaptors for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptors which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for larger ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have prop osed. In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your new designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adaptors do not exist in the service communit y. Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidential 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 re ferences 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 and was discussed at SAE meeti ngs 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 September 4, 1986 Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A. Dear Ms. Jones, We have asked you an advice about permissibility of mechanical aiming with the additional adaptor by the letter dated August 4, 1986. As for the above mentioned letter, we would like to ask a favor of you. We would like you to deal with this matter in strict confidence. Since this headlamp is being developed as our new idea for customer satisfaction, we are trying to keep this information inside of our company. Therefore we would like you to maintain the secrecy of this information strictly against any other third party . Your kind cooperation will be highly appreciated and as well we are looking forward to your reply to our problem. Sincerely yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. |
|
ID: 17757.ztvOpenFrank Zalar, Quality Engineering & Regulatory Manager Dear Mr. Zalar: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1998, on optical axis markings for sealed beam headlamps. Paragraph S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, to be equipped with headlamps which have a mark or markings to identify the lamp's optical axis that are visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the vehicle. You present two types of markings for our consideration which you believe will satisfy this requirement. The first headlamp lens marking is a "window" which is centered on the optical/mechanical axis of the lamp. We confirm that this is a sufficient marking under S7.8.1(b). The second headlamp lens marking comprises "horizontal and vertical lines formed by flute edges of the lens the centermost of which denote the optical axis of the lamp." If the lamp does not employ horizontal flute edges at the lamp center, the headlamp center will be marked to indicate the optical axis. The intersection of the centermost horizontal and vertical lines also appear to be a sufficient marking under S7.8.1(b). If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 86-6.7OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/08/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager, Kawasacki Motors Corp. USA TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc. TEXT:
Mr. Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252
Dear Mr. Hagie:
This is in response to your letter of April 26, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.
Specifically, you have called our attention to a proposed motorcycle accessory, consisting in part of a "nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens" and intended to protect the "headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris." You have asked whether this accessory would be permissible under paragraph 54.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which in effect allows optional equipment that does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. You have advised us that "the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp" but that testing of the specific headlamp that the mask is designed to fit "has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 1208 of the minimums specified by SAE J584.. . " You have quoted a 1983 letter from the former Chief Counsel giving two examples of impairment, one a plastic cover causing a dislocation of beam pattern, or a cover that is subject to accelerated hazing or cracking, but you have stated that it is unclear whether any degree of impairment is unacceptable, or only an impairment that causes light output to fall beneath the minimum photometrics prescribed by Standard No. 108.
Because Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards, the fact that the mesh causes some reduction in photometric output does not mean that it "impairs" the effectiveness of the headlamp unless it reduces light output below the minimum levels imposed by the standard. You have stated that with the mesh installed light output is still more than 120% of the minimum required. If Kawasaki is satisfied that this output will be met with any original equipment headlamp, then it may certify compliance with Standard No. 108 of any motorcycle on which the mesh is an original equipment accessory.
The question of the permissibility of the mesh as an after market accessory is not easily answered. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits actions by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that "render operative in whole or in part" equipment which has been installed to comply with a Federal vehicle safety requirement. We would view dealer-installation of the mesh as rendering a headlamp partially inoperative if it resulted in a diminution of headlamp light output below the standard's minimum level. The prohibition does not apply to owner modifications. Whether an owner modification is legal is answerable under the laws of the States where a vehicle is registered and operated. A further observation is that although an original equipment headlamp-mesh combination may meet or exceed the minimum photometrics, it is possible that a replacement headlamp would fall beneath the threshold of photometric compliance with the mesh in place. We suggest that you consider these safety issues before proceeding to offer the accessory.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
April 26, 1985
Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
RE: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 108
Dear Sir:
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the acceptability of a proposed motorcycle accessory, a device to cover and protect the leading surface of a motorcycle fairing and headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris.
More specifically, the product consists of a vinyl or leather "mask" which fits snugly to the front of the fairing and incorporates a nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens. Our question relates to the issue of whether this mesh covering over the headlamp lens is permissible according to FMVSS 108. Your attention is directed to the letter of October 20, 1983 from then Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW North America (file ref. NOA-30), copy attached.
In this letter, Mr. Berndt indicates that NHTSA has "concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard 108." Mr. Berndt continues to indicate " if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp." He goes on to describe two examples of impaired effectiveness that the agency would presumably consider contrary to the intent of FMVSS 108: an extreme installation angle of the cover or deterioration of the cover itself.
What remains unclear from Mr. Berndt's letter is whether any degree of impairment of the light output is to be considered unacceptable, or whether the unacceptable level might be reached if the impairment caused light output to drop below the photometric standards applicable to the lamp.
In the case of the mask under consideration by Kawasaki, the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp. However, testing of the specific headlamp that this mask is designed to fit has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 120% of the minimums specified by SAEJ584, the applicable standard. Thus, while some "impairment" is acknowledged, performance with the mask in place still exceeds the requirements of FMVSS 108.
In conclusion, Kawasaki seeks NHTSA's opinion whether a mesh headlamp cover which is not subject to hazing, cracking or discoloration, and which does not cause light output to drop below the minimum levels specified by FMVSS 108 would be considered in Compliance with FMVSS 108 if offered for sale on a specific Kawasaki motorcycle.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.
Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager See 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc. |
|
ID: 23912.ztvOpen Mr. Denis Igoe Dear Mr. Igoe: This is in reply to your fax of January 16, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to visually-optically aimable (VOA) headlamps. You identified yourself as working in the automotive industry" for a "forward lighting manufacturer." With respect to a headlamp currently in production, you wrote that "a proposal for cost savings is to eliminate the horizontal VHAD and the ability to adjust in the horizontal." As you see it, "the issue becomes: through vehicle service it is possible a new headlamp w/o horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) could be paired with an old headlamp with horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) on the very same vehicle." You have asked, "aiming instructions notwithstanding, is this situation compliant or not, with existing NHTSA regs?" Section S7.8.5.3(b) of Standard No. 108, applicable to VOA headlamps, prohibits horizontal adjustment of horizontal aim of the lower beam of a headlamp unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. Thus a horizontal aim adjustment feature is not a requirement for VOA headlamps but an option of the headlamp manufacturer. The situation you posit is one in which a vehicle in service could have one lower beam that was horizontally adjustable and the other lower beam would not be horizontally adjustable. This headlamp mixture would not be permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles. Some years ago we were asked by Robert Bosch GmbH whether it would be permissible to install on one side of a vehicle a headlamp with VHAD (onboard aiming) for vertical aim and on the opposite side a VOA headlamp in the case where a vehicle manufacturer wanted to change from VHAD-headlamps to visually aimable headlamps during the production of a certain vehicle type. On March 10, 1998, we replied to Bosch (see the enclosed letter to Tilman Spingler) that "all headlamps within a headlighting system must comply with the same set of requirements, including its aiming features." We have addressed the issue of compatibility of replacement headlamps in both the preamble to the final rule adopting VOA headlamps and in an interpretation letter to Stanley Electric Co. dated June 22, 1998 (copy enclosed). In the preamble, we observed that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign" (62 FR 10710 at 10714, March 10, 1997). Citing that language, Stanley informed us that it would modify headlamp aiming features on an existing model headlamp for a new model year headlamp but would continue producing the old design for replacement purposes. The two headlamp designs would have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Stanley asked for confirmation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability. We replied to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley on June 22, 1998, stating that we did not consider the new design to be a "replacement" requiring retention of the mechanically aimable feature because the two headlamps would have different part numbers and lens identifiers. We also advised that Stanley's intent would be "even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended." In your fact situation, we assume that mechanical aimability is not an issue, and that both headlamps are VOA in type. Nevertheless, as we also advised Stanley, "[I]t is not advisable for headlamp on the same vehicle to have to be aimed by two different means." Accordingly we would encourage you to take steps to distinguish the new and old headlamp designs by the means that we suggested to Stanley (different part numbers, lens identifiers, carton marking), to minimize the possibility that a replacement headlamp might be installed that is not identical to the original headlamp, thereby creating a headlighting system that would not comply with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures |
2002 |
ID: nht79-4.46Open
DATE: 08/21/79 FROM: LEO BACHYNSKY -- R.E. DIETZ COMPANY TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/01/79, FROM FRANK BERND -- NHTSA TO LEO BACHYNSKY; OPINION BOOK; STANDARD 108, A17 TEXT: Dear Sir: Our company is presently developing a new product and is in need of a clarification concerning the legality of the proposed product as it pertains to FMVSS 108. Briefly, the device is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp consisting of two 7-1/2 inch diameter lenses. The lenses contain a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around their periphery. The two lenses are locked to a mounting flange by a special locking feature and two screws. When mounted, the device will have one lens facing to the front of the vehicle and the other to the rear. The device is to be supplied in a variety of colors, red, yellow, blue, and can be used in either a steady or flashing state. We manufacture a similar device less the reflex reflector area and previous sales data indicates the majority of the market for this type of device is for tow trucks and utility company vehicles. We are aware of the fact that Emergency Warning Lamps are not regulated by FMVSS 108 or any other Federal standard, but rather our questions concern the reflex reflector area in the device. The areas that need clarification with respect to our application are the following: 1. Paragraph S.4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 - "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by this standard." Does this Paragraph S.4.1.3. restrict the use of the reflex reflector in our proposed device as imparing effectiveness of required equipment? 2. Do Tables 1-4 of FMVSS 108 "Required Equipment for Motor Vehicles" and "Locations of Required Equipment" restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear of the vehicle? An early reply will be appreciated. Enclosed is our blueprint of the subject device and an advertising poster showing exact application of the intended device. Sincerely, Enclosure (2) |
|
ID: nht88-3.51OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 FROM: AL CUNNINGHAM -- CHIEF ENGINEER WESTBAR CORPORATION TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T. TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF SAE DEFINITIONS AS THEY APPLY TO FMVSS 108 ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO AL CUNNINGHAM, CHIEF ENGINEER, WESTBAR CORPORATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TEXT: We are writing your office requesting official clarification of definitions referred to in SAE J588e as it applies to FMVSS 108. The definition in question is, 2.2 "Multiple Compartment Lamp" and the term used in 3.1 "Single Compartment Lamp". With this request, we are furnishing two lamps as examples, one identified as 3504 exp. and the second as 3504. The first sample (3504 exp.) has a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of hou sing. This lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp. Would the sample submitted as described above be defined as a single compartment lamp? The second sample has a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class "A" reflex side and rear. Would the sample, as submitted and described, be defined as single compartment la mp? Thank you for reviewing our requests. We look forward to receiving your interpretation of these definitions as they apply to our questions and samples furnished. Enclosures - 2 samples |
|
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: 20178.ztvOpenECIE Dear Ms. Migliazza: We are replying to your emails of June 18, 1999, to Kenneth Weinstein of this agency, and of July 8, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. We apologize for the delay in responding to you. In your first email, you have told us that your company manufactures lighting equipment for motorcycles and that you "have the certificate of compliance and test report of our device with tests according to your FMVSS 108." You have asked whether the certificate of compliance is "always acceptable for you or have we to remake all the test to obtain another certificate after some year?" You reference a headlamp that meets the 1992 version of Standard No. 108 and is molded with a "92DOT" symbol, which is supported by "the test report and the certificate of compliance of 1992." First, a clarification. We believe that you are using the term "certificate of compliance" to mean the statement by a test laboratory that the lighting device that it has tested meets the specifications of Standard No. 108, as indicated by the accompanying test report. However, under our laws, a "certificate of compliance" is the indication by a manufacturer that its lighting product meets Standard No. 108, such as the DOT symbol on a headlamp lens. Each item of motorcycle lighting equipment covered by Standard No. 108 must comply with the standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to the standard. A test report based on proper testing can verify that the particular lamp tested conforms to Standard No. 108, and can afford a reasonable basis for the manufacturer to certify compliance, by concluding that identical lamps, if tested, would also conform to Standard No. 108. However, human and mechanical errors in production (such as failure to account for variations in tolerances) can result in the production of non-complying products. Therefore, we believe that a manufacturer of lighting equipment should test its product pursuant to a quality control program after the lighting item is produced to assure itself that the product as manufactured conforms to Standard No. 108. In your email of July 8, 1999, you ask if we can write "what is the US right procedure for lighting device certification." We are pleased to provide you with this information. The lens of each headlamp (other than a motorcycle headlamp) must be certified by marking it with the DOT symbol (S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108), whether the headlamp is original or replacement equipment. Other items of replacement lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, may be certified either by marking with the DOT symbol (S5.8.10), or "by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered" (49 U.S.C. 30115). Other than headlamps, no certification is required for lighting items installed on a motor vehicle as original equipment; the manufacturer of the vehicle attaches a label to the vehicle certifying that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and this includes certification to the requirements of Standard No. 108. Of course, the vehicle manufacturer should obtain test reports and other quality-related assurances from the lighting equipment manufacturer that the equipment complies before it affixes its vehicle certification label. There is no need to "register" a certificate of compliance with NHTSA or any other entity. However, a manufacturer located outside the United States is required to designate an agent in the United States who can receive official correspondence (49 CFR 551.45). Further, all manufacturers of equipment covered by Standard No. 108 are required to file an identification statement with us (49 CFR 566). I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: 17697.ztvOpenTadashi Suzuki, Manager Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1998, asking for confirmation of the acceptability under Standard No. 108 of Stanley's new visual/optical headlamp system. The system is based upon an existing system aimed by VHADs. In the new system, the VHAD for vertical aim has been removed. The horizontal aiming mechanism is "deleted by removing the horizontal VHAD and by fixing a cover on the head of the aiming bolt so that the access is impossible." The requisite marks are on the lenses identifying it as a visually/optically aimable headlamp.. You note the remarks in the preamble to the final rule on visually/optically aimable headlamps that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign." You inform us that this headlamp is intended for a new model year vehicle and that the existing type of headlamp will be provided for the replacement of the present model year of vehicle. The two headlamps will have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Under these circumstances, you have asked for an interpretation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability. It is not advisable for headlamps on the same vehicle to have be aimed by two different means. However, in this situation, where the two headlamps have different parts numbers and lens identifiers, we have concluded that Stanley is justified in concluding that the visually/optically aimable headlamp is not a replacement for the headlamp that is mechanically aimable, and therefore need not retain the mechanical aiming feature on the newer headlamp. We believe that Stanley's intent would be even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 06-005429as-6OpenMr. Kiminori Hyodo Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 4-8-3, Takanawa Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan Dear Mr. Hyodo: This responds to your letter, in which you seek clarification as to the definition of the optical axis for a lower beam headlamp using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked how one would determine the optical axis for a LED lower beam headlamp, where respective LEDs provide different light intensities or beam configurations. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the optical axis for a visual/optical aim headlamp is the reference axis necessary to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the optical aiming equipment. It is up to the manufacturer to decide how to determine that axis and to select the location of the required marking. This interpretation would apply to any visually/optically aimed headlamp regardless of light source type. 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. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Your letter asked what constitutes the location of the optical axis in a situation in which LEDs of varying intensity are used in a headlamp. You described a situation in which one LED from an array of LEDs serves to provide the dominant intensities toward the center of the beam pattern and determines a major characteristic of a cut-off. You asked if it would be appropriate to use that element to determine the optical axis. You also ask this question assuming a condition where respective LEDs are directed differently to constitute respective parts of the low-beam illumination. These questions caused the agency to closely examine the meaning of optical axis in order to assure proper headlamp aiming. In your letter, you cited a prior agency interpretation (December 21, 2005 letter to Mr. Takayuki Amma) regarding lower beam headlamps using several LEDs of equal light intensities, and our conclusion that the optical axis shall always correlate to the actual photometric output of the lamp. In view of your latest inquiry, we reexamined our 2005 interpretation relative to the determination of the optical axis. In our 2005 interpretation, we expressed agreement that the optical center would serve as an optical axis of a lower beam headlamp. We also agreed with your recommended approach and said that for LED lower beam headlamps, the optical center should be determined as the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. While we continue to believe this could be a valid approach, manufacturers may choose other methods as well. For example, with LED light sources of varying intensity, a manufacturer could conclude that the geometric center of the illuminated lens might not be accurate for marking the lamp for aiming purposes. The agency notes that the term optical axis as used in FMVSS No. 108 may be inconsistent with the encyclopedic definition of the phrase. For visually/optically aimed headlamps, the term optical axis, as it is used in Standard No. 108, refers to the reference axis (a.k.a. mechanical axis) of the headlamp. Given this, we have reexamined a second point from the 2005 letter, in which we stated that the center of the emitted light is always taken to be the center of the optical axis. In saying this, we were quoting a January 14, 1976 letter of interpretation to the Department of California Highway Patrol. Upon closer examination, the 1974 letter addressed the optical axis (i.e., the mechanical or reference axis) in turn signals, not headlamps. As turn signals are symmetrical, the center of light emitted should always constitute the reference axis. However, as headlamps are asymmetrical, the quoted portion of the 1974 letter does not apply to headlamps. Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that a visually/optically aimed headlamp include a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp. The location of this mark or markings is to be determined by the headlamp manufacturer. Once chosen, the mark establishes the reference axis that will be used to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment with the headlamp being aimed. NHTSA will use this mark to identify the reference axis, and will conduct its compliance testing accordingly. Finally, we note that this interpretation broadens flexibility for manufacturers under the rule and, as such, does not amount to a change implicating compliance issues for manufacturers currently relying on the opinions in our previous letters. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.5/25/07 |
2007 |
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.