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: aiam5139OpenMr. Guy Dorleans International and Regulatory Affairs Manager Valeo 34, rue Saint-Andre 93012 Bobigny Cedex France; Mr. Guy Dorleans International and Regulatory Affairs Manager Valeo 34 rue Saint-Andre 93012 Bobigny Cedex France; "Dear Mr. Dorleans: We have received your letter of January 22, 1993 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to aimability of headlamps. Valeo is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. It appears that these headlamps will require unique aiming adaptors (meaning that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with them). These adaptors will be placed in the trunk of any vehicle with which they are supplied, and relevant instructions for use will be included in the vehicle operator's manual. Valeo has asked for confirmation that each version complies with Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that the vehicle's headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that an adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the new headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where the Hopkins adaptor is in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the new headlamps. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam1715OpenMr. Randall D. Bartlett, 225 Ginger Drive, Auburn, CA, 95603; Mr. Randall D. Bartlett 225 Ginger Drive Auburn CA 95603; Dear Mr. Bartlett: This is in reply to your letter of November 27, 1974, asking about th legality of rectangular headlamps, particularly with respect to the aftermarket.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflectiv Devices and Associated Equipment*, permits the use of a four-headlamp system with rectangular lenses of specified dimensions (approximately 4-1/4 by 6-1/2 inches), on vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1974, and August 31, 1976. The standard also permits manufacture of replacement headlamps for this system for sale in the aftermarket. The standard does not allow rectangular headlamps of other sizes, or a two-headlamp system, either as original equipment or for sale in the aftermarket.; I enclose a copy of that portion of Standard No. 108 covering th rectangular headlamps.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0070OpenMr. Jon H. Leu, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Jon H. Leu Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Leu: Thank you for your letters of January 15 and March 25, 1968, to th National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to snow removal and heavy duty on-off highway vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh.; Standard No. 108 requires that headlamps be mounted not more than 5 inches above the road surface. Since your snow removal vehicles may be used in hauling operations as a secondary function, and since your heavy duty vehicles are used on the public roads, they are required to be equipped with headlamps located in accordance with Standard No. 108. Additional headlamps mounted on the cab roof or elsewhere on the front of the snow removal vehicle is permitted by the standard.; With reference to your heavy duty vehicles, headlamps located in th bumper, with adequate openings in front of the headlamps, or headlamps located below the bumpers, with protective shields around the headlamps would be permitted by Standard No. 108.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, we must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard. The certification information that you have provided us in your letter of January 15 is in accordance with our requirements.; We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desir to comply with the existing safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4895OpenMr. Ken Hanna Lectric Limited, Inc. 7322 S. Archer Road Justice, Illinois 60458; Mr. Ken Hanna Lectric Limited Inc. 7322 S. Archer Road Justice Illinois 60458; Dear Mr. Hanna: This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations. You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on 'antique cars.' Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are 'for display purposes only and not approved for highway use.' Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for 'display purposes only.' The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4896OpenMr. Ken Hanna Lectric Limited, Inc. 7322 S. Archer Road Justice, Illinois 60458; Mr. Ken Hanna Lectric Limited Inc. 7322 S. Archer Road Justice Illinois 60458; Dear Mr. Hanna: This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations. You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on 'antique cars.' Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are 'for display purposes only and not approved for highway use.' Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for 'display purposes only.' The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3132OpenMr. H. J. T. Young, Vice President - Technical Affairs, SEV Corporation, 33201 Harper Avenue, St. Clair Shores, MI 48082; Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice President - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores MI 48082; Dear Mr. Young: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You referred to the SAE standard on motorcycle headlamps, J584, whic specifies that the 'bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the [photometric] test.' You asked whether the 'rated voltage' of J584 is the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37 when the bulb in question is a European bulb bearing an E mark signifying compliance with Regulation 37.; The term 'rated voltage' is not defined by J584 or by the correspondin standard on sealed beam headlamps, J579c. It is our opinion, however, that 'rated voltage' is the equivalent of 'design voltage' on the basis of the SAE standard that covers bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps, J573d, *Lamps Bulbs and Sealed Units*. Table 2 of J573d lists voltages for such headlamps under the heading of 'Design.'; We realize that your question arises in the context of recent testin by NHTSA of Cibie headlamps, incorporating European H4 halogen bulbs, for compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 for motorcycle headlighting. NHTSA tested these headlamps at 12.8 volts and discovered that the maximum allowable 5000 candela at test point 4D-V was exceeded by many of the lamps tested. You raised the question whether NHTSA should not have tested at 12 volts, the 'rated value' given by Regulation 37 for the H4 bulb, at which value all lamps tested by NHTSA would have complied at test point 4D-V.; We do not believe that NHTSA is required by J584 to test the H4 bulb a 12 volts. Regulation 37 specifies a 'test voltage' of 13.2 for the H4 bulb, a point apparently recognized by EFPE Company's catalogue 'Turned on Lighting' which gives wattage figures for the headlamps in question 'at 13.2 design volts as specified by the bulb manufacturer.' If anything, NHTSA was overly conservative in testing its lamps at 12.8 volts, for it is apparent that had it tested at 13.2 volts even more failures would have occurred.; As Roman Brooks explained to you, it has been the European practice a nearly as we can determine to test the H4 bulb at 12.8 volts, apparently in recognition that the higher voltage levels are closer to those generated by the electrical systems of the motor vehicles on which the headlamps are installed. Given this fact and Regulation 37's specification of 13.2 test volts, we do not believe that a lamp manufacturer could successfully argue in court that J584 was ambiguous and should be construed against NHTSA in any attempt by this agency to enforce motorcycle headlighting requirements on the basis of results of test conducted at 12.8 volts.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4713OpenMr. Bill Waltz Wagner Division Cooper Industries, Inc. 155 Algonquin Parkway Whippany, NJ 07981; Mr. Bill Waltz Wagner Division Cooper Industries Inc. 155 Algonquin Parkway Whippany NJ 07981; Dear Mr. Waltz: This is in reply to your letter requesting permissio for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps. Wagner has been asked to assemble some headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the l950's. The lamps would be marked 'l' and '2' in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than '2Dl', '1C1', and '2C1', as required by Standard No. 108. The DOT symbol would not be provided, 'since this obviously was not on the original lamps.' You have informed us that the lamps 'will be made to today's photometric standards' and 'subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights.' Finally, 'they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers.' I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under l5 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As such, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December l978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of Standard No. 108, including marking and certification. Standard No. 108 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, l968, and January 1, l969. On January 1, l972, it became effective for equipment intended to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, l972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for l950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on l950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. 108. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. 108, and marked and certified accordingly. The intended markings 'l' and '2' would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE Standard J579a, October l965 (which also did not require the DOT symbol on the lens). Until June l989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. 108 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /; |
|
ID: aiam4687OpenMr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Mr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in response to your letter of November 20, l99 with respect to 'interpretation and/or petition' concerning combination headlighting systems. Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps. The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, are headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. 108. We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2630OpenHonorable Robert W. Straub, Governor of Oregon, Salem, OR 97310; Honorable Robert W. Straub Governor of Oregon Salem OR 97310; Dear Governor Straub: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views o legislation recently enacted by the State of Oregon which appears to be preempted by Federal legislation of the same subject matter.; Specifically, we understand that ORS 483.404 was amended in June 197 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or; >>>'... the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption o Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both.'<<<; Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d): >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, *no State* or political subdivision of a State *shall have any authority* either *to establish*, or to continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment *any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.' [Emphasis added.]<<<; Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.; The United Nations Agreement, and this agreement as amended by th Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, it does not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, does not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to ORS 483.404 is, in our opinion, preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.; As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Orego manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing in the United States through the State of Oregon any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon ORS 483.404, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) in an amount up to $800,000 (15 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (*e.g.* foglamps).; Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariabl upheld. (See *e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy,* 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D>C. Vt. 1968), *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as 'of controlling weight.' (*Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham* 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra*, at 512.); We would appreciate the view of the State of Oregon on this subject Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. The Agency's position on this matter was presented previously in a letter dated May 27, 1977, From Mr. Levin to the Administrator of the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. The Committee, however, chose to disregard our opinion, when it considered Oregon House Bill 2998 and recommended its passage.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam3833OpenB. R. Belsches, Captain, Safety Office, Department of State Police, Commonwealth of Virginia, P.O. Box 27472, Richmond, VA 23261-7472; B. R. Belsches Captain Safety Office Department of State Police Commonwealth of Virginia P.O. Box 27472 Richmond VA 23261-7472; Dear Captain Belsches: This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1984, asking for a interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and 'a history relative to the inclusion of such function of headlamps and marker lamps.'; Paragraph S4.6(b) allows means to be provided for the automati flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes, as an exception to the general rule that vehicle lamps (other than turn and hazard warning signals, and school bus warning lamps) be steady-burning in use. This confirms your understanding of the wording of the standard and its effect. It does not allow, however, modulating headlamps which do not flash on and off, but deviate between a higher intensity and a lower one.; Originally, paragraph S3.5 of the standard (see *e.g.* 49 CFR 371.21 Standard No. 108 rev. as of January 1, 1970) stated that 'normally steady-burning lamps may be capable of being flashed for signaling purposes.' On January 3, 1970, the agency proposed paragraph S4.6 (35 F.R. 106) as it exists today. It was adopted on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840). The agency observed that some commenters requested that additional lamps be permitted to flash and some requested that flashing headlamps be prohibited. It also noted that, with the exceptions set forth in S4.6(a), flashing lamps should be reserved for emergency and road maintenance-type vehicles, and that flashing lamps are otherwise prohibited in the Uniform Vehicle Code. The agency further noted that lamps could be flashed by the driver merely by turning the switch on and off, and that it could not prohibit that type of operation, but that the definition of 'Flash,' also adopted in the amendments, made clear that automatic flashers for use with steady-burning lamps other than headlamps and side marker lamps were prohibited.; This is the rulemaking history of paragraph S4.6. I hope that this wil answer your questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.