NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
- 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
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: 11643MLSOpen Mr. J. Brian Powers Dear Mr. Powers: This responds to your letter asking whether Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks for motor vehicles in the United States require periodic hydrostatic testing. You stated that these containers had been purchased by BC gas and stored in a warehouse, but did not state the date of their manufacture. The answer is no. This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to require the periodic testing of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, after the first consumer purchase. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has exercised this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. One such requirement is that each new CNG container comply with a hydrostatic burst test. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with the hydrostatic burst test and the other requirements in FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to periodic hydrostatic testing (or any other periodic testing) of motor vehicles or such equipment. I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers used to transport hazardous materials, including CNG containers. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the periodic retesting of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle. Even though there are no Federal requirements about the periodic hydrostatic testing of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, each state has the authority to regulate motor vehicles while they are in use. Accordingly, a state could regulate the testing of CNG containers in the aftermarket. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: 304 d:4/19/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11644WKMOpen Mr. Dennis L. O'Connor Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you requested this agency's interpretation of what constitutes a "new" tire for purposes of applying the provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New pneumatic tires and No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Your question relates to section 30112 of Title 49, United States Code, which provides, in paragraph (a), that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import for sale any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment on or after the effective date of any FMVSS that does not comply with that standard and is so certified. Section 30112(b) provides that this requirement does not apply, however, to a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of that product in good faith other than for resale. Section 30112(a) applies, therefore, to the sale of Anew@ motor vehicles and Anew@ items of motor vehicle equipment, as opposed to used vehicles and equipment items. FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 specify performance and labeling requirements applicable to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars and motor vehicles other than passenger cars, respectively. Standard Nos. 110 and 120 require that new motor vehicles be equipped with tires that meet either FMVSS No. 109 or FMVSS No. 119. Turning now to the question of what is meant by a "new" tire as opposed to a "used" tire, a vehicle or item of equipment is new from the time of its manufacture until its first retail sale. The agency considers the point at which the vehicle or item of equipment is delivered to the customer to be a critical factor in determining whether and when an item has been purchased. Thus, it is at the point of delivery of the item to the retail purchaser that a vehicle or item of equipment ceases to be "new" and therefore subject to Federal law and the FMVSSs, and becomes "used" and subject to state law and regulations. The agency considers a motor vehicle to be the sum of its parts, including the tires mounted on the vehicle and its spare tire, if any. Accordingly, after a vehicle is delivered to its first retail purchaser, every component on and in that vehicle, including all its tires, becomes "used" for the purposes of the FMVSSs. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:109#119 d:4/18/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11645DFOpen Mr. David T. Holland Dear Mr. Holland: This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers. You asked whether tires for vehicles other than passenger cars that are not labeled with the DOT symbol must be branded "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY" before you can sell them, or whether you can test such tires and if they pass the test, brand the DOT symbol on them. You explained to Mr. Myers that your company imports Mercedes sport utility vehicles whose tires are not labeled with the DOT symbol. You stated that you remove the noncertified tires from the vehicles and substitute certified tires therefor so the vehicles can be sold in the United States. However, since neither Bridgestone, the manufacturer of the tires, nor Mercedes will accept return of the tires, you are seeking ways in which these tires can legally be sold in the United States. Based on the information you provided to Mr. Myers, the tires in question must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the labeling and recordkeeping requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire be marked with: (a) The symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This symbol may be marked on only one sidewall. The DOT symbol is normally molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires during the manufacturing process to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the original manufacturer of the tires must mold a tire identification number into or onto the sidewall of each tire it produces in accordance with Part 574.5. Thus, whether or not tires comply with FMVSS No. 119 and are marked with the DOT symbol, if they do not contain the required tire identification number, they cannot be sold in the United States. Although tires for vehicles other than passenger cars that do not contain the DOT symbol may not be sold for use on the streets, roads, or highways of this country, they may be sold for off-road use only. There is no requirement that tires be branded or otherwise marked "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY" before selling them in this way. However, it is advisable that the seller of such tires make a statement to that effect on the sales voucher or other written document as proof that the seller sold the tires with the understanding that they would only be used off-road. The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, provided the tires and their shipping containers are labeled for export only. Thus, you are free to export the tires in question, whether or not they comply with FMVSSs. In that respect, see attached letter to Oxytire, Inc., dated May 24, 1995. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:119 d:4/23/96
|
1996 |
ID: 11646RENLUXOpen Mr. David Baret Dear Mr. Baret: This responds to your March 6, 1996, letter asking about our requirements for child restraint systems. You explain that your company would like to sell child restraints manufactured abroad in the United States. During a dynamic test you had conducted on one of the restraints, the seat failed to meet the performance requirements of Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems,@ when secured to the test seat assembly with only a lap belt. You ask if Standard 213 would permit the child seat to meet performance requirements when secured with a lap and shoulder belt, rather than just a lap belt. The answer is no. Under S6.1.2 of Standard 213, child restraint systems such as yours must meet performance requirements when secured with only a lap belt. Certain types of child restraints are excepted from the lap belt only requirement, but your restraint is not among these. Among the excluded restraints are Abelt- positioning@ child seats, which are defined in S4 of the standard as: [A] child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II [lap and shoulder] belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child=s torso in a forward impact. (Emphasis added.) As Ms. Fujita of my staff discussed with you in a March 25, 1996, telephone conversation, your child seat has an internal belt system harness and thus is not a belt- positioning seat. Accordingly, your child restraint system would be tested secured with only a lap belt. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests most child restraint systems with only a lap belt because lap belts are provided in the rear seats of many older model vehicles still on the road, and in the center seating position in the rear seat of many newer model vehicles as well. If your seat cannot meet Standard 213's requirements with only a lap belt, you could not in good faith certify your product as complying with Standard 213. I have enclosed an information sheet for your information, which briefly outlines NHTSA=s standards for new manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:213 d:4/16/96 |
1996 |
ID: 11647MLVOpen Mr. Michael Love Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1995, requesting information concerning the readiness indicator requirement in S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding. S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 states: An occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position. You ask whether this requirement applies (1) to a voluntarily-installed inflatable restraint (not needed to comply with Standard No. 208), or (2) to an inflatable restraint installed to meet the requirements of another standard (such as Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection). You state that Porsche believed that in both of these situations the manufacturer could install: - no readiness indicator, or - a separate readiness indicator from that required by Standard No. 208, or - a readiness indicator combined with that required by Standard No. 208. As explained below, for both types of inflatable restraints, we agree with the first two of these statements, but not necessarily with the third. Voluntarily-Installed Inflatable Restraints A crash-deployed occupant protection system installed in addition to required safety systems would not be required to comply with the provisions of the safety standards. Thus, a readiness indicator would not be required. However, in the interest of safety, we would urge you to consider voluntarily providing a readiness indicator for the system. As explained below, if you voluntarily provide a readiness indicator, and decide to combine it with the required readiness indicator, the information provided by the former must not confuse or obscure the information provided by the latter about the required air bag. The indicator must distinguish between the different air bag systems, such as by having dissimilar signals for the different systems. While systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with the standards, they must not make inoperative the compliance of the required systems (49 U.S.C. '30122). We urge you to make sure that by combining a voluntarily-installed readiness indicator with the required indicator, you do not prevent the latter from complying with Standard No. 208. If the messages of the two indicators were not distinguishable, a driver would not know if the illuminated telltale showed a problem with the occupant protection system installed to comply with Standard No. 208, or a problem with another system being monitored. NHTSA addressed a related issue in a rulemaking that allowed manufacturers to install a manual cut-off device for a passenger-side air bag in certain situations (60 FR 27233; May 23, 1995). The agency stated there that the readiness indicator must monitor only the driver's air bag when the passenger-side air bag was deactivated. In other words, the indicator must not be affected by the deactivated state of the passenger-side air bag. Systems Installed for a Standard Other than Standard 208 The requirement for a readiness indicator (S4.5.2) applies only to systems that are installed to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, and not to systems installed to comply with another standard. Air bag systems installed pursuant to Standard No. 208 are generally installed to meet the frontal protection requirements of that standard. While a readiness indicator is not required for systems installed for other purposes, we would urge the manufacturer to provide a means of monitoring the readiness of the system, consistent with the cautions above. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:208#214 d:4/25/96
|
1996 |
ID: 06-004314OpenPatrick Boyd, Head Mechanic Manchester Local Schools 6075 Manchester Road Akron, OH 44319 Dear Mr. Boyd: This responds to your request for a ruling or clarification on the extent to which diodes on school bus light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lighting must be burned out for the school bus to be taken out of service. Our answer is provided below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Each State has the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles, including school buses, which travel on the public roads of that State. The question you pose relates not to the manufacture and/or sale of a new school bus but to operational requirements (i.e, which lights or diodes on the school bus must function) for school buses to be permitted to travel on Ohio roads. The agency notes that L.E.D. lamps are certified to our lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) by manufacturers at the time of sale with a full one hundred percent of the diodes operating. However, the determination of when a school bus is taken out of service is entirely up to State law. Further, your State motor vehicle administration should be able to tell you which State official has the final authority in making decisions about which school buses will be permitted to be used on Ohio roads. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.9/5/06 |
2006 |
ID: 06-004327drnOpenDean Rose, Founding Partner Transportation Safety Products, Ltd. 6797 N. High Street, Suite 214 Worthington, OH 43085 Dear Mr. Rose: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements that apply to a voice alarm system that, according to the advertising pamphlet you enclosed, actually talks to and alerts the children with three distinct, clear and loud voice messages. There is also a panic button that verbally warns pedestrians and/or children that a car is moving around the school bus stop arm by announcing: Danger! Get back! A car is coming! By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects. There is no FMVSS that applies to a child safety alarm system such as you have described. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for, among other things, notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your device is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) In addition, Section 30122 of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from making modifications that make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard Any person in the aforementioned categories installing your device on a new or used school bus or transit bus must take care with the safety systems required of the vehicles. For example, FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, establishes requirements for school bus emergency exit release. Section S5.3.3.1 requires, among other things, an audible warning at the school bus drivers seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door if the release mechanism is not in the position that causes the emergency exit door to be closed and the vehicles ignition is on. In addition, FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices, has a requirement in section 5.5 for a warning audible to the driver when an optional device that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm is activated. Your device must not negatively affect the operation of either of these required warning systems. The make inoperative provision does not apply to a vehicle owner making changes to his or her own vehicle. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. We also note that this child safety alarm system appears to shift some of the burden of responsibility to child pedestrians. The responsibility for looking out for children should, first and foremost, be on the adults (i.e., the school bus driver and the drivers of vehicles around the school bus). This product should not be viewed as a substitute for vigilance on the part of drivers to look out for children. In addition, the talking bus should not distract children, especially when they are crossing the street. We are also concerned that the bus may attract the curious child, encouraging approaching the bus and seeking out the source of the voice. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) may have requirements that affect the placement of your child safety alarm system on transit buses. I would suggest you contact them directly for a legal opinion about the applicability of FTA requirements to your product. Note also that States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. If you wish to know whether State law permits the installation of your child safety alarm system in school buses or other motor vehicles, you should contact State officials with your question. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d.11/3/06 |
2006 |
ID: 06-004732drnOpenMr. Terrill J. Blair, Sr. 7013 86th Street, NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332 Dear Mr. Blair: This responds to your letter asking whether a used car with deployed air bags must have its air bags reinstalled before sale. As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. However, individual State laws may require such reinstallation before a used car is sold. You explain that you recently purchased a 1996 Buick LeSabre from a private party. You state your belief that the vehicles air bags have been deployed, and the air bags were not reinstalled. You write to ask whether this car [can] be sold without the air bags (safety equipment) being reinstalled. I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed as a result of a crash. The first letter, dated January 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the Attorney General of the State of Washington to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations: Office of the Attorney General State of Washington 1125 Washington, St., S.E. P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 The Washington State Attorney General has branch offices that might be closer to you. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:208 d.12/13/06 |
2006 |
ID: 06-005423asOpenMr. 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 requesting clarification regarding the luminous intensity requirements for front turn signal lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Specifically, you asked whether the multiplier in paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 applies to the minimum luminous intensities listed in Figure 20, Visibility of Installed Lighting Devices (Luminous Intensity Measurement Method). As discussed below, it does not. 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). On August 11, 2004, NHTSA published a final rule updating FMVSS No. 108 to increase compatibility with the relevant standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) pertaining to a variety of lighting requirements (see 69 FR 48805). The luminous intensity multiplier referred to in paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 applies to the photometric requirements of turn signal lamps. Paragraph S5.3.1.7 specifies that the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5. The multiplier referred to in paragraph S5.3.1.7 supersedes the luminous intensity multiplier described in paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84), which has been incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 108 via paragraph S5.1.1 and Table III of the standard. (S5.1.1 refers to Table III, which references SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84) as the applicable standard for turn signal lamps.) To explain more fully, paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84) specifies numerous luminous intensity multipliers dependent on the lamp separation distance. Paragraph S5.3.1.7 overrides this SAE specification by requiring that turn signal lamps mounted within 100mm of the lighted edge of a headlamp shall use 2.5 as the multiplier. Thus, the luminous intensity multiplier referred to in FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S5.3.1.7 applies to the SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84) photometric requirements of turn signal lamps. We note that the minimum luminous intensities referred to in Figure 20 of FMVSS No. 108 are visibility requirements, not photometric requirements. The origin of these requirements is FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S5.3.2(b). This paragraph states that a manufacturer must certify compliance of each lamp to one of the following visibility requirement options, with one option being that each such lamp must provide a luminous intensity not less than that specified in Figure 20. Because this refers to visibility requirements, referencing the light seen by the human eye, as opposed to photometry requirements, referencing the output of light from the lamp (and which was the subject of the luminous intensity multiplier), the multiplier does not apply to the values in Figure 20. I hope this information is helpful. 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.2/7/07 |
2007 |
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.