ID: 21012.ztv

Brandon Billingsley, Vice President Marketing
CRS Electronics
Heavy Duty Bus Parts
17850 I-45
Willis, TX 77318

Dear Mr. Billingsley:

We are replying to your letter of November 19, 1999, with respect to your "new overhead LED warning light system for school buses." You ask whether your product will comply with Federal standards.

You call the new technology "strobing LEDs," and say that you are able to "build a warning light module that combines the 'attention grabbing,' authoritative effect of strobe lights and the long life expectancy of LEDs." You have tested "according to the protocols of SAE J887," and report that your product "does indeed exceed the requirements of SAE J887 for strobe lights."

We assume that you wish to offer your product as original equipment on school buses. The acceptability of your product is determined by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal (or four red and four amber) lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July 1964. Under this standard, school bus warning system lamps are required to flash alternately in a range of 60 to 120 flashes a minute. Unlike later versions of J887, an optional flash rate in Hz is not specified.

A few years ago we were asked whether a school bus warning system consisting of strobe lights met Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of our letter of March 29, 1994, to Harry C. Gough. The system we were asked about was described as flashing "on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the vehicle repeats the aforementioned pattern." We replied that we believed that the light emanating from a strobe lamp under these performance parameters "will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternatively flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108."

You did not specify the flash rate of your product, but you may use our 1994 interpretation as a guideline for determining whether the light would be perceived "as a single light of varying intensity," and hence compliant with Standard No. 108. If it would not be so perceived, then your lamps would appear to be noncompliant with the Standard's requirements.

The minimum photometric requirements of the 1964 specification are also the ones that apply to your product. I enclose a copy for your information.

If you have questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/29/2000

ID: 1984-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort-Tour Cycle Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Roberson Comfort-Tour Cycle Products 8724 116th Avenue, N. E. Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Roberson:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1983, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, which was forwarded to this office for reply, concerning the legal requirements regulating the manufacture of motorcycle windshields. You requested information on how you as a manufacturer may obtain certification of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (FMVSS No. 205), Glazing Materials. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). These requirements include specifications for performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles and motorcycles, such as minimum levels of light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Copies of FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 have been enclosed in the letter sent to you by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance dated January l0, 1984.

You should be aware that the NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your windshields comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination.

There are other regulations and standards affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment of which you should be aware. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act a copy of which is enclosed, requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. In addition, Part 556 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's regulations. You should refer to the Act and its implementing regulations in order to understand the extent of your responsibilities as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1983-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mohawk Rubber Company -- T.J. Brown

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T.J. Brown Mohawk Rubber Company Roanoke, Virginia 241017

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in response to your March 28, 1983, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the effective dates for the recent suspension of treadwear grading under this agency's Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

Your understanding of the effective dates is correct. Tires produced in molds manufactured on or after August 8, 1983, must have the new grading format which excludes treadwear information. Tires produced in molds manufactured before which includes treadwater information. We encourage manufacturers to use the new format as soon as feasible, to minimize the dissemination of misleading information with regard.

With regard to labels, the requirement that such labels must contain information regarding treadwater grades was suspended effective February 7, 1983. The preamble to the final rule states that manufacturers will be permitted to exhaust inventories of labels which were in existence as of the date of the suspension. Thereafter, manufacturers should begin using labels without treadwear information.

If you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 28, 1983 Mr. Roger Fairchild Re: 49 CFR Part 575, Docket No. 25, Notice 52

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

Mr. C.D. Frame of Mohawk contacted you on March 28 pertaining to the ruling included in the Federal Register dated Monday, February 7, 1983.

Our particular concern is in interpretation of the treadwear stamping to be included, or not included, in the tire mold. We understand the ruling to state that tires which are produced after August 8, 1983, are not to have the treadwear information only if the molds themselves were manufactured after this date.

On tires produced in molds which were manufactured prior to August 8, 1983, the treadwear information is permitted on the molded tire. It is further our understanding that tire label are to have the treadwear grade and the explanation as to how it was obtained removed from them as new labels are procurred after the date of February 7, 1983. Existing inventories of labels containing he treadwater information are permitted to be used until such time as thi inventory is depleted.

We would appreciate a letter from you in response to our interpretations as to whether they are indeed correct.

Very truly yours

MOHAWK RUBBER COMPANY

T. J. Brown General Manager, Product Services

ID: 1985-03.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mr. William Pesce; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Pesce

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence of any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does, among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.

In addition, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, also applies to new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.

If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standard No. 104 or Standard No. 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1) (A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.

As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLS.

OCC-0747

Department of Transportation

May 18, 1985 We propose to offer for sale to the public a colored windshield wiper blade.

Our blade attaches to existing windshield wiper arms.

It does not alter in any way the speed or rythem of an operating wondshield wiper.

It is not made of floresent, or as they are called HOT colors nor is it reflective in any way.

We have been unable to find any safty restrictions which would apply to our product. If such restriction do, or do not exist we would appreciate receiving this information by return mail in the envelope provided.

William Pesce B P Origionals

ID: 2523y

The Honorable Lawrence J. Smith
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Smith:

I am writing in response to your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or "tint," on automobile windows.

You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act"), 15 U.S.C. 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

Thus, by installing tint film on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards.

You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules.

I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205#VSA d:6/25/90

ID: 2953o

Mr. George Ziolo
DOT Paperwork Processor
234l7 Everett Place
Ramona, CA 92065

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988, asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. l08 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible "because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'." You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that "S4.4 appears to permit such a combination."

Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions; in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7" diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. l08.

Paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. l08 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4" diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp headlighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles." The SAE Standard establishes at two test points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and l0,000 candela. The Type 1C1 headlamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only l0,000 is allowable).

Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehicle itself through creation of a "veiling" glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:9/12/88

ID: 23532.ztv

Mr. Daniel Watt
280 Lindo Court
Unit A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037





Dear Mr. Watt:

This is in reply to your email of August 22, 2001, to Michael Cole of this agency.

You related having seen trucks using light emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of incandescent bulbs for their taillamps, and asked whether "red LEDs installed in place of a bulb [in] a clear taillight meet the color 'red' requirements. Or would that be a non-compliance because the housing was not certified for use with LEDs?"

Under Federal law, lighting equipment on motor vehicles must be designed to comply with 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The manufacturer of the vehicle then certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including Standard No. 108. The original rear lamps on the trucks that you saw were equipped with incandescent bulbs.

Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamps, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which [Standard No. 108] applies shall be designed to conform to this standard." This means that a replacement item must be designed to conform to the standard in the same manner as the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance with the original equipment installed. A rear replacement lamp equipped with LEDs would not be designed to conform to the standard in the same manner as the original equipment, and would therefore not comply with S5.8.1. Whether it is legal to use replacement equipment such as the LEDs on the public roads is not a matter of Federal law but of State law. We are not conversant with state laws and cannot advise you about this. You might want to contact the California Department of Highway Patrol for its views on this subject.

Substituting LEDs into a lamp that was designed to incorporate incandescent light sources raises safety concerns. An incandescent light source emits light when an electric current passes through a resistant metallic wire (filament). The position and shape of the filament, along with other design elements, define the unique electrical and photometric characteristics of the light source. Lamp designers incorporate these characteristics into the original optical design of the lamp. Thus, substitution of the original light source with one of a different design may negatively impact the photometric performance of a lamp below the minimum required for compliance with Standard No. 108. In addition, other functions required by Standard No. 108 may be affected by substitution of an LED, such as operation of the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator (S5.5.6).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/4/02

ID: nht92-4.44

DATE: August 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Eugene Welker

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/82 (should be 6/22/92) from Eugene J. Welker to Jackson Rice (OCC 7434)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about a mirror system designed to improve a driver's view of areas behind a motor vehicle. You explained that a 35" vertical post would be bolted near a vehicle's rear bumper. This would result in a mirror being located a few inches above the top rear window stop light and facing forward at a 45 degree angle. You asked whether such a device would be legal. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve, endorse, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that the vehicle manufacturer must certify that each vehicle it manufactures complies with the specified requirements. Standard No. 111 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror and a driver's side outside rearview mirror that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. A passenger's side outside rearview mirror is required in situations where the inside rearview mirror does not provide the specified field-of-view. Additional requirements for other vehicle types are set forth in S6, S7, and S8.

No provision in the Standard specifies requirements for a mirror that attaches to the vehicle's rear bumper. Accordingly, a mirror like yours would not be prohibited from being installed on any vehicle by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. Accordingly such a mirror would be permitted, but only as a supplement to the required mirrors. In installing the mirror, one must take care to avoid obscuring the vehicle's lighting devices, including the center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate vehicles while they are in use. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22203 may be able to advise you about the laws of the individual States related to the use of equipment such as your own.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.4

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Steven Rovtar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7353)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington

Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: nht91-6.15

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jon Nisper -- K.B. Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-23-91 from Jon Nisper to Jerry Medelin (OCC 6403)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 23, 1991, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have enclosed a drawing of a combination headlamp/turn signal lamp assembly that depicts two possible positions ("Case l," "Case 2") for the inboard wall. With respect to each, you have asked "where should the 100mm separation be measured for turn signal headlamp position?"

Let me begin by noting that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that front turn signal lamps be separated from headlamps by at least 100mm. However, if there is less than a 100mm separation of those lamps, S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 provides that the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities for the lamps shall be 2.5. NHTSA determines the distance of the separation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 5.1.5.4.2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width." That paragraph provides the following means of measuring spacing:

"Spacing for a front turn signal lamp which primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens to meet photometric requirements, shall be measured from the geomeric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp."

We would apply this as follows. You stated in your letter that the inboard walls in your proposed headlamp/turn signal assembly serve no functional purpose. We interpret this as meaning that neither the inboard wall in Case 1 or Case 2 shown in your drawing would be used optically in the headlamp. Under this assumption, and the assumption that no direct light from the bulb filament illuminates the outer edges of the headlamp lens nearest the turn signal, the lighted edge of the headlamp reflector would end where the relevant inboard wall meets the reflector. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588 NOV 84, one would then take a vertical plane that is parallel to the axis of the headlamp bulb, and project it from the end of the lighted edge of the reflector (i.e., where the respective inboard wall meets the reflector) onto the lens. You have already drawn this as a line in the drawing enclosed with your FAX. Next, take the axis of the turn signal bulb and project it onto the lens (this line also exists in your enclosed drawing). To determine the separation, one would then measure the distance between the projected points on each lens. Should the headlamp lens area between the turn signal and the projected vertical wall line onto the headlamp lens be lighted, either on purpose or inadvertently, then the actual lighted edge of the headlamp would be used for measurement purposes.