ID: aiam1716

Dear Mr. Henderson: This is in reply to your letter of October 17,1974, requesting ou opinion on whether a torso pad you wish to utilize in a newly-designed child seating system must conform to the requirements of paragraph S4.10.1 of Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems' (49 CFR S 571.213). The enclosed description, diagrams, and pictures of the pad show that it is attached directly to the harness restraint of the seating system. You suggest that because it works with the restraint webbing, it provides a cushioning function more or less like deformable, force-distributing material. You also suggest that it falls under the exclusion for belt adjustment hardware.; In our view, based on the information you provide, the torso pad is rigid component of the child seating system, and is subject to the requirements for padding and minimum radii of paragraph S4.10.1. The fact that the pad is attached to the belt system does not alter this conclusion. Paragraph S4.10.1 refers to 'any rigid component,' and the torso shield must be evaluated as a component separately from the belt system or any other component. We have determined that rigid should be interpreted in its normal, dictionary sense, and it appears from the information you have provided that the torso pad by itself is rigid in nature.; We can neither agree that because the torso pad acts as a bel adjustment system it falls within the exemption for 'belt adjustment hardware.' That exemption is intended to apply only to traditional belt adjustment hardware mechanisms, which are generally completely integrated into the belt webbing and do not protrude from it.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5042

"Dear Mr. Misorski: This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992 asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that 'equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling', and that 'it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991.' You have asked for this interpretation to 'ensure compliance with our equipment fleet.' What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991. I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1228

Dear Mr. Robb: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1973, concerning th conformity of certain designs of type III seat belt assemblies with Standard No. 209.; The first feature which you describe is a restraint consisting of waist band with a single shoulder strap. The shoulder strap is attached to the buckle in front and is looped around the waist band in back. Unless this restraint has more elements than you describe, we have serious questions about its conformity with the requirements for type III seat belts under Standard 209. Section S4.1(c) provides that the assembly must restrain the upper torso without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region and that the upper torso restraint shall be designed to minimize its vertical forces on the shoulders and spine. It appears doubtful that the described assembly meets either of these requirements.; The second feature you describe is a strap through the harness assembl that passes around the seat back and is anchored to the floor by means of the vehicle's seat belt assembly anchorage. Your question appears to be whether such a restraint is a seat back retainer as required by Section S4.1(h). The attachment you describe would not be a seat back retainer under Section S4.1(h).; The third feature described, a closed loop strap without floo attachment would also violate the requirements of S4.1(h), unless it is designed and labeled for use only in specific models having adequate seat back restraints, as specified in that paragraph.; The fourth feature is the ability of a harness to move freely up an down on the restraint strap. This feature is allowable under Standard 209.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2627

Dear Mr. White: This responds to Michelin's March 23, 1977, letter concerning it February 20, 1976 petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Your petition for reconsideration was responded to on February 7, 1977 (42 Fr 7140). By this letter, you attempt to resubmit your petition for reconsideration.; Petitions for reconsideration must be received by the agency within 3 days of the publication of a notice. Since the resubmission of your petition is untimely, it has been considered a petition for rulemaking as required by Part 553,35 of our regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.; Your petition suggests that consumers will be confused by the tir label information if the vehicle is not equipped with the tires identified on the label. The agency has determined that confusion will be minimized by the use if the optional heading 'Suitable Tire-Rim Choice.'; Your petition raises a second problem concerning tires of identica size designations manufactured by different companies. These tires may have different inflation pressures even though their sizes are identical. The agency understands that this difference in inflation pressure could result in confusion. Manufacturers, however, con avoid this problem through the use of the manufacturers's name on the tire information label as part of the tire information. Use of the manufacturer's name on the label should distinguish between two otherwise similar tires.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 17385.wkm

Mr. William Daws
B & W Farm Center
7581 East Monroe Road (M-46)
Breckenridge, MI 48615

Dear Mr. Daws:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff asking whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), would apply to your truck glider kits. The answer is yes.

The agency's regulation with regard to the combination of new and used components is found at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)(as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

By its terms, therefore, paragraph 571.7(e) applies to specific situations in which a new cab or body is combined with used chassis components. Stated another way, the resulting vehicle will constitute a new vehicle unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)are used and any two of those component came from the same vehicle. If, on the other hand, either the engine, transmission, and/or drive axle(s) are new or no two of them are from the same vehicle, then the vehicle is new. If the vehicle is considered new, it must be certified to meet all applicable safety standards (including ones requiring ABS) in effect as of the date of its manufacture (not the date the vehicle was ordered or delivered). See 49 CFR Part 567.

You also asked whether a truck is required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards even if approximately 80 percent of its use will be off-road, in this case, farm use. The answer is yes.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.)(hereinafter Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle.

Nothing in your letter suggests that your trucks should be treated any differently from any other trucks, which are clearly motor vehicles. We note that a particular customer's planned use would not ordinarily affect whether a vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. Moreover, even if your particular customers' planned use were relevant, 20 percent would represent a substantial amount of time on-road.

I am also enclosing for your information fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:121#567#568#571
d.12/4/98

ID: 18065.nhf

Mr. Ron Smith
Vice-President
Access Wheels, Inc.
7101 North 55^th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether you are required to conduct impact crash tests as a prerequisite to complying with federal safety requirements. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you modify minivans and full-size vans, both before and after the first retail sale, to accommodate persons with disabilities. The modifications you perform typically involve installing wheelchair lift mechanisms in full-size vans and wheelchair ramp assemblies in lowered floor minivans. You explain that you install various combinations of equipment acquired from a large number of manufacturers and suppliers in your modifications. You explain that you rely on an assortment of impact crash test data, other testing, and engineering analysis in determining whether the vehicle complies with the safety standards. You state that you believe you have exercised due care with respect to these determinations and compliance with all the applicable safety standards. In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether you are required to conduct multiple crash tests. As discussed below, Access Wheels is required to assure that each of the vehicles it manufactures complies with all applicable safety standards, but it is not required to conduct crash tests of any of its vehicles to certify compliance with these standards.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of the safety standards specifies performance requirements. Dynamic tests are prescribed under some of the standards, such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of an applicable standard, provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment item will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

According to 49 U.S.C. 30115, a person may not certify a vehicle as complying with all applicable safety standards "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person had reason to know the certification is false or misleading in a material respect." NHTSA has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstance in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

Since some of your modifications occur after the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, you should also be aware of the statutory prohibition against making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements or the safety standards, please contact Ms. Nicole Fradette of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/22/98
ref:VSA

ID: 1982-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wonder Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whether Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the "Illuminated Wonder Panel." This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to "personalize" his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.

Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.

We hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

November 22, 1982

Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise

Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Burndt:

I am a distributor that is interested in marketing a special type of lighting device for use on motor vehicles. This device is basically an illuminated personalized auto tag that is affixed to the front bumper of a car (for those states with single license plates). The tag, 6" x 12", will have personalized names or numbers on it, and only these letters or numbers will be illuminated; the rest of the tag will not emit light. This tag, registered in the U.S. Patent Office as the "Illuminated Wonder Panel", is no different than the current personalized automobile tags used in those states with single license plates, except that on this tag the personalized characters are illuminated.

The tag consists of a channel light housing that produces the incandescent light, an amber colored acylic panel thru which the light is emitted, and a clear cover plate. A prototype panel with the name "WONDER" in standard 2 inch letters, was submitted to a testing laboratory to measure the intensity of light produced (attached is the laboratory worksheet). The results showed an average of .0365 candela per letter or less than .25 candela total. With a maximum of seven characters on a tag, the intensity would never exceed .50 candela. Even though this is relatively minimal candlepower, I have enclosed two photographs taken of a vehicle at approximately 50 feet at night with the "WONDER" panel on the bumper, to illustrate the relative light intensities. Since the tag is designed to operate in conjunction with the lights, one picture is taken with the low beam headlights on, the other is taken with only the parking lights on.

The "Illuminated Wonder Panel" as described here, would be available as an automobile accessory; it is a form of ornamental lighting that to my knowledge is not defined by any SAE lighting standards or tests and may therefore not be regulated federally.

I believe this tag can be of value to the user and that the minimal light produced from the tag will not interfere with the intended operation of the existing vehicle's lights, or degrade the level of traffic safety while in its use. After speaking with Mr. Taylor Vinson and upon his suggestion, I am presenting this information to your Administration so that you may review it and advise me by providing a statement or opinion, in regards to its use prior to its production and distribution. Please let me know whether or not this would be in conflict with any safety standards and what subsequent procedures if any, need to be followed on a State level.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Robert Munoz President

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WORK REQUEST OMITTED.

ID: Koito.2followup

Mr. 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 recent letter requesting further clarification of our August 1, 2005, letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma of Koito Manufacturing Co. (Koito), in which we stated that your companys proposed intensity-reducing headlamps would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As described in Koitos earlier letter, the proposed headlamp would automatically and perceptibly reduce intensity (with approximately a 20-40% reduction in wattage) when the vehicle is stopped, thereafter returning to full intensity once vehicle motion resumed. Your latest letter asked whether a headlamp would be permitted to change in intensity, so long as the light is "perceived to be a steady beam and essentially unvarying in intensity, as well as occurring gradually (e.g. by setting some phase period) such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers". Presuming that this new design, consistent with your earlier design, would be such that "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," the answer to your question is yes.

To reiterate the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S5.5.10 provides:

S5.5.10   The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)   Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)   Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)   A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)   All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g. , February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall).

We further clarified the requirement in S5.5.10(d) in our March 10, 1994 letter of interpretation to Mr. Joe de Sousa. That letter involved the permissibility of daytime running lamps (DRLs) that operated by using the vehicles lower beam headlamps at less than full intensity through "pulse width modulation," a technique which cycles the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect". In our response to Mr. de Sousa, we stated that although a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement under S5.5.10(d), we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be "steady-burning. "

In our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein, we stated that "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions, are permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that letter, we stated, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified. "

In sum, if an intensity-reducing headlamp operates in a manner that meets all of the other applicable requirements of the standard and is perceived as being steady-burning, we believe that such a design would be permissible under the standard, and we would not expect it to be a source of distraction to other drivers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/5/05

ID: nht90-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING NHTSA

TO: MIKE LOVE -- MANAGER, SAFETY COMPLIANCE PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ENTITLED PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION, LETTER DATED 04/12/90; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new feature added to the antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 911 and 928 Porsche car lines, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the age ncy's previous granting of a theft exemption for those car lines beginning in MY 1990, and that therefore Porsche 911's and 928's containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Porsche 911 and 928 car lines were granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Porsche showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on these car lines was likely to be as effec tive as parts marking. This exemption was issued on May 25, 1989, and appeared in the Federal Register on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6( a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Porsche plans to modify the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Porsche 911 and 928, as follows: integrate the alarm control unit with the central locking and interior light contro l units; incorporate a feature that will also monitor the glove box for unauthorized opening; improve

P2

diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability; and install a capability to accept other features (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

In addition, it was stated that the changes in the system will be virtually unnoticeable to the operator, and that the system will still be armed passively by locking either door with the key. Further, with the addition of the glovebox, all the same poi nts of entry, such as the doors, hood, and hatch, will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features will be the same. Porsche further stated that the system "will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system."

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessar y for Porsche to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Porsche does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Porsche notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in an April 13, 1990 telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, you stated that Porsche was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a c opy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

REF: PART 543

ID: 77-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dry Launch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1) "permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp" as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.

The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only. If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.

Yours Truly,

DRY LAUNCH

December 27, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration In a recent discussion with an Engineer at the California Highway Petrol's Certification Office in Sacramento, we discussed combining of lighting functions. He had a copy of a letter from you to Mr. B. A. Weber of Wesber Corporation dated October 7, 1976. As a result of reading this, the following two questions come to mind - the third question I have been intending to write you about.

1. Question and Answer to No. 2 was the following:

"Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

I ask if no barrier existed between the two functions and both photometric tests simultaneously, (that is, neither were over maximums or under minimums) and both passed their tests when the other one was extinquished (that is, not over maximums or not under minimums), why must the opaque wall exist at all? In view of public safety, it would appear to enhance it as well as save money and weight by omitting the opaque wall.

2. If an opaque wall must exist between clearance light and tail light, there is bound to be a certain amount of "spill over" of one compartment's light into the next. In this case what limit of "spill over" might exist realistically?

3. Recently, an amendment to Federal 108 allowed the covering of the 45 degrees sector of a clearance light that was inboard (S4.3.1.1.1). Does this permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp as long as all other rules of Federal 108 are met and they are properly mounted?

I would appreciate a prompt reply as your answers affect two decisions for new lights that we are working on.

Dennis G. Moore