ID: aiam5600

"FAX 201-956-7070 Dear Ms Tavarez: This is in response to your FAX o August 8, 1995, with respect to the importation of 'Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series- HB1 for the USA market.' We understand that you presently have a shipment of these awaiting entry. You state that 'Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval.' Taylor Vinson repeatedly informed you on the phone that DOT does not approve bulbs or any other kind of equipment. If there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect covering an item of equipment, the manufacturer (or importer for resale) is responsible for certifying that the equipment complies with that standard. The certifier does not need DOT permission or approval for that action. The appropriate Federal regulations in this instance are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information. There is no Federal regulation that applies to the H4 bulb. Although the H4 bulb is legal for use only in motorcycle headlamps, neither Standard No. 108 nor Part 564 applies to motorcycle headlamp bulbs, and it is not necessary for H4 bulbs to be certified in order to enter the United States. H4 bulbs may not be used in headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, the HB2 bulb, based on the H4, is legal for use in headlamps for all types of motor vehicles. If the H1 and H3 bulbs are to be used for auxiliary lamps such as fog lamps, there is no Federal regulation that requires their certification either. However, if the H1 and H3 bulbs are intended for use in headlamps (the markings on their boxes may indicate this), they are subject to both Standard No. 108 and Part 564. What we require is that the bulb be marked with (1) the name and/or trademark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of its manufacturer or of its importer (Bietrix), (2) the ANSI number, ECE identifier, and manufacturer's part number, individually or in any combination, and (3) a DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the H1 or H3 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications for these bulbs that are on file in Part 564. We believe that Phoenix should be aware of these specifications. For your information, '(1)' is required by paragraphs S7.7(h) and S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108, '(2)' by paragraph S7.7(h) and section VIII of Appendix A of Part 564, and '(3)' by paragraphs S7.7(g) and (h) of Standard No. 108. I am FAXing a copy of paragraph S7.7 and Part 564 for your information. The HB1 light source is required to be marked with the same information as the H1 and H3 as indicated above, but the authority for this is paragraph S7.7(f), this also requires the base to be marked 'HB1'. However, the DOT symbol in this instance would represent the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the HB1 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications of paragraph S7.7(a) and Figure 3 of Standard No. 108. Again, we believe that Phoenix should be familiar with the specifications for the HB1 light source. If the HB1 light sources (or H1s and H3s for headlamp use) you wish to import bear all these markings, you may import them under Box 2A of the HS-7 Declaration Form as equipment certified as meeting the standards. If they do not bear these markings, they may not be imported until marked and certified by Phoenix or by Bietrix according to the regulations discussed above. If you have further questions, please call Mr. Vinson at (202)366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 9697

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Shetler:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1994, to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. So that we may serve you better in the future, please note that the Office of Chief Counsel is the one to which requests for interpretations should be addressed.

You have asked whether the "proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle" will meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. In this headlamp "the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side." You continue by saying that "the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline," and you ask whether the headlamp complies with the requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The device you describe contains the upper and lower beams in one housing and hence is a single headlamp. Although your projector beam headlamp would be mounted literally on the vertical centerline, the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated. A redesign of the lamp so that its vertical centerline becomes its horizontal centerline and Line A becomes the vertical centerline would be a configuration that meets Table IV since both beams of the single headlamp would then be located on the vertical centerline. SAE J584 does not specify the location of one beam in relation to the other for dual beam motorcycle headlamps, i.e. whether one beam is to be mounted above or below the other.

Your second question concerns an interpretation of S5.1.1.23. This paragraph provides an alternative for motorcycles to the headlamps specified by Table III, and allows a motorcycle to be equipped with "one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable." You have asked whether this means that your proposed headlamp "shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7," or "is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?"

As I have explained, your proposed layout in the attachment is not acceptable under Table IV without reorientation. The headlighting systems specified in S7 are those intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles (other than trailers). As we understand it, your proposed headlamp has been developed as a headlamp system for motorcycles and not as half of a headlamp system for vehicles other than motorcycles. Because motorcycle photometrics differ from those for vehicle other than motorcycles, your proposed headlamp could not be half of a system specified in S7 which may be used on motorcycles as an alternative to the headlamps specified by Table III.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/6/94

ID: nht94-5.47

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from Jeffrey D. Shetler to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA (OCC-9697)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1994, to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. So that we may serve you better in the future, please note that the Office of Chief Counsel is the one to which requests for interpretations should be addressed.

You have asked whether the "proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle" will meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. In this headlamp "the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side." You continue by saying that "the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline," and you ask whether the headlamp complies with the requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The device you describe contains the upper and lower beams in one housing and hence is a single headlamp. Although your projector beam headlamp would be mounted literally on the vertical centerline, the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated. A redesign of the lamp so that its vertical centerline becomes its horizontal centerline and Line A becomes the vertical centerline would be a configuration that meets Table IV since both beams of the single headlamp would then be located on the vertical centerline. SAE J584 does not specify the location of one beam in relation to the other for dual beam motorcycle headlamps, i.e., whether one beam is to be mounted above or below the other.

Your second question concerns an interpretation of S5.1.1.23. This paragraph provides an alternative for motorcycles to the headlamps specified by Table III, and allows a motorcycle to be equipped with "one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable." You have asked whether this means that your proposed headlamp "shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7," or "is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?" As I have explained, your proposed layout in the attachment is not acceptable under Table IV without reorientation. The headlighting systems specified in S7 are those intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles (other than trailers). As we understand it, your proposed headlamp has been developed as a headlamp system for motorcycles and not as half of a headlamp system for vehicles other than motorcycles. Because motorcycle photometrics differ from those for vehicle other than motorcycles, your proposed headlamp could not be half of a system specified in S7 which may be used on motorcycles as an alternative to the headlamps specified by Table III.

ID: aiam3056

Dear Mr. Schmitt: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1979, to our former Chie Counsel, Joseph Levin asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have quoted Column 3 of Table IV with respect to motor cycl headlamps and the specification that the one headlamp the standard requires be located 'on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline'. Yamaha would like to equip certain motor cycles with two headlamps, one to be mounted above the other on the vertical centerline with the hope that 'this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety'. You have asked whether this mounting arrangement conforms with Standard No. 108.; The arrangement you have in mind is not permitted by the Federa lighting standard. 'Symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline' means that each headlamp is an equal distance from the vertical centerline at the same horizontal location. We believe that this provides better and more evenly distributed forward illumination than the system Yamaha proposes, while being the equivalent in conspicuity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-2.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from Jeffrey D. Shetler to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA (OCC-9697)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1994, to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. So that we may serve you better in the future, please note that the Office of Chief Counsel is the one to which requests for interpretations should be addressed.

You have asked whether the "proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle" will meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. In this headlamp "the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side." You continue by saying that "the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline," and you ask whether the headlamp complies with the requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The device you describe contains the upper and lower beams in one housing and hence is a single headlamp. Although your projector beam headlamp would be mounted literally on the vertical centerline, the beams provided by the headlamp are located on eit her side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated. A redesign of the lamp so that its vertical centerline becomes its horizontal centerline and Line A becomes the vert ical centerline would be a configuration that meets Table IV since both beams of the single headlamp would then be located on the vertical centerline. SAE J584 does not specify the location of one beam in relation to the other for dual beam motorcycle h eadlamps, i.e., whether one beam is to be mounted above or below the other.

Your second question concerns an interpretation of S5.1.1.23. This paragraph provides an alternative for motorcycles to the headlamps specified by Table III, and allows a motorcycle to be equipped with "one half of any headlighting system specified in S 7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable." You have asked whether this means that your proposed headlamp "sh all be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7," or "is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?"

As I have explained, your proposed layout in the attachment is not acceptable under Table IV without reorientation. The headlighting systems specified in S7 are those intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles (other than trailers). As we understand it, your proposed headlamp has been developed as a headlamp system for motorcycles and not as half of a headlamp system for vehicles other than motorcycles. Because motorcycle photometrics differ from those for vehicle other than motorcycles, your proposed headlamp could not be half of a system specified in S7 which may be used on motorcycles as an alternative to the headlamps specified by Table III.

ID: nht78-2.12

DATE: 08/29/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Cibie Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated reply to your letter of December 15, 1977, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your request concerned the legality of installation on motor vehicles of remote manual or of automatic headlamp aiming equipment.

If a headlamp assembly meets the requirements of Standard No. 108 when installed with or without auxiliary means of aiming, we consider the assembly to be in conformance. Your device does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the prohibition of S4.1.3, and either device that you described would apparently provide an additional safeguard against glare when the rear of the vehicle is heavily loaded.

SINCERELY,

CIBIE CORPORATION

Office of the Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

December 15 1977

Dear Sir

Headlamp "Aim Correction"

Cibie Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, the American subsidiary of CIBIE PROJECTEURS of Bobigny, France. Cibie Projecteurs manufacturers automotive lighting equipment of every description: headlamps, fog and spotlamps, combination lamps, etc. In addition, headlamp aim correction units are manufactured for passenger cars.

In Europe, these aim correction units are referred to as headlamp levellers; this terminology may lead to confusion with suspension levellers in the United States, hence I have coined the name "aim correction units" in the absence of a recognized term.

The aim correction units manufactured by Cibie are of two types: manual and automatic. Both types are additional to the normal aim features of the headlamp system to which they are applied. That is to say, the correct aim of the headlamps is first established by means of a screwdriver adjustment made externally to the headlamp by a person standing at the front of the car. (Sometimes the screwdriver is not required, where the slotted-head screw has a finger-tip knob molded onto it, allowing the basic aim to be made with the fingers directly.)

The movement of the headlamps that is applied by the aim correction units to the basic correct adjustment is in a downward sense only, to compensate for a full luggage load in the trunk. Thus, the aim correction units cannot of themselves produce dazzle; however, failure by the driver to take advantage of them can allow dazzle to persist (due to luggage load) that could otherwise be removed by their use.

Dealing with the two types of aim correction unit, taking the manual type first: there are two types of manual aim correction unit, two-position and variable.

The earlier two-position type incorporates a cam in the headlamp mounting itself. A small lever, moved by hand, produces a downward correction of the headlamp aim; this lever is accessible by raising the engine hood of the car.

The later variable type incorporates a small piston unit and control knob under the instrument panel, operable from the driving seat. Hydraulic tubing connects the piston unit to a slave unit on each headlamp, lowering the headlamp aim by any desired amount within the design limits of movement. Again, the aim correction is downwards only.

The automatic aim correction unit incorporates hydraulic sensors on the vehicle suspension which, by means of hydraulic tubing and the same slave units, correct the headlamp aim downward without any action on the part of the driver. In the case of the automatic system, headlamp aim is also corrected dynamically for vehicle pitching movements as well as statically for luggage load.

These three types of aim correction unit have been in use in Europe for many years. The automatic unit is currently standard equipment on the Lancia Beta.

Council Directive 76/756 of the European Common Market now requires passenger cars to be fitted with headlamp aim correction units, operable from the driver's seat or automatic. Thus, it is entirely possible that European passenger car manufacturers may wish to export to the United States models of cars in which the European headlamps have been replaced with SAE sealed beams, in accordance with FMVSS 108, but still retaining the aim correction feature, whether manual or automatic.

Cibie Projecteurs, as manufacturer of the aim correction units, would wish to be in a position to advise its customers as to the eligibility of these units for importation into the United States.

Therefore, Cibie Corporation requests a legal opinion as to whether a passenger car that complies in all respects with FMVSS 108, but in addition is equipped with manual or automatic aim correction as described above, would be deemed still in compliance with FMVSS 108.

Inasmuch as the application of the Council Directive takes effect during 1978, the earliest possible answer to this enquiry would be greatly appreciated.

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: aiam2493

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raise several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; First I want to comment upon this statement: >>>'A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applie to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle.'<<<; This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent par 'to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied.' The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.; Your first question is: >>>'1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and othe devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the 'aftermarket' sales?'<<<; The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about th applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.; >>>'2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type seale beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?'<<<; We construe the words 'like equipment' broadly. If one headlightin system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.; >>>'3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units ar energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?'<<<; Quartz-Halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended a replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a) (1) (A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a) (2) (A).; >>>'4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?'<<<; It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item o lighting equipment 'sold for universal use' is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.; You also asked our advice 'on the problem of not being able t recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.' As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such time is delivered.' Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3314

Dear Mr. Jones:#This responds to the questions you raised with Stephe Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, 'Controls and Displays*.#You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.#Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.#If you have any further questions, please let me know.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3316

Dear Mr. Jones:#This responds to the questions you raised with Stephe Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, 'Controls and Displays*.#You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.#Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.#If you have any further questions, please let me know.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4757

Dear Mr. Brown: This is in reply to your letter of April 25, l990 asking for our 'comments and approval' regarding an automotive lighting product that your company intends to market. The product is intended for use in a four headlamp systems with lens designations of 'L', 'LF' or 'HB4' on the outboard lamps, and 'U', 'UF' or 'HB3' on the inboard lamps. In normal operation, the lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated, your device would ensure that the lower beam would remain activated when the upper beam is used. You view this as permissible under S5.5.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Initially, let me note that we have no authority to 'approve' any device or invention for use on motor vehicles. We advise whether such products are permissible under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but this advice must not be represented in advertising as Federal approval of the device or invention. Section S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that 'On a motor vehicle equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the photometric requirements of Figure 15, the lamps marked 'L' or 'LF' may be wired to remain permanently activated when the lamps marked 'U' or 'UF' are activated. Standard No. 108 further specifies that headlamps designed to conform to Figure l5 are the four-lamp sealed beam system Type F (S7.3.7(b)), and a four-headlamp integral beam system (S7.4(a)(1)). In addition, certain types of replaceable bulb headlamp systems may also be designed to conform to Figure l5 photometrics, as shown in recently-adopted Figure 26 (copy enclosed). Replaceable bulb headlamps are also required to have the HB Type number on the lens, as well as the 'U' and 'L' markings. Therefore, installation of your device on the headlighting systems mentioned above would be permitted by Standard No. 108, and you need not be limited to systems that use HB3 and HB4 light sources. With respect to the copy on the material you submitted for review, it would be more accurate to reword the marking references to state ''LF','L', or 'L' and 'HB4' on the upper. . . and the corresponding designation 'UF', 'U', or 'U' and 'HB3' on the lower. . . .' We also note your remark 'Quad-Beam gives you this extra margin of lighting safety that the factory left out.' There is no basis in fact for this statement. Some drivers prefer more foreground light, but there is no indication that the addition of the lower beam when the upper beam is in use has a positive effect upon lighting safety. As you requested, we are returning your samples. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures;