ID: aiam3896

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1984, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it would apply to a contemplated parking lamp system.; Usually passenger cars are designed with two parking lamps, one on eac side of the vehicle front. Mazda would have two such lamps on each vehicle side, each of the two lamps flanking the headlamp. You have asked whether, in determining the H-V axis, one takes the axis as the center of each lamp, or should one consider the pair a single device and place the H-V axis at the midpoint between them.; Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be equipped with a minimu of two parking lamps, located 'as far apart as practicable.' Therefore, the outermost parking lamp, (the one located between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp is the lamp that must meet the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, and the H-V axis for purposes of compliance would be determined at the center of the lens of that lamp. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 and does not have to meet the Standard's requirements, but it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Because of the difference in candela between parking lamps and headlamps, information available to us does not indicate that your supplementary parking lamp would have this effect, and consequently, the design would be permitted.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/87

FROM: C.M. MEHTA -- AUTOLITE [INDIA] LIMITED

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: DOT APPROVAL ON HEADLAMPS/DRIVING LAMPS ETC FOR MARKETING IN USA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/17/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO C.M. MEHTA, REDBOOK A30, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear sirs,

Kindly refer to our letter No. 1476 dated 9.1.87 whereby we introduced ourselves as a reputed manufacturer and exporter of all types of Automobile Headlamp Assembly, Semi Sealed Beam Units, Fog Lamps etc., under trademark 'AUTOPAL'. We had requested you to send us following informations:

1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlamp Units 7", 5 3/4" (Round) and Rectangular small and large. (We had already sent you an illustrated catalogue of our products with the above letter).

2. Can we market these lamps as referred in Para No. 1 fitted with 9004, 9005 and 9006 Bulbs. If there is any specifications/technical details available with you, please send us a copy.

3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitted on Headlamps with lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflector made of metal?

4. Details of approval required for High Beam Driving Lamps to be used for off-road vehicles.

5. The details of specifications for Driving Lamps to be used on Cars, Trucks etc.

In addition to the above, we further request you to please provide us the following specifications immediately by airmail:-

I) SAE-F-80 FRONT FOG LAMPS II) SAE-J-79 MOTOR CYCLE HEADLAMPS III) SPECIFICATION FOR DRIVING LAMPS USING H3 BULB.

Kindly send us the above informations/specifications urgently. If there is any charges for technical details/specifications, please inform us and send us your Proforma Invoice to cover the cost of the same when it will be remitted to you.

Awaiting to hear from you soon.

Thanking you, we remain

Yours faithfully,

ID: aiam3520

Dear Dr. Kendall: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1981, asking severa questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have asked for a clarification of our position on pulsatin headlamps and stoplamps, commenting that several States have expressed a concern 'that a light of variable intensity may be confused by the citizen as an emergency vehicle which is allowed to have flashing headlights.'; As you have indicated, paragraph S4.6(a) of Standard No. 108 require turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash when activated, while S4.6(b) requires all other lamps to be steady burning. By 'steady burning,' the standard means a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity. There is, however, an exception in S4.6(b) to the 'steady burning' requirement. Means may be provided 'to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes.' Paragraph S3 of the standard defines 'flash' as meaning 'a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means....' In our view, a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output would not be 'steady burning' or 'flash' within the meaning of those terms and hence would be prohibited. But if complete deactivation occurs, then the lamp 'flashes.' Installation of flashing lamps under the S4.6(b) exception is not restricted to emergency vehicles. It is permissible under the standard for a motorcycle to have a device which gives the motorcyclist the option of causing a motorcycle headlamp to operate automatically through cycles of activation and deactivation instead of burning steadily.; On the other hand, stop lamps that either flash or are of variabl intensity are not allowed by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 since they are not steady-burning while in use.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2879

Dear Mr. Utans: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect t Subaru's intention to offer 'a retracting center auxiliary lamp' on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.; The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required b Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candlepower output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.; Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lightin requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1960 Dodge cars, named the 'Super Lite', and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see *Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes*, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5418

FAX 303-279-9339 Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your letter of Jul 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas discharge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a 'box' so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The 'box' would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting. As you note, this assemblage is an 'integral beam headlamp' as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will 'comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)', which apply to two-lamp integral beam headlighting systems. In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted 'as far apart as practicable' because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp 'would be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source of those regulated by Standard No. 108 . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge' and H-1 light sources. We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: 16305.ztv

Mr. Vann H. Wilber
Director
Vehicle Safety & International Department
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
1401 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: Definition of Optical Axis of a Headlamp

Dear Mr. Wilber:

This is in reply to the letter of October 23, 1997, that you and Jeff Erion wrote pointing out a possible inconsistency in the interpretation we provided Steve Law on June 16, 1997, and "the conclusions of the Regulatory Negotiation (Reg Neg) on this subject." Mr. Law had asked whether certain marking configurations met the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) of Standard No. 108.

In brief, we advised Mr. Law that markings at the center of each of the four sides of a rectangular headlamp were insufficient to denote the optical axis, which runs directly through the center of the headlamp at 90 degrees to the lens face. However, the final rule and its preamble are silent as to the type of mark that must denote the optical axis. You say that the Reg Neg Committee determined that "marks on the periphery of the lens which could be converged to the center of the lens" would be acceptable, and that Mr. Law's Option C meets this requirement.

The marks on Option C are located at the center of each of the four sides, oriented at 90 degrees from the side. If lines are drawn between opposing sides, they will converge at the center of the headlamp, at the optical axis. We agree that this is a sufficient indication of the optical axis to meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1), and that Mr. Law's Option C is acceptable. This reverses our opinion on Option C that we provided Mr. Law on June 16, 1997.

However, the marks on Option B, located on each side, are parallel to the side. This means that lines drawn between opposing sides will not necessarily intersect on the optical axis unless they are drawn from the center of each line, which is not marked. Option B thus remains unacceptable because lines cannot be converged to the center of the lens from any point on the marks located at the sides of the headlamp.

We are providing Mr. Law and Mr. Erion with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Steve Law
Jeff Erion
d.12/22/97
ref:108

ID: 11118

Ms. Nancy Tavarez
Bietrix Industries

FAX 201-956-7070

Dear Ms Tavarez:

This is in response to your FAX of 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 ref:108 d:8/30/95

ID: nht95-6.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHSTA

TO: Nancy Tavarez -- Bietrix Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/08/95 LETTER FROM NANCY TAVAREZ TO JOHN WOMACK (WALMA) (OCC 11118)

TEXT: Dear Ms Tavarez:

This is in response to your FAX of 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 paragraphs 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.

ID: nht95-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHSTA

TO: Nancy Tavarez -- Bietrix Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/08/95 LETTER FROM NANCY TAVAREZ TO JOHN WOMACK (WALMA) (OCC 11118)

TEXT: Dear Ms Tavarez:

This is in response to your FAX of 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 st ate 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 certif ied 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 regi stered 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 certi fication 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 re quired 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 paragraphs S7.7(a) and Figure 3 of Standard No. 108. Again, we believe that Phoenix should be familiar with the specifications f or 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, the y 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.

ID: GF007569-2

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter asking us to reconsider our May 22, 2003, interpretation letter to Mr. Babcock of Hyundai concerning whether a multi-component rear reflex reflector configuration would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car (and certain other specified vehicles) be equipped with 4 red and 2 amber reflex reflectors. Table IV of the standard requires that two red reflex reflectors be located on the rear of the vehicle, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. The applicable photometry requirements for reflex reflectors are incorporated by reference from SAE J594f, "Reflex Reflectors," January 1977.

In our letter to Mr. Babcock, we addressed a rear reflex reflector configuration which consisted of three separate reflex reflectors. One reflector was installed on the fender and a second reflector was located adjacent to it, on the deck lid. The third reflector was hidden by the deck lid and was not visible until the deck lid was raised. No single reflector fulfilled the photometric requirements for a rear reflex reflector, but these requirements were met when the reflector on the fender and either of the other two reflectors were measured.

We explained that this design was not a permissible configuration under Standard No. 108. We stated that the text and setup for testing set forth in SAE J594f clearly indicate that the requirements of this standard apply to a single reflex reflector, and may not be met using a combination of separate reflex reflectors.

In requesting reconsideration, you state that our interpretation is potentially inconsistent with a prior interpretation of Standard No. 108, sent to Mr. Bataini of DBM Reflex Enterprises on July 19, 2000. In that interpretation, we addressed a configuration where side mounted reflective devices were incorporated into a headlamp housing and visible from the side when light is reflected from them. We stated that the relevant question was "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing." We concluded that the answer is yes, provided that when assembled they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f.

You suggest that the standard should be interpreted to "permit a reflex reflector to consist of two (or more) reflective devices molded separately and installed on a single, rigid part of the vehicle (such as the fender or bumper) as long as the devices are mounted closely enough together that they meet the test requirements of SAE J594f." You noted that SAE J594f allows reflex reflectors to "have any linear or area dimensions," as long as the photometric performance is met with a specified maximum projected area contained within a 10 inch diameter circle.

We are pleased to clarify Standard No. 108s requirements for reflex reflectors. After considering your letter, it continues to be our opinion that for each reflex reflector required by the standard, all of the standards requirements for that reflex reflector must be met by a single reflex reflector.

We interpret the word "reflector" to refer to a single reflector, that must fully comply on its own. In other situations where Standard No. 108 allows the requirements for an item of lighting equipment to be satisfied by more than one item, it explicitly says so. See, e.g., section 3.1 of SAE J585e (tail lamps), section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J586 (stop lamps), and section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 (turn signal lamps). (These SAE recommended practices are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.)

We do not believe there is any inconsistency between our letters to Mr. Babcock and Mr. Bataini. In our letter to Mr. Bataini, we addressed the issue of "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same [headlamp] housing."(Emphasis added.) We were not addressing the issue of multiple reflectors.

We note that Standard No. 108 does not specify that all of the reflective elements of a reflex reflector need to be contiguous. Our view when we issued the letter to Mr. Bataini was that whether the reflective elements of the reflex reflector were molded to each other and then mounted on a headlamp housing, or instead separately mounted on the headlamp housing, the finished product was a single item (both a single reflector and a combination lamp). By contrast, multiple unconnected reflective devices installed on the vehicles fender or bumper would not constitute a single reflector.

Finally, we note that the use of multiple reflectors in place of a required single reflector would not only raise testing issues but also concerns related to replacement of broken reflectors. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements only for single reflectors. If a vehicle manufacturer used multiple reflectors in place of a single reflector, there would be no way of knowing the apportioned contribution of each of the separate reflectors. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an aftermarket manufacturer to supply parts that have the same reflectivity as the original parts, and there would be certification problems for these manufacturers. Therefore, if one of the separate reflectors became broken and the vehicle owner replaced it (but not all of the reflectors), the vehicle might not provide the minimum required performance in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/14/04