ID: aiam2878

Dear Mr. Kawano: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1978, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*. You referred to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J571d, referenced in Standard No. 108, which specifies dimensions for rectangular headlamp retaining rings in its Figure 8(B). The table of dimensions in Figure 8 specifies a maximum of 1.52 mm for the 'K' dimension on the drawing, the distance of the forward portion of the retaining ring from the lens surface. You stated that Toyota plans to increase that dimension by an unspecified amount for ornamental purposes.; You further advised that the proposed design would not interfere wit the ability of the headlamps to meet the performance requirements of SAE J580a and b and of the mechanical aiming requirements of SAE J602c.; Since Figure 8(B) of SAE J571d shows that the 'K' dimension shall no exceed 1.52 mm, any greater dimension would not meet the specifications of the standard. However, you may petition for rulemaking to appropriately amend Standard No. 108. We cannot, however, offer any assurance that the standard would be changed in response to your petition.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA -- MANAGER OF AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/16/89 FROM TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE -- NHTSA; RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June 19 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of parag raph S7.7.5.1(a) to December 1, 1989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed.

Your third question is:

How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations.

This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the t est procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathe matical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance.

Your final question is:

It is acceptable to set up initial "O" point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically?

You may determine the "O" point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal "O" point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal "O" mark is required to be determined.

In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. 108 to this office.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht73-5.17

DATE: 04/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1973, asking whether a towbar dolly must be included in determining the overall length of semitrailers for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The answer is no. Standard No. 108 is a manufacturing standard, and semitrailers are not manufactured with dollies attached. 49 CFR @ 390.7, to which you refer, is a definition of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety which regulates the operation of certain motor vehicles, and since trailers often use converter dollies, it is understandable that that agency would deem a trailer with a dolly a "full trailer."

TRIAD SERVICES INC.

March 10, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel

This letter is to formally request your review and interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 as it relates to the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp. The attached drawings demonstrate the specific concept in question.

Information contained in SAE standards referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 indicates that a specific prohibition exists regarding a headlamp lens cover for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and busses. The SAE Motorcycle Headlamp Standard (SAE J584) contains no such prohibition. It is our understanding that a component configuration such as the one illustrated would not conflict with SAE referenced requirements.

Another section of FMVSS 108 which could relate to this issue is Paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . . automotive equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." If, when the secondary lens in question is in place, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 can be met or exceeded, the lens cover would then be compatible with the standard.

2

Detailed review of FMVSS 108 and the other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have revealed no other requirements germane to this issue.

Your review of our analysis will be most appreciated. We feel that the proposed concept is in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Hopefully your review will confirm our opinion. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Stephen W. Matson

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: 1984-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. P.O. Box 3951 Troy, Michigan 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1984, asking two questions with respect to the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With reference to paragraph S6.8, you mention the relative humidity figure of 90 +/- 10%, and your interpretation that the six-hour cycle of the test should be run at 90% and that the 10% tolerance "is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity." We concur that this is a reasonable interpretation of this requirement.

You have also asked when the headlamp must be inspected after the humidity test, as paragraph S4.1.1.36(d)(7) is silent on this point. It is your interpretation that this inspection must occur directly following the test, and before the photometrics of the lamp are measured, even though, in your view, it would be more convenient to check it after the photometric test. Your interpretation is correct; this inspection must occur within the 9 to 11 minutes specified for beginning the photometric test after completion of the humidity test.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

25 April, 1984

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation -- FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

With the Federal Register publication of June 2, 1983, environmental tests are now specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. We have two interpretations regarding the humidity test for these lamps for with we ask your concurrence.

1. Humidity Specification -- The humidity test, S6.8, requires that the lamp be subjected to 20 consecutive six-hour cycles at a relative humidity of 90 +/- 10% and then soaked for 1 hour in lower temperature and humidity. It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the six-hour cycle portion of the humidity test should be run at 90% and that the tolerance of +/- 10% is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity.

2. Inspection - Sections 4.1.1.36(d)(7) requires that after the humidity test in accordance with S6.8, that "the inside of the headlamp show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation", and the lamp must meet the photometric requirements. The section does not, however, specify exactly when the inspection is to take place.

It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the regulations require the inspection to take place immediately after the completion of the final one hour portion (30% relative humidity) of the humidity cycle and before the photometric measurements. This is not very practical (because of the 10 +/- 1 minute limitation on beginning the photometric tests), and inspection after the photometric measurement would be much more convenient, however we have reached this conclusion based upon our reading of the regulatory language.

Your prompt response to this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/bLc

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John C. Bobak -- President, Crest Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John G. Bobak President Crest Industries, Inc. 3841 13th Street Wyandotte, MI 48192

This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, regarding the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 212, Windshield retention and standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance to aftermarket windshield adhesives. Your specific question concerned a statement made by Kent Industries that its urethane windshield adhesive "meets and exceeds" those two standards.

You are correct in your understanding that Standards Nos. 212 and 216 only apply to newly manufactured motor vehicles. The standard establish a certain level of performance for those vehicles and do not set specifications for such individual vehicle components as windshield adhesive. In addition, neither of these standards apply to item of motor vehicle equipment, such as windshield adhesive, sold as aftermarket products.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel LETTER FROM JOHN G. BOBAK IS NOT LEGIBLE.

ID: nht78-2.13

DATE: 06/02/78

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

TO: Minnesota State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your letter of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.

The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you have quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J584. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be "motor driven cycles" as defined by 40 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.

I hope this answers your question.

SINCERELY

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

May 3, 1978

Jim Downey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Office

Dear Mr. Downey:

We are having difficulty in determining whether FMVSS 108 permits single beam road lighting for mopeds.

Page 32914 of Federal Register 39, No. 178, dated September 12, 1974, contains a reference to NHTSA exploring forward lighting needs of motor-driven cycles and indicates that a decision would be made as to whether a reduced minimum standard would be appropriate.

We are unable to locate any writings as to the conclusions arrived at beyond that point other than reference in FMVSS 108 (S4.1.1) that ". . . each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps . . . specified in Tables I and III, as applicable. Required equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended Practices referenced in those tables."

Table III indicates one (1) white headlamp for motorcycles and cites SAE Standard J584. This standard (J584) contains the general requirement of ". . . one 7-inch sealed beam unit or one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units meeting the requirements of SAE J579 may be used on a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle."

Since compliance with either option of J584 results in having a high beam and a low beam we are unable to conclude that one (1) single beam headlamp on a moped constitutes compliance with FMVSS 108.

Our concern arises from the fact that our state recently adopted moped legislation requiring the same lighting equipment as is required of motorcycles and we must give due consideration to federal requirements in view of the fact that Minnesota law requires motorcycles to have both an upper beam and a lower beam.

Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated.

Colonel James C. Crawford Chief Minnesota State Patrol

ID: nht79-1.17

DATE: 11/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India

Dear Mr. Keshav:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Francis Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam". You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.

Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between the headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

RD 39363 Date: 2nd September 1979.

Mr. Fransis Armstrong, Director Office of the Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We refer to FMVSS Part 571, S108 Table IV/SAE J 588c 4.2 standand. As per the standard the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamp and head lamp should be 4 inches. We have come across some vehicles sold in U.S.A. wherein this dimension is satisfied only in the straight ahead driving position i.e. when the handle bar is kept straight. In such vehicle, since the turn signal flasher lamps are fitted in the front on the non steered portion of the vehicle, the distance between the turn signal flasher lamp and the head lamp is almost zero when the handle bar is turned to the full lock position. Please let us know whether this is permissible as per the regulation.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

M. S. KESHAV MANAGER - RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

ID: nht79-1.36

DATE: 11/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1979

Mr. T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd 2-9-13, Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Fujita:

This is in reply to your letter of October 17, 1979, asking for an interpretation for Paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.7 says in effect that a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp may be closer to each other than 4 inches "if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps."

You have asked whether a motorcycle turn signal lamp should "satisfy the values specified in S4.3.1.7 or half those values. The answer is, the values specified in S4.3.1.7. Half those values would be "less than two and one-half times the sum specified ..." and impermissible under S4.3.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 17, 1979

Att.: Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Photometric requirement of a motorcycle front turn signal lamp which is mounted closer to the low beam headlamp than 4 inches.

Dear Mr. Finkelstein,

Section 4.3.1.7 of FMVSS No.108 specifies as follows;

S.4.3.1.7

The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

When we apply this provision to a motorcycle turn signal lamp, we would like to have your opinion as to which one of the following requirements the lamp should satisfy.

A: the values specified in S.4.3.1.7

B: half the values of that specified in S.4.1.3.1.7

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

MF/mo

ID: aiam4967

"Dear Mr. Watanabe: This responds to your letter of February 6, l992 to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked 'with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.' Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b). You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name. We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 1982-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/82 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked several questions concerning informational readout displays. The answers to your questions are as follows.

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

The answer to this question is yes. Section S4 of Standard No. 101 defines informational readout display as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." [Emphasis added.] Thus, the type of system you describe comes within Standard No. 101's definition of informational readout display. In reference to the specific wording of your question, I would note that it is the definition in the standard, rather than a particular characterization by the manufacturer, that is determinative as to whether a display is an informational readout display.

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

The answer to this question is no. The requirements applicable to informational readout displays are an exception to the usual requirements for displays, which ordinarily use normal electric bulbs. The preamble to the final rule establishing the requirements of the present Standard No. 101 explained that the reason for the exception was to "permit the continued development of informational readout displays." 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. This was necessary since current technology does not enable manufacturers to produce informational readout displays which can exhibit symbols (as opposed to words) or certain colors. Thus, while section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 makes the use of certain symbols and colors mandatory for traditional displays, the use of symbols and colors is optional for informational readout displays.

If "other electro illuminating device" was interpreted to include normal electric bulbs, traditional displays would come within the definition of informational readout display. Such an interpretation would render meaningless Standard No. 101's requirements for the mandatory use of certain symbols and colors for displays. It is thus clear that the term "other electro illuminating device" does not include normal electric bulbs. Rather, the term was included within the definition of informational readout display, along with light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals, to avoid preventing the use of new electronic technology other than light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals.

Your third and fourth questions both contemplate that the answer to your second question is yes, rather than no. In reference to your question as to why the agency amended Standard No. 101 to permit the use of green as an alternative to blue or blue-green for the headlamp high beam telltale, the reason is that the agency does not interpret the standard's definition of informational readout display to include a mere colored light using light-emitting diode technology. To be an informational readout display, it must include information in the form of words or symbols. Since such a colored light is not an informational readout display, it must meet the color requirements of Standard No. 101. On February 1, 1982, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register (47 FR 4541) which proposed, among other things, an interpretive amendment to the definition of informational readout display to make that point clear. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.

Your fourth question suggests that the definition of informational readout display should be interpreted to include only displays providing more than one type of information. As explained in the answer to your first question, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the wording of the standard's definition of informational readout display. The agency recognizes, however, that it is likely that most if not all informational readout displays will include more than one type of information, though it is possible that some manufacturers might use LED or similar technology for displays providing only one type. In any event, the agency is not aware of a need to revise the standard's requirements to exclude displays presenting only one type of information from the definition of informational readout display.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an informational readout display?

The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section specifies that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

We would note, however, that the notice of proposed rulemaking referred to above proposes an amendment to Standard No. 101 that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. The agency is in the process of analyzing the comments received in response to that notice.

Our answer to your fifth question also covers your sixth question. I hope this fully responds to your inquiry.

ENC.

QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING "INFORMATIONAL READOUT DISPLAY"

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro-illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

3. If yes, we don't know the reason why NHTSA amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to use the color green as an alternative to blue for the headlamp high beam indicator. -- According to S5.3.2, the color of each telltale is designated. However, as as the color for the IRD is at the manufacturer's option, I think the color green can be used as the headlamp high beam indicator by the original regulation. Therefore, I think it not necessary to change the rule.

4. And if yes, we think that we can select a symbol or word designated in Table 2 for the IRD which shows one type of information (ex., Fuel Level), although normal displays have to use symbols designated in Table 2 (S.5.2.3.). -- I think if the definition of IRD is interpreted as more than one, we wouldn't have such a problem.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an Informational Readout Display?

6. In this case, is it sufficient that the light intensities for the informational readout systems shall have at least two values prescribed in S.5.3.3? -- According to S.5.3.3, the light intensity of such telltales shall not be variable.

ID: aiam3835

Dear Mr. Genthe: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect t the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment by a 'sealed attachment.' You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.; The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceabl bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.; Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristic of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb design, we would like to reques that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of the art lamp technology may be broadened.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel