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

ID: nht88-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/88

FROM: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT, PETERSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF "EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO PAUL SCULLY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The members and counsel of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, who met with you on April 14, 1988, requested that I send you a summary of the interpretations which industry has been using regarding the term, "effective projected luminous area" . This relates to an inquiry from Wesbar and the agency's response on the meaning of this term.

On October 28, 1970, the National Highway Safety Bureau issued the following interpretation:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object, such as a mounting screw, mounting ring, or an ornam ental bezel or trim. This allows the area of rings or other configurations (raised portions) molded in the lens to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

On October 28, 1979, an interpretation was issued by Roger Compton, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, to American Motors Corporation which read as follows:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object. This interpretation allows the area of rings, or ot her configurations molded to the lamp to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

The above interpretations are basically the same. The vehicle lighting industry has been using these definitions, based on opinions from your agency, for about 18 years. Prior to that time, this same basic definition was even used by a number of indivi dual states. Also, the independent testing laboratories throughout the nation, as well as all manufacturers, have been excluding reflex areas in calculating "effective projected luminous area" for well over 40 years.

In 1987, the Society of Automotive Engineers through the SAE Lighting Committee adopted the following language which is now a part of SAE J387-Terminology:

"Effective projected luminous area" is the part of the light emitting surface measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, (but including congruent reflexes), which is not obstructed by opaque objects such as mounting screws, mounting rings, bezels or trim or similar ornamented feature areas. Areas of optical or other configurations, for example, molded optical rings or markings, shall be considered part of the total "effective projected luminous area" even if they do not contribute significantly to the total light output. The axis of the lamp corresponds to the H-V axis used for photometric requirements."

Again, you will note that the SAE term clearly excludes the reflex reflector areas. A prismatic reflex reflector is constructed to return light from an outside source. In contrast, a lens optic is designed to direct light which originates inside the le ns area. While it is true that a small amount of light escapes through the prismatic reflector area, this light cannot be controlled or directed and provides nothing more than a minimal glow of light.

I confirmed that the vehicle manufacturers in Detroit have also relied on the interpretations issued by your agency and its predecessor as described above.

The letter to Wesbar Corporation, dated March 16, 1988, appears to have been caused by a misunderstanding involving some engineering terms. We respectfully suggest a prompt clarification should satisfy everyone.

Very truly yours,

ID: 77-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your frank letter of January 13, 1977, commenting upon the lack of clarity you feel exists in my letter to you of December 6, 1976, interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a lawyer it is obvious to me that the best regulatory practice is to be as specific as possible in establishing requirements and prohibitions. When a regulation itself is unclear, however, its interpretation may necessarily be imprecise. Because the term "optical combination" in S4.4.1 is not defined, my answers were necessarily worded in general terms though with the thought of establishing a general framework of guidance for you. They were not intended to be "a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words." My letter meant, in plain English, that where tail lamps and clearance lamps are in a single compartment we don't want one lamp to perform, or to be perceived as performing, the function of the other. 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.

SINCERELY,

January 13, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30 Your letter of December 6, 1976

A combination of a Christmas holiday with the family in Arizona and year end activity here in our plant has prevented our sending you a reply to the referenced letter at an earlier date.

As far as we are concerned, your response to our October 28 letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words and one which avoids positive answers or defensible positions on the specific questions we submitted.

Discussing first your lengthy second paragraph; from line 6 we quote: ". . . . Standard 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e. and opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps . . . " Perhaps you can give some scientific explanation how two lamps can be in the same compartment and not interfere optically with one another. The degree of candlepower emanating from each bulb is dependent on their respective candlepowers and in the case of tail and clearance lamp bulbs, the lumens generated are not very far apart since clearance lamp bulbs deliver 2 c.p. and tail lamp bulbs 3 c.p. If tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs were positioned relatively close together in the single compartment (a condition you state is permissible) I submit that a "driver in a following vehicle" could not possibly interpret one lamp from the other.

May we refer you to line 15 of the second paragraph of your letter and we quote: "there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp . . . " To any engineer or attorney involved with compliance regulations, the words "appreciable amount" are incongruous when applied to a standard such as 108, the purpose of which is to spell out specific optical values, tests, and locations for lights. DOT 108 standard permits no deviation from the SAE standards referenced, which standards positively indicate optical values for lamps. Nor does DOT 108 permit any option on the number and types of lamps required on a trailer or where these lamps shall be located. "Appreciable" has no measureable value, therefore, we ask, whose judgement will prevail when evaluating the design and testing of a lamp, the manufacturer or your compliance people. How would you legally defend your position that a light has an "appreciable" amount of spill, hence is illegal, in the absence of an applicable photometric standard.

We also object to the language: "The amount of light spill appears to be so small . . ." (sce para. 2 line 17). What numerical candlepower value do you assign to the words "appears to" as a measure of whether or not a lamp conforms to the published standard? Would we receive approval from your compliance group on a lamp we have marked "DOT" on the basis of our contention that to us the lamp "appears to" meet the photometric standards?

How evasive can a response to our specific question be than your blanket reply of: "If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked, then I think you will have the answers."

We refer you to page 2, lines 2, 3, and 4 of your letter, which we quote: "The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions." Of course we didn't specify "candlepower output". Those values are specified in DOT 108. Or perhaps you were unaware that clearance lamp bulbs and tail lamp bulbs are manufactured to *SAE J573f which specified: Typical Service Trade No. Mean Spherical Candela M ** 57 2 candlepower at 14 volts T *** 1157 3 candlepower at 14 volts

* Photometric tests performed under SAE J592e and SAE J585d are always made using 2 c.p. and 3 c.p. bulb respectively.

** M - Marker, Clearance, Identification

*** T - Tail

These are the lamps and respective candlepowers you will find in all tail lamps and clearance lamps.

Therefore, with such a small candlepower difference between clearance and tail lamp output, the "spill" (to quote your letter) from one to the other, with bulbs exposed in the same compartment, equate one another.

We read with surprise in your letter that "certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance." We would like to believe that statement, but the actual experiences of many trailer manufacturers with your compliance people, doesn't bear out what you say. The compliance man recognizes but one criteria: does it or does it not meet the specific requirements of the published standard.

At this moment in time the DOT is quibbling over a specific interpretation of S 4.4.1 with such indecisive language as: "appears to be", "appreciable amount", "good faith". It could be that your indefinite position merely covers a too hasty interpretation by one of your staff, but whatever the reason, please either resolve this problem in terms of specific numbers, or rewrite S 4.4.1 so that there can be no possible misinterpretation of your requirements.

You asked the writer to comment on combining tail and clearance lamp. This combination for boat trailers and some camping trailers is an extremely sensible approach. The 108 standard blankets big semi trailers and small duck boat trailers with the same sets of rules, which rules for a semi trailer are as totally practical as they are totally impractical for a small boat trailer.

In the matter of boat trailers, the over 80" lighting requirements are almost impossible to meet. For example, consider a boat trailer carrying a sail boat. It is virtually impossible to locate an identification light bar that won't be swept off or severely bent when the boat is launched. Use of an identification light bar on a trailer should be eliminated. Very few are operable after a launching.

The trailer manufacturer certifies his trailer as meeting the DOT standards, when it leaves his plant. The dimensions of the boats that trailer may carry vary wiedely and many a trailer's actual width is exceeded by the hull it carries. This is knowledge the trailer manufacturer would not have when he produced the trailer.

It would be economical as well as practical to permit a boat trailer manufacturer to mount his tail lamp in such a position that it would serve the dual purpose of clearance and tail lamp, with no detriment to safety. If anything, we would consider such an arrangement a safer condition than the use of seperate lights.

In conclusion, would you please give us specific answers to the questions posed in paragraph 6 of letter of October 28, 1976, at your earliest convenience. For your convenience a copy of same is attached.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLOR NELSON

ID: 86-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Chikada;

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, asking for an opinion regarding a "decorative extra lighting device." It appears from the drawing that you enclosed that the device would be a part of a three-compartment housing incorporating also a rear turn signal lamp, and one that performs that tail and stop functions. It would be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. You have informed us that the lens color of the device would be red and its maximum luminous intensity lower than the minimum of the adjacent taillamp.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard if such a device would impair the effectiveness of the equipment that is required. It is our impression that your device performs the function of a rear side marker lamp, required to be installed on all motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, you have not told us any of the operational characteristics of the lamp, such as whether it would be steady burning in use and activated simultaneously with the headlamp and taillamp, or whether it would flash with the rear turn signal lamp. Nevertheless, it would appear to be acceptable as a supplemental taillamp or turn signal lamp, or as a side marker lamp, either with or without the decorative trim.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel February 5, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

According to your letter of Nov. 4, 1985, we would ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp and a rear turn signal lamp. A lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp. There is a possibility of attaching an ornament on this accessory lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. The details of the device

ID: 24200.ztv

Trooper Lawrence D. Richardson
Massachusetts State Police
200 Scotland Road
Newbury, MA 01950

Dear Trooper Richardson:

This is in reply to your e-mail earlier this year to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Webmaster. You are concerned about several motor vehicle lighting devices that you have seen recently on vehicles in your state. These include "red, green, purple, blue and other colors that are mounted in the front or rear of the vehicle," vehicles with clear taillamp lenses, and vehicles with no rear "reflective red lenses." You asked whether these types of devices are allowable.

We do not understand your reference to your motor vehicle law that "refers to part 571 as far as after market lights are concerned." Whether non-standard lighting equipment is allowable on vehicles in use is at bottom a matter of State law. The legality of modifications by vehicle owners is generally determined by laws of the jurisdiction where a vehicle is registered and/or operated. We believe, therefore, that Massachusetts law contains the answers to your questions.

Under Federal law, much of what you have observed would not be permissible as original vehicle equipment. As you realize, motor vehicles are originally manufactured with lighting equipment that emits red, amber, or white light. No other colors are permitted for original equipment lighting by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting (49 CFR 571.108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) (except that some States reserve blue for use in emergency lighting). Items of replacement lighting equipment are also required under Federal law to emit the same color light as the original equipment they are designed to replace.

Accessory equipment on new vehicles is permissible under Federal law if it does not impair the effectiveness of original equipment required by Standard No. 108. We interpret this as prohibiting lamps of colors different than red, amber, or white, because of the possibility that non-standard colors could cause momentary confusion in other drivers, diverting their attention from lamps that signal driver intention, such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. This means that we do not allow green, purple, or blue lamps as original equipment on private vehicles. Further, we do not allow red lamps of any sort, or reflectors, to be mounted at a location other than the rear side, or rear, of a vehicle.

Generally, if accessory lighting equipment is not permissible on new vehicles, it will not be permissible as an aftermarket accessory for vehicles in use. The legal consideration in this instance is whether the accessory makes inoperative in any way a lamp installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Usually, we conclude that, if a device impairs the effectiveness of a required item of lighting equipment, it will also make that equipment inoperative in part. However, our law does not prohibit a vehicle owner personally from making any safety equipment inoperative on his or her vehicle. In that instance, the legality of installation and use is determined under State law.

Some replacement taillamp housings are available with clear lenses, intended to be used in conjunction with a red incandescent light source. We are unaware of any original equipment lamp required to emit the color red that consists of a clear lens and a red bulb and that is certified to comply with standard No. 108. This is not simply a design choice; we know of no red bulb now or ever in production that conforms to Standard No. 108s color specification. The combination of a clear bulb and a red lens, therefore, is the only way to design a lamp that conforms to Standard No. 108s requirement that its light be red. This means that the manufacturer of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color was red is in violation of S5.8 of Standard No. 108. Many of these original equipment taillamps also incorporate the red reflex reflector that Standard No. 108 requires to be located on the rear side and rear of vehicles, whereas the replacements with clear lenses do not. This also does not comport with Standard No. 108. A similar situation exists with respect to headlamps that originally incorporated amber side reflex reflectors. If the replacement lamp does not include the reflector, this, too, would not comport with Standard No. 108.

You also mentioned "snake eyes" lights "that are displayed where the window washer fluid should be coming out, in all different colors," including purple, green, and blue. Such an accessory would appear to have an impairing effect upon original lighting equipment if its colors are other than white or amber (on the front), or red (on the rear), or if the light is of such an intensity as to distract another drivers attention from the light emitted by required lighting equipment.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/29/02

ID: 1985-04.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Gruenzner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Mr. David Gruenzner President, Future Tech Inc. P.O. Box 26B Mankato, MN 56002 Dear Mr. Gruenzner: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to an aftermarket high-mounted stop lamp/turn signal lamp system. You intend to market three models, as more completely described in the next paragraph. All models are mounted in the interior of the car. Our primary concern is the possibility that the interior-mounted unit will cause undesirable reflections in the rear window, reducing the ability of the operator to judge conditions to the rear of his vehicle as seen through the rear view mirror. For this reason, Standard No. 108 requires the new center-mounted stop lamps mounted on the interior to be provided with means to minimize such reflections. These lamps now in production incorporate shrouds that abut the rear window glazing. Though your after market device would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, we encourage you to incorporate design features which will prevent undesirable reflections. Also care should be taken to ensure that, when the device is installed, it does not impair the field of view required for rear view mirrors by Safety Standard No. 111. Your device consists of eight miniature lamps, four mounted on each side of the vertical centerline. We also have some additional concerns about the operation of one of your three models. In the first model, in the turn signal mode, the lamps operate sequentially from the center outward in the direction of the intended turn. In the stop lamp mode, the entire unit will illuminate, "sending a sequential (sic) flashing beam from the middle to both sides." We view the sequential flashing of the lights from the center outwards in the stop lamp mode as prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of the standard which requires all lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning in use, except for turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps, and headlamps and side marker lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning light, thus complying with our requirements. In the third model, there will be an additional amber colored lens mounted on top of the red lens. The brake signal will be indicated by a steady red light, while the turn signals will be indicated by flashing amber ones. This method of operation is also acceptable under Standard No. 108 which permits rear turn signals to be either amber or red.

We are unable to assist you with State laws that may affect your devices. We suggest you contact the vehicle administrators in the States where you intend to market your system. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 17325.ztv

Mr. F.G.M. Bol
Car Innovations
P.O. Box 143
2665 ZJ Bleiswijk (Holland)
Netherlands

Dear Mr. Bol:

This is in reply to your January 1998 letter to the Department informing us of your V.E.B. System, and stating that "it remains to you the decision to commercialize this product in co-operation with us."

You are interested in marketing this system "with an auto-manufacturer." Therefore, you intend the V.E.B. system to be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The system may be best described as a center highmounted stop lamp that displays a vehicle's registration number under ordinary circumstances and the word "stolen" when the vehicle is being operated without the owner's authority.

The center highmounted stop lamp must comply with all requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. One of these requirements is that the lamp comply with the requirements of Figure 10. This Figure prescribes minimum and maximum candela to be measured at 18 individual test points. If any one of these test points is obscured by the vehicle's registration number or the word "stolen," then it is not legal to install the lamp on a motor vehicle. We believe that it might be difficult to design a lamp that both displays the information you anticipate and meets Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of Figure 10 so that you may determine whether any of the 18 test points may be obscured by the V.E.B. system. A second requirement is that the lens area must be at least 4.5 square inches. Any obstruction would affect this, too.

Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of any device that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as the center stoplamp. Even if the candela and lens area requirements are met, the clarity and meaning of the stop signal may be undermined by letters or numbers appearing when the lamp is lit that have no relation to the stop lamp function.

The Department has no authority to engage in commercial promotions with manufacturers, and we cannot help you with this product.

Finally, we would like to call your attention to a typographical error on the cover and interior of your sales folder. The verb indicating theft in English is "to steal," not "to steel."

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d:5/6/98

ID: nht90-3.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 from S. Watanabe to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1990, requesting an interpretation of how the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 would apply to a combined taillamp and side marker lamp. Your letter indicates that "the light output of side marker lamp is als o emanated toward the rear of the vehicle mixed with tail lamp light, and similarly, the light output of tail lamp is also emanated toward the side mixed with side marker lamp light." You requested answers to the following two questions.

"1) Should the Tail lamp function of this lamp meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections, or 3 lighted sections?"

Although NHTSA and the SAE have not defined "lighted section", we understand it to be that portion of a lens that is illuminated, either singly by a single light source, or in common by more than one light source. Your question assumes that the number o f bulbs in your lamp is equal to the number of lighted sections, that is to say, that each bulb illuminates a separate section of the lens. However, in your design, all bulbs contribute, without interruption by a divider or other light-directing feature , to the illumination of the lens. Therefore, we regard your lamp as a single compartment lamp to which the single lighted section requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), September 1977, apply, even though the illumination i s provided by three light sources.

"2) Should the Side marker function of this lamp meet the photometric requirement of SAE J592e by 3 lighted sections or 1 lighted section?"

Standard No. 108 also incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972. Unlike SAE J585e, SAE J592e does not contain different photometric requirements depending on the number of lighted sections. Therefore, we interpret your question as asking whether photometric compliance is determined on the basis of the bulb that is dedicated to that purpose, or by all three bulbs. Because there is no clearly defined side marker lamp other than the portion of the lamp that is visible from the side, compliance should be measured using all three light sources in the lamp.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht90-3.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-25-90 to NHTSA Chief Counsel from Peter Brown attached; OCC 4725 TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1990, 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 upp er 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 act ivated when the lamps marked "U" or "UF" are activated. Standard No. 108 further specifies that headlamps designed to conform to Figure 15 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 15 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 low er. . . ."

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.

ID: nht89-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

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

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- VICE PRESIDENT PRODUCT COMPLIANCE SERVICE AND PARTS MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA TO STEPHEN P. WOOD; REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; OCC 3823

TEXT: Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bu lb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. 108 will permit, as of December 1, 1989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp bo dy, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely