ID: 1920y

Robert Knauff, President
Applied Research & Design, Inc.
Markethouse Suite 405
289 E. 5th St
St. Paul, MN 55l0l

Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, l989, you wrote the agency with respect to the acceptability of your collision avoidance lighting system, as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment, under Federal laws and regulations.

Because the patent application you enclosed was stamped "Confidential", Ms Kathy DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, wrote you on May 26 for a clarification of your intent regarding confidential treatment of the material you submitted. We have received your letter of June 8 to Ms DeMeter containing your "permission to use" the confidential information in responding to you. As Ms DeMeter explained, the issue is not whether we may "use" the information, but whether it may be made available to the public, for the agency cannot provide non-public interpretations. Your statement is not a clear waiver of a claim of confidentiality; however, Ms DeMeter states that you told her that you were no longer requesting confidential treatment as the patent application has been filed, and we regard that as a sufficient oral waiver of your request.

Your invention is intended as an advance warning of braking, and consists of "a single pulse of light [lasting] approximately 40 millionths of a second." You wish to know of the acceptability of this device as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment in six different configurations.

First, let me observe that the agency has not performed research with respect to a device such as yours. However, it is concerned with the effects of glare, whether disabling or discomforting in nature. It would be concerned if the after-image left by the pulse of light from your device created a momentary distraction in drivers from their immediate driving task, in this instance, causing them to hesitate rather than to apply the brake pedal. We note the concern expressed by the State of Minnesota in its l987 and l988 letters to you. Under the assumption that a pulse of 40 millionths of a second does not produce this effect, I shall proceed to a discussion of your device with respect to the situations you envision.

The first configuration is as "a high-mount stop light system." A center high-mounted stop lamp has been required for all passenger cars manufactured on and after September l, l985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 states that the center stop lamp "shall not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." This is the only flat prohibition in Standard No. l08 against physical combinations of lighting equipment, and as such, we read it as forbidding use of the collision avoidance pulse. Thus, your device would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars. As for its suitability as original equipment on other types of motor vehicles, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. l08 requires (paragraph S5.1.3).

With respect to the aftermarket, the pulse could not be incorporated in a center high-mounted stop lamp intended to replace original equipment high-mounted stop lamps, because replacement equipment must conform with original equipment requirements. However, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, and on any other vehicle as well.

Whether or not subject to a standard, all aftermarket equipment is subject to the Federal requirement that its installation not lead to a rendering inoperative (wholly or partially) of equipment installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. For example, if your light utilized the wiring of stop lamps and somehow diminished the light output, we would regard its installation as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. This prohibition applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops. It does not, however, apply to changes made by a person to his or her own vehicle.

Because the agency has no standards for your device, a State may set its own standard for it, or even prohibit it altogether even though it is not prohibited under Federal Law. This is implied by the State of Minnesota to you in its letter of August l6, l988. We are unable to advise you on State law, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Your second configuration is as "an enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." We interpret this as meaning a combination of the pulse lamp with a stop lamp. This is not a forbidden equipment combination for original equipment, but it is subject to the same restriction (paragraph S5.1.3) as all supplementary lighting equipment: that it not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Similarly, its installation as an aftermarket device is permissible if it does not violate the rendering inoperative prohibition mentioned above.

Your third configuration involves "use in motorcycle taillights". Taillamps are steady burning in nature, activated when the headlamps are on. Today, most motorcycle headlamps are activated when the ignition is turned on, meaning that the taillamp operates at all times that the motorcycle is in motion. Your letter does not indicate the frequency of the pulse, but we must raise the possibility that a pulse from the taillamp might impair the effectiveness of signals from the stop lamp, or from the turn signal lamps. If this possibility occurs, the device could not be incorporated into original equipment or replacement motorcycle taillamps for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

The fourth configuration you envision involves "use for 8-way lights in school bus systems." This would appear to mean incorporation in the red warning lamps of the red and amber warning lamp system. This system operates automatically when the bus door is opened (paragraph S5.1.4). This appears to enhance the warning purpose of the lamps, and not impair their effectiveness. Nor does it appear to "render inoperative", within the meaning of the aftermarket prohibition. We must advise you, however, that States are particularly sensitive to issues of school bus safety and lighting.

"Ambulance lighting" is your fifth concern. The agency has no specific requirements for warning light systems on ambulances. Such systems, of course, must not impair the effectiveness of original equipment lighting installed in accordance with Standard No. l08. Strobe-type warning lamps on the vehicle top, at front and rear, have been considered permissible.

Finally, you ask about "off-road type vehicles, i.e., snowmobiles, boats, etc." The agency has no jurisdiction over vehicles that are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus we cannot answer this question.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/24/89

ID: nht89-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

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

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH & DESIGN, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO; KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHUL TZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, 1989, you wrote the agency with respect to the acceptability of your collision avoidance lighting system, as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment, under Federal laws and regulations.

Because the patent application you enclosed was stamped "Confidential", Ms Kathy DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, wrote you on May 26 for a clarification of your intent regarding confidential treatment of the material you submitted. We have received your letter of June 8 to Ms DeMeter containing your "permission to use" the confidential information in responding to you. As Ms DeMeter explained, the issue is not whether we may "use" the information, but whether it may be made avail able to the public, for the agency cannot provide non-public interpretations. Your statement is not a clear waiver of a claim of confidentiality; however, Ms DeMeter states that you told her that you were no longer requesting confidential treatment as t he patent application has been filed, and we regard that as a sufficient oral waiver of your request.

Your invention is intended as an advance warning of braking, and consists of "a single pulse of light [lasting] approximately 40 millionths of a second." You wish to know of the acceptability of this device as both original and aftermarket lighting equip ment in six different configurations.

First, let me observe that the agency has not performed research with respect to a device such as yours. However, it is concerned with the effects of glare, whether disabling or discomforting in nature. It would be concerned if the after-image left by the pulse of light from your device created a momentary distraction in drivers from their immediate driving task, in this instance, causing them to hesitate rather than to apply the brake pedal. We note the concern expressed by the State of Minnesota in its 1987 and 1988 letters to you. Under the assumption that a pulse of 40 millionths of a second does not produce this effect, I

shall proceed to a discussion of your device with respect to the situations you envision.

The first configuration is as "a high-mount stop light system." A center high-mounted stop lamp has been required for all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devic es, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 states that the center stop lamp "shall not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." This is the only flat prohibition in Standard No. 108 against physical combinations of li ghting equipment, and as such, we read it as forbidding use of the collision avoidance pulse. Thus, your device would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars. As for its suitability as original equipment on other types of motor vehic les, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. 108 requires (paragraph S5.1.3).

With respect to the aftermarket, the pulse could not be incorporated in a center high-mounted stop lamp intended to replace original equipment high-mounted stop lamps, because replacement equipment must conform with original equipment requirements. Howe ver, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and on any other vehicle as well.

Whether or not subject to a standard, all aftermarket equipment is subject to the Federal requirement that its installation not lead to a rendering inoperative (wholly or partially) of equipment installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. For example, if your light utilized the wiring of stop lamps and somehow diminished the light output, we would regard its installation as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. This prohibition applies to m otor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops. It does not, however, apply to changes made by a person to his or her own vehicle.

Because the agency has no standards for your device, a State may set its own standard for it, or even prohibit it altogether even though it is not prohibited under Federal Law. This is implied by the State of Minnesota to you in its letter of August 16, 1988. We are unable to advise you on State law, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Your second configuration is as "an enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." We interpret this as meaning a combination of the pulse lamp with a stop lamp. This is not a forbidden equipment combination for original equipment, but it is subject to the same restriction (paragraph S5.1.3) as all supplementary lighting equipment: that it not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Similarly, its installation as an aftermarket device is permissible if it does not violate the rende ring inoperative prohibition mentioned above.

Your third configuration involves "use in motorcycle taillights". Taillamps are steady burning in nature, activated when the headlamps are on. Today, most motorcycle headlamps are activated when the ignition is

turned on, meaning that the taillamp operates at all times that the motorcycle is in motion. Your letter does not indicate the frequency of the pulse, but we must raise the possibility that a pulse from the taillamp might impair the effectiveness of sig nals from the stop lamp, or from the turn signal lamps.

If this possibility occurs, the device could not be incorporated into original equipment or replacement motorcycle taillamps for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

The fourth configuration you envision involves "use for 8-way lights in school bus systems." This would appear to mean incorporation in the red warning lamps of the red and amber warning lamp system. This system operates automatically when the bus door is opened (paragraph S5.1.4). This appears to enhance the warning purpose of the lamps, and not impair their effectiveness. Nor does it appear to "render inoperative", within the meaning of the aftermarket prohibition. We must advise you, however, tha t States are particularly sensitive to issues of school bus safety and lighting.

"Ambulance lighting" is your fifth concern. The agency has no specific requirements for warning light systems on ambulances. Such systems, of course, must not impair the effectiveness of original equipment lighting installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Strobe-type warning lamps on the vehicle top, at front and rear, have been considered permissible.

Finally, you ask about "off-road type vehicles, i.e., snowmobiles, boats, etc." The agency has no jurisdiction over vehicles that are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus we cannot answer this question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/88

FROM: KARL H. MAYER -- DR ING H. C F PORSCHE AG RULES AND REGULATIONS PORSCHE

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION/CLARIFICATION FMVSS 101 AND FMVSS 102

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KARL H. MAYER, REDBOOK A33 (4), STANDARD 101, STANDARD 102; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM DEAN HANSELL TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA, RE PORSCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102

TEXT:

Dear Ms. Jones,

In connection with the development of a new vehicle transmission we would like to request your opinion concerning regulatory questions raised by this transmission and its related gear shift mechanism, taking into account Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stan dards 101 and 102.

We understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We also realize that, under the National Traffic Motor Vehicles Safety Act, it is the responsibility o f the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles and equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Nevertheless, in our opinion it can at times be helpful and desirable for both the NHTSA and a motor vehicle manufacturer if a candid dialogue can be brought about regarding new technological developments and related regulatory questions. It is the inten t of this letter to create such a dialogue, as needed, in connection with the questions we are presenting.

I. Descriptions of the transmission, its functions and the operation of the gear shift lever

The above mentioned motor vehicle transmission is characterized by two functions -- i.e., a manuel gear shift and an automatic gear shift -- combined in a single unit. The transmission will thus let the driver decide at any time if he wishes to shift manually or transfer that task to the automatic portion of the transmission.

A motor vehicle equipped with such a unit does not have a clutch pedal. Regardless of which of the dual functions is chosen, its operation depends entirely on the position selected for the gear shift lever.

As is customary, the gear shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The movement between the two slots corresponds to the change-over from the automatic to the manual function or vice versa. Movement of the lever between the slots can be accomplished while driving the vehicle forward or also while the vehicle is standing still, entirely at the option of the driver.

To accomplish the change from one slot (or function) to the other one, the driver only needs to move the shift lever to the other side across a tranverse connecting slot. As attached drawing 1 shows, this change can only be made from the "D" position on the automatic side to the "M" (manual shift) function on the other side, or vice versa.

When the slot exchange takes place from the automatic to the manual function, at first there is no actual gear shift change; i.e., the vehicle remains in the gear it was in on the automatic side. Only after a further "shift order" is given by the dri ver (by tapping on the shift lever) is the desired gear shift change achieved; i.e., either by shifting up (+) or by shifting down (-). (Shifting on the manual side has a "rocker" characteristic similar to that found with a computer video control, which always returns the gear shift lever to the "M" position after being tapped).

When changing from the manual to the automatic function, at first the gear selected on the automatic side is "taken along" from the one selected by the driver in the manual mode. However, immediately thereafter the automatic speed adaption of the aut omatic function takes over. This adaption, as usual, depends upon the load factor and the engine revolutions as well as the vehicular speed, and corresponds to the conventional functioning of existing automatic transmission units.

II. Questions resulting from the new transmission and Standards 101 and 102

1. We are of the opinion that th s new type of transmission with a dual function is basically permissible under the FMVSS, provided certain requirements are met as per FMVSS 101 and 102. We would like to know whether the NHTSA agrees with this inter pretation of the regulations.

The requirements we have taken into consideration in reaching our conclusion are, among others:

The shift lever can be reached by the driver. FMVSS 101. S5.1. hand operated controls, item (j) of the list.

The shift pattern manufactured as per drawing 1, is continually visible to the driver on the middle console during daylight, FMVSS 101, S5.1 displays, item (c) of the list.

The shift pattern, as per drawing 2, shown in the speedometer, is continually visible to the driver and provided with illumination, which is in accordance with the requirement contained in FMVSS 101, S5.3.1.

If a gauge is listed in column 1 of Table 2, and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 5, then the gauge and its identification required by S5.2.3 shall be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. Controls, gauge s, and their identifications need not be illuminated when the headlamps are being flashed.

The above mentioned illumination of the shift pattern is adjustable, in accordance with FMVSS 101, S5.3.3.

In the automatic mode the gear position can be set selectively to P, R, N, D, 3, 2, or 1, clearly readable on the guide display plate of the gear shift on the middle console, as well as clearly marked for the driver by illuminating the corresponding a rrows (arrow) on the shift display in the speedometer.

The engine can only be started if the shift lever is in the P or N position as per FMVSS 102. S3.1.3.

[FOLLOWING PAGE MISSING]

4. The display shown in drawing 3 differs from the mode depicted in drawing 2 only by including the letter "M" on the manual side. The corresponding arrow would be illuminated during use of the manual mode. Additionally the arrow of the selected sh ift position would light up.

Please advise us if the display mode shown in drawing 3 is permissible.

Note: The speedometer depicted in drawings 2 and 3 will have a scale reading in MPH in the version manufactured for the USA instead of a scale in KM.

We are prepared to provide you with any further information that you would need to consider this inquiry, whether by telephone or in writing, or, if you would prefer, in a face-to-face meeting. We have developed a working model of the dual function shif t lever which we are prepared to demonstrate for you, if that would be helpful to you in evaluating these questions.

Your early favorable consideration of these requests would be greatly appreciated so that we can move this technology toward production as soon as possible.

A confidential treatment of this inquiry in accordance with 49 CFR Part 512 ist requested. (See enclosed declaration.)

Very truly yours,

Enclosure

(FIGURE 1-3 OMITTED)

ID: nht76-2.28

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1976, asking for an interpretation of the spacing requirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps specified in Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 requires that motorcycle turn signal lamps be located so that their edges are at least 4 inches from the edge of the headlamps (on the front) and tail or stop lamps (on the rear). You have asked for confirmation "that the minimum separation distance is measured between the edges of the illuminated lenses of the respective lamps on a line passing through each lamp . . . rather than being measured on a horizontal line between two planes touching the edges of the illuminated lenses".

This will confirm your interpretation that the minimum separation distance is to be measured at the point where the edges of the two lamps are closest to each other.

ID: nht90-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/90

FROM: TILMAN SPINGLER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TO: RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE -- OFFICE OF RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TITLE: TELEFAX

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-23-90 TO TILMAN SPINGLER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; INTERP. STD. 108]; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER TO TAYLOR FROM RICH VAN IDERSTINE DATED 2-13-90; [43880]

TEXT: For some future projects I ask you to answer the following questions

1) To turn the adjusting screws of a HB2-headlamp it will be necessary to remove two snap on covers without the use of any tool. Will this be legal?

2) A combination of HB2-headlight (low- + high-beam) and auxiliary driving beam in one unit shall be equipped with only vertical adjusting screws for the driving beam. The beampattern will be so wide, that even bulbs with extreme tolerances will allow t o meet all photometric requirements without horizontal adjustment. Will this be legal?

3) When will the 9007 bulb be legal? Date of final rule?

Thanks for a quick answer

ID: nht71-4.49

DATE: 11/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 22 asking whether the "hoodlum warning system" requested by the city of Boston (MBTA) would conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S3.5 of Standard No. 108 permits "normally steadily-burning lights [to] be capable of being individually flashed for signalling purposes" on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972. Therefore the hoodlum warning system is currently permissible under Standard No. 108.

However, a new requirement effective January 1, 1972, would prohibit the installation of this system on vehicles manufactured on or after this date. Paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 states:

"Where activated

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash;

(b) All other lamps shall be steady-burning except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes." (emphasis added)

ID: nht72-6.23

DATE: 11/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1972, asking among other things, whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts the recent California law requiring motorcycles made on or after January 1, 1972, to be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever the engines are running. In light of the answer to this question, it is not necessary to deal with the other ones.

It is the opinion of this agency that the California law in question is presented in accordance with section 103(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and is therefore void. Standard No. 108. 49 CFR @ 571.108, establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles. It is our position, therefore, that the California requirement is within the scope of the aspects of performance covered by Standard No. 108. Since it is not identical to a federal requirement, it is rendered void by operation of the Act.

ID: 2631o

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1987, with reference to a newly developed lamp bulb "for automotive light-signalling devices." You state that the lamp has a bulb defined in SAE J387 and that its specifications for bulb and base meet those of SAE J573. The candlepower of the new lamp bulb is said to be 40% higher than that of a conventional bulb. You have asked whether you can "use the device with this new lamp bulb" in the United States.

For lamps other than replaceable bulb headlamps Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 establishes requirements for photometric performance, and not for bulbs. Therefore, SAE J387 and J573 are not incorporated into Standard No. l08. Any motor vehicle turn signal or hazard warning signal device using Stanley's new high-candlepower bulb would appear to be permissible as long as it meets the applicable photometric specifications of Standard No. l08, and does not exceed any maxima of these specifications.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:l2/3l/87

ID: nht72-2.12

DATE: 08/30/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Albert Hammerstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your Broadview, Illinois, Subsidiary recently forwarded to us a copy of your December 17, 1971, letter concerning aiming adjustment tests as specified in SAE Standard J580a. A search of our files does not reveal that your letter was previously received by this Office.

Specifically, your concern is the interpretation of a requirement which is specified in SAE J580a as follows:

"2. The mechanism, including the aiming adjustment, must be so designed as to prevent the unit from receding into the lamp body or housing when an inward pressure of 50 lb is exerted on the outer surface of the lens."

Our interpretation of the above requirement is that no visible receding of the sealed beam unit is permitted when the inward pressure is applied on the outer lens surface. Testing for compliance to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, which references SAE J580a, is conducted on the basis of this interpretation.

In the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on FMVSS No. 108 (Docket 69-19), we are considering the feasibility of specifying more objective type requirements on this aspect of aiming adjustment tests for headlamps. You will no doubt be interested in commenting on the proposed requirements after issuance of the NPRM.

ID: 14309.ztv

Mr. Kiyoshi Narabu
General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara-City
Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1997, with reference to paragraph S7.7(e) of Standard No. 108 requiring permanent markings of ballasts used in high intensity discharge headlamps.

You have enclosed samples of labels to be stuck to ballasts and a sample of a plate to which the label is affixed, and ask whether these are "permanent" markings within the meaning of the standard.

We were able to peel back and remove in an undamaged condition the label on the sample plate that you enclosed. Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of paragraph S7.7(e) that the markings be permanent. We regard marking by labels as "permanent" if the labels cannot be removed without their destruction.

We note that the marking itself is in the Japanese language. We are unable to tell whether the marking conforms with the warning and other information required on ballast markings by the remainder of paragraph S7.7(e). Thus, the label must also be in the English language to comply fully with the requirements of this paragraph.

If you have further questions about this letter, you may FAX them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/22/97