ID: nht92-6.18

DATE: June 3, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Michael Perel -- Research and Development, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your advice during our telephone conversation of May 19, and for your fax of May 20. The following letter, although originally written before our conversation, has been modified after consideration of the DOT regulations contained in your fax. I hope this letter contains sufficient information for evaluation by your legal department. Please excuse my reiteration of information from our previous conversation.

My name is Steven Henderson. I am a PhD student at McGill University, studying in the field of visual perception. I am requesting your assistance in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application for a motorcycle hazard signalling device (filed the week of March 23, 1992). I also wish to know the opinion of your legal department regarding the extent to which DOT regulations apply to the signalling device.

About 4000 motorcyclists die every year in North America. I believe many of these deaths are due to the small size and low visibility of motorcycles, and, in collaboration with my coinventor David Kernaghan, have developed a device giving motorcyclists and bicyclists the capability of temporarily increasing their conspicuity to automobile drivers when circumstances warrant. The device is a flasher system that, in addition to signalling turns in the standard fashion, flicker the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed. This flicker in the visual periphery of the car driver will initiate a reflexive saccade toward the motorcycle's location. (Vision researchers have found the human eye to be maximally responsive to a flash frequency of 10 Hz.) If the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker. (My experience and those of other riders is that a motorcyclist is often aware of a developing dangerous situation one or two seconds before an approaching car driver sees the motorcycle, giving the device-equipped motorcyclist the opportunity to avoid an accident by signalling his or her presence to the car driver.) A photocell prevents the headlight from flickering at night. The device is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights).

The first question I wish to pose concerns the legality of the device under Section 571.108 S5.6 of the DOT regulations. On the face of it the device does appear to be proscribed by these regulations. However, the regulations are clearly intended to govern the characteristics of headlamp systems that are continuously modulated over extended periods of time, while my proposed system will be used only for very brief intervals (when the horn is sounding). The transitory nature of a signal such as a horn allows its use, even though the continuous blowing of the same horn would be considered a nuisance, and would surely be in violation of noise abatement bylaws. Indeed, the presence of a

working horn is mandated by law for all licensed vehicles, showing that a device that would be illegal if used continuously, can even be required by law if its utility as a warning device is recommended. Furthermore, the device does not violate the spirit of laws governing flashing lights and emergency vehicles, as its use would certainly not cause a motorcycle to be mistaken for an emergency vehicle. (The lights displayed at the front of an emergency vehicle are of a different color, flicker frequency, and intensity.) Finally, this DOT section may prohibit transient headlamp flicker without prohibiting transient signal light flicker at all.

The second question concerns the advancement of a patent application of the device. I strongly believe that in the interest of public safety, the device should be tested, and if found effective, should be made available to the motoring public as quickly as possible. However, as any competent technician or motorcycle mechanic could easily copy the device upon seeing it in use, I feel that patent protection must be secured before a test program is begun. Unfortunately, under normal circumstances the U.S. patent office takes about eighteen months to render a judgement after a patent application has been filed. If you and your legal department agree that the public interest is served by the advancement of examination in this case, I ask that immediate action be requested, in accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 708.01. The section states:

37 CFR 1.102.Advancement of examination.

(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Commissioner to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) of this section ...

(b)Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.

Furthermore, the current U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL states that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established to carry out a congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from auto accidents on the Nation's highways... (p.464)"

I believe that this congressional mandate indicates that the proposed invention should be "deemed of peculiar importance" to the NHTSA, and I therefore ask that the director of an appropriate department within the NHTSA make request for an advanced application under section 708.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, by supplying to me a letter addressed to the US Patent Office, which my patent attorney will forward, along with supporting documentation, to the U.S. Patent office.

I understand that such a letter is not an endorsement of the device by the NHTSA, and that the intent of the letter is solely to facilitate a research program to determine the device's lifesaving potential. Your letter would be communicated only to the U.S. Patent Office, and would never be used in a

publicity campaign or to in any way suggest that the device had received the endorsement of the NHTSA. I would certainly be willing to sign a letter to that effect.

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht88-3.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC.

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION-FMVSS 108; LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT-AUXILIARY LAMPS; MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 14, 1988, with respect to an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and a request for confidential treatment of it. We understand that you orally withdrew this request during a telephone conversa tion with this Office on August 23, 1988.

You have asked whether Standard No. 108 permits the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors, or the use of such lamps as fog and/or cornering lamps. Although Standard No. 108 defines a replaceable bulb headlamps as one with a bonded lens-reflector assembly, this definition does not preclude a design with an adjustable reflector, as the bond may be applied to a portion of the reflector assembly that is not adjustable. However, a headlamp with an adjustable reflector must be designe d to conform with all applicable photometric requirements with the reflector in all positions in which it may be adjusted.

As for its use as a fog or cornering lamp, you are correct that it is acceptable provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Whether the device impairs the effectiveness is determined by the vehicle manufacturer before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The decision, however, may be questioned by this agency if it appears erroneous.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht74-1.32

DATE: 05/16/74

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

TO: Lt. Commander Robert H. Weldman, Jr.

COPYEE: LARSON; RANADER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This response to your letter of April 17, 1974, to the Department of Transportation requesting information on standards for (Illegible Word) Lighting systems. We have me record of your (Illegible Words)

In answer to your specific questions --

1. "Are there any federal or state regulations which specify sealed beam headlamps?"

Yes, this requirement has been effective either by Federal or State standards for more than three decades.

2. "Are both acceptable?"

A replacable bulb type headlamp is not acceptable.

3. "Is amber a permissible headlight (Illegible Word)

No, headlight must white light.

4. "Is white mandatory for backup lights?"

Yes, white is mandatory.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

APRIL 17, 1974

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Attn: Federal Standards for Automobiles.

Dear Sirs,

I wrote you on 12 February 1974 to ask for information on Federal and state standards for automobile lighting systems. I have received no reply, so herewith a repeat of my request: are there any federal or state regulations which specify sealed beam headlamps, or are bulbs acceptable? Is amber a permissible headlight color? Is white mandatory for backup lights?

I will appreciate any information you can give me.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Weidman, Jr. -- LCDR USN,

Box 33 B753, FPO NEW YORK 09540

ID: SEMA

ID: nht74-1.37

DATE: 06/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawerence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Western Scooter Distributor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1974, advising that the State of Virginia refuses to register the Ciao Moped "because there is no high beam."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, through its incorporation of SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, allows motorcycles of 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with either one single beam or one multiple beam headlamp. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits a State from having requirements that differ from Federal ones where the same aspect of vehicle performance is concerned. Therefore, a State law or regulation under which a motor driven cycle is barred solely because it is equipped with a single beam headlamp would be preempted and void, by Federal law.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 14, 1974

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Our firm imports Piaggio motor vehicle products for distribution through the United States. We are currently importing the Vespa Motorscooters and the Ciao Mopeds.

We have recently encountered problems on registration in the State of Virginia concerning the Ciao Moped. The only area in question concerns the headlight. The State of Virginia has refused to register these vehicles because there is no high beam.

It is our interpretation of Standard 108 that "motor driven cycles" do not require a high beam on their headlights.

We request clarification on this matter.

Very truly yours,

R. H. Remensperger -- President, WESTERN SCOOTER DISTRIBUTORS

ID: aiam4209

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1986, asking thre interpretation questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, and 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. The answers to your questions are provided below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; Your first question concerns the visibility requirements for the uppe beam telltale (indicator). As noted by your letter, section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101 provides that the light intensity of each telltale shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. The upper beam telltale is one of the telltales subject to that requirement. You note, however, that section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 requires a high beam indicator that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a (except that the signal color need not be red). J564a provides that the upper beam indicator should be 'plainly visible to drivers of all heights under normal driving conditions when headlights are required.' Based on this provision, you suggest that the upper beam telltale is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when headlamps are not needed. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.; The difference between these two requirements is not so great as yo suggest. The reference to 'normal driving conditions' in J564a includes a variety of non-nighttime conditions (e.g., driving at dusk or dawn, and driving in daytime rainstorms) when headlamp use may be required by the States. To the extent that Standard No. 101 requires the telltale to be visible under daylight driving conditions not covered by Standard No. 108, manufacturers must meet the broader requirement. Manufacturers are required to meet all applicable safety standards. We note that while Standards No. 101 and 108 each cover upper beam telltales and specify different requirements, it is possible to meet the requirements of both standards simultaneously.; You stated that under daylight conditions the upper beam cannot dazzl oncoming drivers and that there is therefore no need to inform the driver that the upper beam is on. While there may be less need for this telltale during daylight than at night, Standard No. 101 reflects our believe that there is still a need and requires that the telltale be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions (if the upper beams are actually on).; Your second question concerns the upper beam telltale minimum are requirement. SAE Recommended Practice J564a, which, as noted above, is referenced by section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108, provides that the upper beam indicator should consist of a 'light, with a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle.' You asked how this requirement would apply to two designs.; In the first design, the outline of the telltale symbol would lighte while the area within and around the telltale symbol would not. You suggested that the framed area, i.e., the area within the telltale that is framed by the outline but not lighted itself, can be counted into the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is incorrect. In the second design, the telltale symbol would be superimposed on a rectangle. In this case, the entire area within the rectangle would lighten, except for that covered by the symbol itself. You suggested that the lighted area other than that covered by the symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is correct.; In referencing SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Standard No. 10 requires that the upper beam indicator must consist of a light, and also specifies the minimum area for that light. It does not specify the shape of the light. If the light is a simple circle which is lighted in its entirety (with the identification required by Standard No. 101 placed adjacent to the circle), that lighted circle must be at least 3/16 inch in diameter. If the light is some other shape, such as the shape of the upper beam symbol or a rectangle in which only part of the area is lighted, the total area which is lighted must be at least as large as the area of a 3/16 inch circle. Thus, in the case of the first design discussed above, only the outline area (i.e., the blue lighted area) of the upper beam symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. The unlighted interior part *i.e., the black area) of the symbol cannot be counted toward the minimum area requirement. In the case of the second design discussed above, the entire (blue) area within the rectangle that lightens can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. However, that part of the rectangle which does not lighten, i.e., the (white) part covered by the symbol, cannot be counted.; Your third question concerns Standard No. 101's illuminatio requirements for a side marker lamp control that is incorporated into the master lighting switch. As suggested by your letter and as discussed below, illumination is not required if the identifying symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the master lighting switch.; While Table I of Standard No. 101 requires that side marker lam controls be identified with the side marker lamp control symbol and that such identification be illuminated, it also provides that separate identification is not required if controlled by the master lighting switch. Thus, for side marker lamp controls that are incorporated into the master lighting switch, use of the side marker lamp control symbol is voluntary. Since such identification is not required by Standard No. 101, it is our opinion that the standard does not require manufacturers to illuminate such identification if they choose to provide it voluntarily.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 18164.ztv

Mr. Ian Goldstein
Safe Passage Technologies
85 Marcus Boulevard
Hauppauge, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1998, with respect to whether new lighting technologies that you describe are allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You have asked us to advise you "as to the best approach to gaining the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's full acceptance and support."

You should understand that our agency does not "accept" or "support" a particular product. We do advise correspondents, as in this instance, as to whether a specific invention or device may or may not be permissible under the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The first of the technologies that you mention is "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs). This technology would modulate the intensity of DRLs according to ambient light conditions. On the basis of the limited information you have provided, we see no impediment under Standard No. 108 to the incorporation of this feature into DRL systems that comply with S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108. A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified .

We note your statement that "The State of California has independently determined to mandate DRL effective January 1, 1998." We do not know the basis for this remark. Unless and until DRLs are mandated by Standard No. 108, a state cannot require that new vehicles be equipped with them. A state can require that a driver operate a vehicle's existing headlamps on the lower beam during daylight hours to serve as a DRL, but we have not heard that California has enacted such a requirement.

The second technology would address lamp failure detection and correction. This technology would indicate to or warn the driver that a lamp had failed, "and temporarily use an alternative lamp, possibly at an alternate brightness," to substitute for the failed one. Under Standard No. 108, only the failure of the turn signal lamps is required to be communicated to the driver. We are aware that, through fiber optics, some manufacturers provide a warning when other lamps fail. We see nothing in Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would preclude a vehicle manufacturer from offering such a detection system.

The question of substitution for failed lamps is not so easily answered. We have recently advised Ford Motor Company that automatic activation of a lower beam filament in a two-headlamp system when the upper beam filament fails is not prohibited by S5.5.9 which states that only the upper beam light sources shall be activated when the headlamp switch is in the upper beam position. In our view, this requirement of Standard No. 108 does not apply in a failure condition, and the substitution of an alternate light source is permissible. The reverse situation is not quite the same. Because headlamps are primarily operated on the lower beam, activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare. As you note, the upper beam in this instance ideally should be activated at a markedly reduced intensity such that it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting devices (S5.1.3), or, more specifically, that, as a lower beam substitute. it does not compromise turn signal visibility.

You also present the case in which the hazard warning lamps could be activated in the event of total failure of a light source and its alternative. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that would preclude wiring the hazard warning lamps to flash in the event of such a failure. We note that vehicle operators can manually activate the hazard warning system in such an emergency.

The third technology is called a "severe braking alert." This technology would flash the stop lamps to indicate rapid deceleration. Standard No. 108 does not allow this system because stop lamps are required to be wired to be steady burning (S5.5.10(d)). The agency has established a docket to receive comments from the public on Advance Brake Warning Systems (Docket No. 96-41) such as your "severe braking alert.". I enclose a copy of two notices, published in December 1996 and October 1997, that discuss the subject in detail.

If you have questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.7/21/98

ID: aiam0845

Dear Mr. Jonas: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1972, concerning the tes procedures applicable to a passenger car headlamp after the impacts required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215.; Your question is whether the requirements of SAE Standard J580a, whic are incorporated in the lighting systems standard, Standard No. 108, are meant to be incorporated into Standard No. 215, and, if so, whether the 'Aiming Adjustment Tests' of SAE J580a are to be performed in a laboratory fixture or on the vehicle.; Our answer is that Standard No. 215, in adopting the headlam adjustment requirements of Standard No. 108, incorporates the requirements of SAE J580. Contrary to your impression, SAE J580 can be conducted either as a bench test or as an on-vehicle test, and as incorporated into Standard No. 215 its aiming adjustment test will be applied as an on-vehicle test. The use of the bench test procedure by our Office of Standards Enforcement in its laboratory procedures manual for Standard No. 108 should not be understood to mean that we consider the bench test to be the only test method under SAE J580a.; Sincerely, Richard B.DDyson (sic), Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-4.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Gordon Bonvallet - Consulting Lighting, Engineer

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108, Request for interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon Bonvallet (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation of ruling of FMVSS 108 is being made for HELLA KG, Lippstadt, Germany. Please direct any questions and the NHTSA response to the above address.

A design consideration for a future automotive vehicle headlamp system consists of four lamps, using gaseous discharge "integral beam" headlamps for the low beams and incandescent "replaceable bulb" (HB3) headlamps for the high beams. The gaseous discha rge lamp and the incandescent lamp on each side of the vehicle will be independent of each other but will share a common frame assembly. Each will be able to be replaced in part or completely without disturbing the other lamp.

The gaseous discharge lamp and ballast will be physically separated from each other but will be electrically connected with no means of disconnecting either component from the other. If either the lamp or ballast fails to operate, both components must b e replaced.

PHOTOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS: Although a combination gaseous discharge/incandescent system is not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108, it is our opinion that the Figure 15 photometric requirement would apply to both the low beam and the high beam lamps. Ple ase advise if this is correct.

AIMING REQUIREMENTS: At this time, it is anticipated that each individual lamp will have external aiming pads and therefore can be independently aimable. There is a possibility that an on-board aiming system of some type may be used. Are there any spec ial considerations that must be adhered to that are not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108?

It is our opinion that the above described system is allowable under FMVSS 108. We request that you review this concept and advise if you concur or if there are other factors that must be considered.

ID: 101xx

Mr. Lance Tunick
1919 Mt. Zion Drive
Golden, CO 80401

FAX 303-279-9339

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas discharge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a "box" so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The "box" would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting.

As you note, this assemblage is an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will "comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)", which apply to two- lamp integral beam headlighting systems.

In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable" because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp "would be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source [of those regulated

by Standard No. 108] . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge" and H-1 light sources.

We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/28/94