ID: 1983-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATON

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for a reconsideration of our December 8, 19B2, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.

As is well known, SAE Standard J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 Sealed Beam Headlamp Units), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.

We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycle headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlamp "effectiveness" is "impaired" because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, the manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.

In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions by concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking is advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983

Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: Motorcycle Headlamp Cover

Dear Mr. Vinson:

On February 1, 1983, members of the motorcycle industry met with you and NHTSA rulemaking (lighting) and enforcement personnel to discuss NHTSA's new interpretation regarding the installation of transparent covers in front of motorcycle headlamps. This interpretation, contained in a December 8, 1982 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, stated that NHTSA now views that FMVSS 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. This reverses a previous interpretation contained in a March 15, 1978 letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., then NHTSA Chief Counsel, which stated that NHTSA did not read the prohibition against covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with either sealed or unsealed headlamps because the referenced motorcycle headlamp standard in Table III of FMVSS 108, SAE J584, does not prohibit the installation of such covers.

We disagree with the reversal of the earlier interpretation.

Table III of FMVSS 108 requires motorcycles to comply with SAE Standard J584, April 1964. SAE J584 sets forth photometric requirements for motorcycle headlamps and does not prohibit glass covers. It also provides for alternative compliance by fitting headlamps conforming to SAE 579 (which, incidentally, also does not prohibit such covers). S4.1.1.34 provides that a motorcycle may be equipped with various combinations of headlamps from the passenger car headlamp systems, and contains no prohibition of headlamp covers. The only prohibition against the use of headlamp covers in FMVSS 108 is contained in SAE Standard J580a/b, referenced in Table III and applies only to sealed beam headlamps installed in passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. SAE J580a and J580b are concerned with the aim of a headlamp's beam, and proscribe glass covers so the aim can be readily inspected using a mechanical aimer that registers on the headlamp's three aiming pads. J584 motorcycle headlamps do not have these aiming pads, so there is no such need to preclude the use of glass covers.

NHTSA to support its position that Standard 108 precludes the use of covers over motorcycle headlamps relies on two arguments. We disagree with both:

1. That the prohibition contained in SAE Standard J580 applies to motorcycles, since SAE J580 is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108.

SAE J580 does not apply to motorcycles. It is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 only for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The primary referenced requirement for motorcycles in FMVSS 108 is SAE J584, which contains no such prohibition. SAE J584, in turn, permits alternative compliance with SAE J579, which neither contains such a prohibition nor references J580. In addition, S4.1.1.34 contains additional means of compliance for motorcycles, but no such prohibition.

2. That the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of S4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 precludes the use of such covers because the covers "impair the effectiveness" of headlamps.

This is an improper interpretation of S4.1.3. The impaired effectiveness requirement was intended to preclude the use of devices that render the required devices (although themselves meeting the standard) ineffective. For example, the fitting of a red lamp to a vehicle immediately adjacent to the required amber front side marker lamp and likewise an amber lamp fitted adjacent to the required rear red side marker lamp would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps, as ambiguity would result. Such an impairment would also result from the placement of an extremely bright lamp adjacent to a signal lamp, thus obliterating the light output of the signal lamp. Impairment of effectiveness does not relate to durability requirements as NHTSA would suggest.

In those instances where durability of lamps, lens materials, and other equipment is deemed to be important, FMVSS 108 contains specific durability requirments applicable to such equipment. As long as the headlamp cover does not preclude the headlamp from conforming to the performance requirements specified in FMVSS 108 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, the cover does not "impair the effectiveness" of the required equipment.

The interpretation of December 8 refers to the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of FMVSS 108, S4.1.3, as if impairing were an absolute, regardless of whether an impaired lamp were still within specifications. Compliance with specifications, however, is implicit to S4.1.3 because only lamps complying with specifications are required by this standard. S4.3.1.1. clearly relates compliance of any lamp to meeting or not meeting photometric output.

In addition, the preamble to the January 17, 1983 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS 108 (Docket 81-11: Notice 2) discusses the very subject of permissible impairment and concludes that compliance with required photometrics is the only test that can be applied. In rejecting petitioner's argument that conformance of a lamp should be based on relative degradation from the original output, NHTSA states (48 FR 1994), "....a lamp that far exceeded the minimum could "fail" if diminution exceeded 10 percent, even though the safety based J579c minima were still met. Such a result would appear to be excessive as a minimum safety standard. ...NHTSA believes it simpler and preferable that photometric measurements be taken at the end of each of the relevant tests in the sequential test series, and that the lamp at each such point comply with the photometrics of J579c". Thus, this preamble recognizes that photometric standards are composed of minimums and maximums, and that there would be no difference between a lamp designed to lower output and one that deteriorated to that same level, as long as both lamps at the reduced level of output comply with specifications.

That compliance is the sole criterion is further underscored in the letter of interpretation from Frank Berndt, then NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel, to Roderick A. Willcox, July 23, 1976, in which it is stated, in reference to a bug screen placed in front of headlamps, "Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579 or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580)."

One of the issues raised at the meeting was whether the BMW headlamp/cover complied with the photometric requirments of FMVSS 108. We indicated to you that we would have such a unit tested at an independent laboratory and submit the results to NHTSA. Electrical Testing Laboratories (ETL) has just completed the environmental and photometric tests prescribed by FMVSS 108 on one of our headlamps, and we attach a copy of their report. The report shows that the headlamp with glass cover passed the photometric tests of SAE J584, April 1964, both before and after the required environmental tests.

BMW uses the J584 motorcycle headlamp because, as recognized by NHTSA in 44 FR 20536, its photometrics are superior for motorcycles. The glass cover is designed as an integral part of the lamp and provides improved aerodynamics, which result in self-cleansing action; the cover also protects the headlamp from impacts and prevents the leadlamp's exposure to rain and dirt. Heat from the headlamp, which is on all the time, is sufficient to prevent buildup of moisture on the cover, while the cover, because of its distance in front of the lamp, minimizes the baking on of dirt and bugs. Generally, we find that most motorcycle owners maintain their vehicles better than do passenger car owners, and tend not to ride them as much in inclement weather.

Also enclosed is a copy of an ETL report showing that the glass cover complies with the light stability, luminous transmittance, impact, fracture and abrasion resistance tests of Z26.1. In the past, both AAMVA and California Highway Patrol have issued certificates of approval on the cover glass, as well as the whole lamp (including the cover glass).

We are not aware of any field experience indicating any problems with discoloration or cracks in the cover glass, or deterioration of the reflector.

Also, as we agreed in our meeting, we are attaching the names and addresses of owners in the Washington, D.C. area of older BMW motorcycles fitted with such covers whom you may wish to contact. This information is being provided to enable you to examine the headlamp/cover assemblies of these older motorcycles to determine what, if any, deterioration in headlamp performance can be attributed to age. This would aid you in the formulation of future proposed rulemaking should you later decide some durability require-ment may be appropriate for such lamp/cover assemblies.

Aside from a perceived (but not demonstrated) durability concern on NHTSA's part with respect to headlamp covers generally, the primary reason repeatedly given by NHTSA in opposition to such covers is their effect on mechanical aimers. Obviously, with a motorcycle there is no such concern since motorcycle headlamps can not be mechanically aimed because mechanical aiming requires the use of two headlamps, while motorcycles are permitted to have only one headlamp. This is the reason a motorcycle headlamp is not required to have the three aiming pads mounted on the lens.

In conclusion, we believe the interpretation contained in the December 8, 1982 Berndt letter is in error, particularly as it would apply to motorcycles equipped with headlamps conforming to SAE J584, as specified by Table III in FMVSS 108. Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

DE/fw 0510 - 83 Attachments

Owners of older BMW motorcycles having cover glass in front of headlamp who are willing to have their headlamps examined:

David Gray 1977 BMW RS 305 Tapawingo Road Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: 703 938-0060

Robert Henig 1977 BMW RS 11800 Dewey Road 35,000 miles Wheaton, MD 20906 Telephone: 301 942-5198

George R. Sams 1979 BMW RT 1104 Tyler Avenue 21,000 miles Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 301 267-3487 Bus.

301 263-9473 Home

ID: 86-6.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: LeRoy E. Mueller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. LeRoy E. Mueller President Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc. Richfield, WI 53076

Dear Mr. Mueller:

Don Vierimaa of Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association has asked us to reply to your letter of June 18, 1986, in which you inquired whether a proposed rear lighting system for trailers "meets the regulations governing lights and reflectors." We understand, from your conversation on October 7 with Taylor Vinson of this Office that the trailer in question is a flat bed one, intended to tip forward to facilitate the loading and unloading of cargo.

The requirements for trailer lighting for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more are imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table I lists the required equipment items, and Table II establishes the location for them. With one exception, the system depicted by your Drawing A60686 indicates that the required equipment will be furnished in accordance with Table I. The exception is the apparent failure to provide clearance lamps. These lamps, and the three-lamp identification lamp cluster are required for wide trailers. In our view, it will be necessary to mount additional lamps on the rear of your proposed trailer to provide this function. Paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps, and clearance lamps and identification lamps.

However, the location of the lamps as shown in Drawing A60686 does not appear to meet the requirements of Table II. that they be located "on the rear", or the visibility requirements discussed below. The identification lamps and reflectors are located under the platform and 19 inches from its rear edge, while the combination stop-tail-turn signal lamps are 22 inches from the rear edge of the platform. We therefore call your attention to paragraph S4.3.1.1. of Standard No. 108, and the appropriate photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 and SAE standards incorporated by reference for rear lighting equipment. In general, vehicle equipment shall not prevent photometric compliance by rear lighting devices, which shall be located so that at least two square inches of lens area are visible at angles of 45 degrees to the left, and 15 degrees to the right of the centerpoint of the lens. However, if motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance with visibility requirements, auxiliary lamps meeting the visibility requirements shall be provided.

We are mindful that the configuratIons of certain trailers are such that compliance problems may arise that are not easily solved. I enclose a recent letter to a manufacturer who had an interpretative question similar to yours, with the thought it may be of help to you.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Don:

I am enclosing three (3) copies of our drawing number A60686 showing the proposed light system on the rear portion of a trailer which we intend to market.

We would like to have you forward the drawings to the proper individuals in the Department of Transportation who could give us a ruling to whether or not this system meets the regulations governing lights and reflectors. The lights and reflectors are all Class A and meet all D.O.T. requirements.

Thank you for your cooperation In this matter.

Very truly yours, WISCONSIN TRAILER CO., INC.

LeRoy E. Mueller President

LEM/pb Enclosures

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHICS

ID: nht75-2.44

DATE: 12/03/75

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

TO: Koito Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 8, 1975, concerning the design of four headlamps as illustrated in the drawing attached to your letter.

In response to your questions, and also based on our review of your drawing, we offer the following comments:

1. FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of metal-backed headlamp units, provided the units are hermetically sealed.

2. Headlamp units must be indivisible without damage (units with replaceable bulbs do not meet this requirement).

3. Headlamps must be mechanically (Illegible Word).

4. The Type number (1, 2, 1A or 2A) of the headlamp unit must be molded in the lens (see SAE J57lb).

From our review of your drawing, it appears that except for the Type number markings, your headlamps will meet the above requirements and may be used on motor vehicles. This finding does not, however, exempt a manufacturer (of headlamps or vehicles) from certifying that his headlamps conform to all requirements of FMVSS No. 103.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Elwood T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

November 8, 1975

Subject: Configuration and Definition of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for Motor Vehicles

Dear Sir:

In reference to the sealed beam headlamp units specified in the applicable Standard SAE J579a (- Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles) which is incorporated in Table-1 of the current FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we hereby would ask you to advise us about the following configuration.

In the sections of Scope and Definitions of the said SAE J579a, it is so prescribed that:

In Scope: "These specifications apply to sealed beam units (hermetically sealed) --------"

In Definitions: "Sealed Beam Unit - An integral and indivisible optical assembly with the name molded in the lens."

Our question is as to whether the four(4) kinds of headlamp unit configuration as shown in the attached sheet, designed under a conception of "hermetically sealed" and "an integral and indivisible optical assembly" could be used for motor vehicles.

These proposed headlamp units are not of All Glass Sealed Beam Units, but are so-called Metal-backed Sealed Units as shown in the attached sheet, and of course, those dimensional, phtometric and other electrical specifications are designed to comply with all requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 S.4.1.1.21, the applicable SAE J579a, J571b and J573d.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your favourable advice on applicability of these Metal-backed Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for motor vehicles would be highly appreciated.

Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply, and we remain,

Yours faithfully,

M. Iwase -- Chief

Overseas Technical Section, Engineering Department

Attached: Figs showing an proposed configuration.

(Graphics omitted)

FIG. 3:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 1.

FIG. 4:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 2.

ID: 86-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TO: NHTSA, Legal Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/86, TO DON PANZER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 111

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find a photograph, illustration and description of a device designed to serve as a supplementary hazard warning signal for automobiles.

Since this device is a light and is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly I would appreciate an interpretation of it's suitability for the North American automotive market as per standards No. 108 (Lights) and No. 111 (Mirrors).

Should you require any information not already contained in this letter I would be please to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

SUPPLEMENTARY HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FOR AUTOMOBILES

This patented device serves as a supplementary hazard warning light for automobiles. It is included within the body or housing of the side rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively, it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions. It is designed to flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lights. Like current hazard warning lights this device can also perform as a directional signal

Present hazard warning lights are usually included in the front and rear light clusters. In bad weather or because of an accumulation of dirt,ice,etc. on the lenses, hazard warning lights can become less effective. Furthermore, if emergency work is being carried out on a vehicle, for example changing a tire, one or more of the existing warning lights can be invisible for relatively long periods of time thus reducing the warning to approaching traffic.

Like the high-mount brake light this device is located higher up on the vehicle to provide better visibility to oncoming traffic. Furthermore, because it is part of the side mirror configuration it is mounted well outside the range of the front and rear light clusters thus making it potentially more conspicious than current hazard warning lights.

FOR MORE INFORMTION CONTACT: Don Panzer SPRAY-RIDER, INC.

1

HAZARD WARNING APPARATUS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES

This invention relates to electrical, hazard warning apparatus for motor vehicles, of the kind in which, when required, lamps are made to flash continuously on the outside of the vehicle to warn other road users of the presence of the vehicle in a stationary and possibly dangerous position. Such hazard warning apparatus is hereinafter referred to as "of the kind described".

Hazard warning lamps at present fitted to motor vehicles are usually included in the front and rear lamp clusters. In bad weather conditions or because of an accumulation of dirt on the lenses, hazard warning lamps in both these positions can become less effective. The hazard warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle are more likely to be ineffective than those at the front for these reasons.

When work is being carried out, for example the changing of a wheel, one or both hazard warning lamps, at the front or rear, can be invisible for relatively long periods and so give a misleading signal or fail to give any warning at all to approaching vehicles.

An indication that the usual position of hazard warning lamps is not really satisfactory is that on emergency vehicles special hazard warning lamps are usually fitted high up, for example on the roof of the vehicle.

It is an object of the present invention to improve the effectiveness of hazard warning apparatus.

The present invention consists in hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

To give a driver the required field of view exterior, rear-view mirrors must project well to the side of the vehicle, and be mounted at or above the waist, or window-sill level of the vehicle body. A repeater hazard warning lamp provided, according to the invention, in or on the rear-view mirror is therefore in a conspicuous position and at a higher level than the usual front and rear lamp clusters. The invention is applicable to exterior, rear-view mirrors adapted to be mounted in any of the usual positions on a vehicle, including on the door, wing, or windscreen pillar of the vehicle or on a laterally-projecting bracket clamped to the gutter rail of the vehicle body or to a luggage rack on the roof.

Most motor vehicles now have an exterior rear-view mirror on the near side in addition to one on the off-side of the vehicle. Each exterior rear-view mirror is preferably provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

It is preferred, and may be required by law, that the repeated hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

Hazard warning lamps often serve also as direction indicators, the lamps on only one side at a time of the vehicle then being arranged to flash. In such apparatus the repeater hazard warning lamp may then be

3 arranged to be operated with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

The repeater hazard warning lamp may be included within a body of the rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions.

Within the same inventive concept the present invention comprises a motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

The present invention will now be described by way of example within reference to the accompanying drawing which is a perspective view of a rear-view mirror for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle and as seen when the observer is looking forwards from the rear of the vehicle.

The door mirror shown in the drawing comprises a mirror head 1 and a mounting bracket 2 by which the mirror is mounted on the vehicle door. The mirror head has a cowl-shaped body 3, which may be made from metal or plastics, foamed polyurethane for example. The body 3 houses a reflective element 4 and a repeater hazard warning Lamp 5 comprising a cavity 6 within the body 3 opening at a window 7 facing in the same direction as the reflective element 4, an electric lamp bulb 8 in the cavity 6 and a 'hazard' orange coloured plastics lens 9 closing the window but shown in the drawing partly broken away to show the lamp bulb 8. The lens 9 is secured by screws 10 engaging screw

4, threaded holes 11 in lugs 12 on the body 3. The bulb 8 is a festoon bulb mounted in a conventional festoon bulb holder 13 in front of a reflector 14. Though only one lamp bulb 8 is shown, there could be more than one bulb arranged, for example end to end to provide better light distribution and greater safety if one should fail. Other types of electric lamp bulbs may be provided.

Though the window is shown as arranged along the upper edge of the reflective element 4, and this is probably the best position, it could be along either of the other two outer edges of the reflective element 4, that is the lower edge 15 or the outer side edge 16.

A further window, facing forwards could be provided in the mirror head body so that the light of the repeater hazard warning lamp would also be visible from the front of the vehicle. Alternatively the repeater hazard warning lamp 5 could be mounted on a flat top of the body with an inverted, hollow, transparent or translucent cover over the lamp bulb so that the light would be visible in all directions.

The repeater hazard warning lamp 4 is electrically connected by a cable (not shown) which passes through the interior of the body 3 and the mounting bracket 2, the vehicle door and door pillar (not shown) to the wiring of the conventional hazard warning apparatus of the vehicle.

This hazard warning lamp apparatus according to the invention is well able to provide additional protection in hazard situations. The mirror in which the repeater hazard warning lamp is included can perform the normal functions to an extorior, rear-view

5 mirror. As the repeater hazard warning lamp is in a higher position than the conventional front and rear lamp clusters it is less exposed to soiling by road dirt. During forward motion of the vehicle the cowling shape of the body 3 protects the lens 9 from road spray.

6 CLAIMS

1. Hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

2. Hazard warning apparatus according to claim 1 wherein there is an exterior, rear-view mirror on each side of the vehicle and each mirror is provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

3. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2 wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body of the exterior rear-view mirror.

4. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any proceding claim wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

5. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

6. Hazard warning apparatus according to any preceding claim which is adapted to serve also as a direction indicator wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is operable only with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

7. A motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be

7 connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

8. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body housing the exterior rear-view mirror.

9. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 or claim 8 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

10. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 9 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp has a window adjacent an outer edge of the reflective element.

11. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a door mirror.

12. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a wing mirror.

13. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp, substantially as described herein with reference to, and as illustrated by the accompanying drawing.

14. Hazard warning apparatus for a motor vehicle substantially as herein described.

ID: nht87-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William R. Pape, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by F ederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to which you have that we reply.

Your first question is "May one word be introduced on the brake light?" Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to th e lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the l amp must meet specified candela maxima at 13 discrete test points.

Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whether it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather na rrowly defined, and falls within the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if it is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribe d limits. In our opinion, the "soft pink" or "hot pink" that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.

Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing a lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are"hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing." Under the assumption that your lamp would not com ply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep tember 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold or used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

8152 Lodoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 22, 1987

Mr. Taylor Vincent NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence to Mr. George E. Walton, director, Safety Equipment Services, and a copy of his response, suggesting direct communication with you.

Any assistance you can give with questions 1, 2, and 3 will be greatly appreciated.

Most Gratefully Yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:BJ

Encs.

August 14, 1987

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Pape:

Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1987 in which you have requested information regarding stop lamps on motor vehicles.

The standard for required lighting on motor vehicles is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. This standard references a number of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standards which to comply with the standard.

For equipment covered by a federal standard, the states are preempted from having any other standard and must, in fact, adopt the very same standard as the federal standard.

For equipment not covered by a federal standard, the states are at liberty individually to adopt any standard they decide to recognize.

The center high mounted stop lamp is a federally regulated lamp.

The FMVSS 108 references SAE J575 for tests and specifically SAE J578d for testing the color. The specific color is shown on the chromaticity diagrams in the standard.

Since your concern is about equipment which is federally regulated, I suggest that the federal agency that administrates the standard for this equipment be contacted directly as follows:

Mr. Taylor Vincent - NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-2992

We hope the above information helps you.

Sincerely yours,

George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services

8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 6, 1987

Mr. George Walton AAMVA, Suite 910 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Walton:

As a graduate of the Duke School of Engineering and a certified instructor of Lazanov Learning Method (also known as Superlearning), I am writing to you in the interests of public safety.

The third brake light is now mandatory for American motorized vehicles dating from 1986. I have purchased a brake light to be installed on my 1982 Granada station wagon and have considered a modification which I believe to be a decided improvement. Upon asking local automotive dealers about specific regulations, I was directed to The Book of States in the public library, which lists all safety agencies of the individual United States. To determine the precise regulations, nationally, I sent letters to t he individual state agencies, and the replies indicate that there is not a general regulation covering all states, and many agencies have recommended that I correspond directly to you.

The color red is presently used for all brake lights and for traffic signal lights to indicate "stop". I, personally, find the color red, when suddenly flashed on by a car in front of me in moving traffic, to be annoying and irritating. Psychological res earch has indicated that red induces a response of anger. Red is the color of a matador's cape which enrages a bull to charge into a matador's sword. Red is associated with "fire engine red" with a loud siren with a Pavlov's bell effect of emergency, a f light of fight response and a surge of adrenaline and jangled nerves. In other words, this red light, at eye level, in traffic, contributes to unnecessary and unwanted stress, which Americans are notorious for bringing on themselves in profusion.

Thus, it is desirable to consider what may be done for more calming effects. The Lazanov system for Learning and remembering uses words and phrases which have been tested and proven to have specific physical and key word, or sometimes called a "trigger" word for an immediate calming response is the word "peace." This causes an instantaneous effect of calming both mind and body. Also, by softening the hue of bright red to a "hot pink" or even a soft pink, the same conditioned color response to signal "stop" is retained, but with much less stress and unnecessary tension. It is t he conviction of this writer that these simple alterations will reduce accidents, prevent loss of life and limb, and aid drivers to reach their destinations without having their mental, emotional, and physical energies drained. Research shows that we do everything better when in a relaxed and comfortable state, including responding to emergencies. We think more clearly and with enhanced intuition. Fewer accidents will keep insurance rates down and thereby be beneficial to the overall economy.

The intent of the regulations in regard to brake lights is obviously for public safety, and it is clear that the suggestions cited here are intended to increase public safety. In regard to brake lights, I would like to ask you what one may do and what on e may not do.

1. May one word be introduced on the brake light? This is in no way subliminal persuasion or hypnosis. this should not be confusing when one considers that our vehicles are now adorned with make and dealer names, six letter and/or digit license tags, al l kinds of advertising frequently with seven digit telephone numbers, and bumper stickers and decals. The human brain is capable of millions of on and off switches per second, so one word on a brake light will not complicate matters.

2. Is the color red a requirement by law, nationally, for all brake lights? May other colors be substituted? And may the color red be adjusted to a lighter hue?

3. Should one consider marketing a brake light with the above mentioned enhanced safety features; are there any hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Most gratefully yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:bj

ID: nht91-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Ken Hanna to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 6238)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification tht is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

ID: nht89-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/89

FROM: KARL HEINZFABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA INC

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KARLHEINZ FABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (MBNA) requests an interpretation of the word "headlamp" as used in Standard 108.

Paragraph S7.2 of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register of May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15, Notice 8), states that each headlamp or beam contributor must be marked with its voltage. The term headlamp is not defined separately under S4 definitio ns, however, a "replaceable bulb headlamp" is defined as a "headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources." Based on the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp", it is our understanding t hat marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

We would appreciate your response at your earliest opportunity as the effective date of this marking requirement is December 1, 1989.

Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Toivo Raabis at (201) 573-2624 in our Safety Engineering Department.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Sincerely,

ID: 3108yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 3165yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 07-003545as