ID: nht88-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 11/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JO NES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you to confirm our understanding that our "Impact Control System", or safety bar is not in conflict with any existing standard for installation in school buses. The device was presented to various staff peopled in NHTSA on July 28, 1988. Our principal contact was Dr. Carl Clark.

Transportation Equipment Corp. was formed in December 1987. The company has conducted extensive market research to determine the concerns of the numerous interest groups who would be affected by installation of our system. The engineering and design process undertaken has resulted in solving two major problems involving the safe transportation of school bus passengers; 1) a drastic reduction of HIC (Head Injury Criteria) numbers by spreading the load across the chest, and 2) overcoming the utility problems associated with seat belt use on school buses.

Included for your review and evaluation are the following materials:

Engineers drawings and photographs of the device.

Video tape and written documentation of the dynamic testing conducted at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Independent Consultants opinion on the design and dynamic test results.

Background information on our Consulting Engineers.

We have identified those vehicles under 10,000 pounds (small buses & mini vans) as a target market for installation of our system. At present, these vehicles are under a federal mandate to be equipped with seat belts. It is our objective to have our device offered as an alternative option to seat belts in this class of vehicle. We respectfully request your opinion concerning a ruling and/or confirmation of the systems acceptance as an alternative option.

If we have omitted any information needed to consider this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht88-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1988

FROM: W. E. BALDWIN PRESIDENT, K-R INDUSTRIES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-03-88, TO W. E. BALDWIN, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD. 108

TEXT: This is a follow-up of a letter sent you on August 3, 1988 which you forwarded to Mr. Finkelstein of NHTSA.

As we interpret Standard S4.1, our product meets all of the requirements except, possibly, S4.5.11(e), requiring that "all other lamps shall be wired to be steady burning. Our improvement consists of a lamp containing 5 bulbs, where each bulb is illu minated in sequential order. The time between each lamp illumination is less than 250ms, providing a steady photometric value, meeting S4.1.1.41(c). The red lens of the lamp is steadily illuminated, with the illusinated area moveing in a back and forth motion.

We feel that, since NHTSA has already tested and validated the use of a high mounted break lamp, any additional testing that would be conducted would only determine any improvement in fatal accident statistics. We are not questioning the necessity of the high mounted break lamp. We are offering what we think is a improvement on the lamp, without disturbing present NHTSA standards. In order for for us to determine if it would necessitate petitioning for a Rule change, a Administration interpretatio n of S4.5.11(e) is requested. Simply put, would Rule S4.5.11(e) cover a steadily illuminated light source that moves?

Thank you for your interest in this matter. I remain

ID: nht88-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: GERALD PETERSON -- TARACO ENTERPRISES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/17/88 FROM GERALD PETERSON TO ERIKA JONES; OCC - 2052; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM CARL C CLARK TO JERRY PETERSON; LETTER DATED 09/29/86 FROM DALE T FANZO TO DIANE STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your May 17, 1988 letter to me asking for "information on petitions filed, concerning the safety problems on trucks." You also enclosed for the agency's information materials on the product you manufacture called a "Truk-Hedrest." Accord ing to the brochures you sent, the Truk-Hedrest attaches to the rear window of a vehicle by means of velcro and "is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck or van in an accident when their head is snapped back against the rear window or bulkhead of a vehicle." You also enclosed a copy of an August 28, 1987 letter which Mr. Carl Clark of this agency sent you regarding your product. The latter part of this letter addresses statements in your brochures relating to our regu lations and the Truk-Hedrest.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shares your concern for light truck safety and is currently reviewing a number of actions intended to improve the protection for occupants of such vehicles. This review has been described in det ail in the enclosed reports to Congress issued by NHTSA in May 1987 ("Light Truck and Van Safety") and April 1988 ("Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles"). Among the rulemaking activities considered by NHTSA for light tru cks is a possible extension of Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, to those vehicles. The agency is presently reviewing petitions for rulemaking on this subject from Mr. Dale T. Fanzo of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania and Mr. Mark E. Goodson of Lewisvi lle, Texas. I have enclosed copies of these petitions for your information.

With regard to the brochures and materials you sent on your product, I would like to first to make it clear that Mr. Clark's letter on the Truk-Hedrest only expressed his personal opinions and interests concerning your product. His letter does not repre sent any official agency position regarding light truck safety in general or regarding your product in particular. Mr. Clark's letter was neither an approval nor

endorsement of your product by this agency. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In addition, the agency cannot as a matter of law and will not as a matter of policy determine t he extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by any commercial product apart from the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Thus, the agency does not concur in any manner with Mr. Clark's assessement that the Truk-Hedrest "does indeed pr ovide excellent head protection" or with any other statement as to the effectiveness of your product.

Second, your brochures imply that the Truk-Hedrest has been shown to help protect against possible neck and head injuries when tested to "NHTSA guidelines." NHTSA has neither adopted or even developed guidelines for testing the Truk-Hedrest. Again, in h is letter to you Mr. Clark provided only his personal opinion on certain aspects of your product testing program. He expressed no agency recommendations or "guidelines" for testing a product such as yours "for rear end collisions up to 50 MPH," or with bowling balls, since no such guidelines exist.

My final clarification concerns the statements in your brochures that the Truk-Hedrest "Passes MVSS-302 Test for fire and toxic fumes." Please note that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, addresses only the flammability resistance of v ehicle components and not the toxicity of gases from burning materials.

With respect to your statment about meeting the FMVSS 302 requirement regarding fire, please note that if the Truk-Hedrest did not in fact meet those requirements and were installed in a vehicle by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or rep air business, there could be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits those persons from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal motor ve hicle safety standards. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS 302.

To repeat, in his letter to you Mr. Clark was only expressing his personal opinions and interests concerning your product and made no statements that should be construed as official agency positions. NHTSA does not endorse the Truk-Hedrest nor do we mak e any determination on the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by your product. I regret any confusion that may have resulted from Mr. Clark's letter to you on the Truk-Hedrest.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/88

FROM: R. YAMAUCHI -- NIPPON SEIKO K K

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT

TITLE: DUAL MODE RETRACTOR (ELR MODE AND ALR MODE RETRACTOR)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/88 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO R. YAMAUCHI; REDBOOK A33; INTERP 209

TEXT: The above retractor is an ELR which can change to ALR mode in order to fasten child seat.

Seat belt webbing of the dual mode retractor is pulled out to 100% extension position, where ELR mode changes to ALR mode. The ALR mode returns to ELR mode after specified amount of webbing is retracted. In ordinary use, that is webbing is not pulled o ut completely, ELR mode does not change and webbing moves smoothly without locking due to ALR mode.

We believe this dual mode retractor should be treated as ELR because ALR mode is voluntary act. Dual mode retractor, therefore, has to meet ELR performance requirement, and does not have to meet ALR performance requirement.

FMVSS 209 paragraph S5.2(k) specifies as follows. "---- An emergency locking retractor or a nonlocking retractor attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 per cent extension. ----" If the dual mose retractor may be treated as ELR, the above testing will be applied. However, there is a problem. After webbing is fully pulled out, webbing locks at the above 50% extension position due to ALR mode. (In this case, the mode does not change to ELR unless much more amount of webbing is retracted.) To stop the webbing withdrawal just before the fully pulled out position might be able to prevent the change to ALR mode. But it will be in vain because 9 Kg load at that position will extend the webbing to the 100% extended position.

Retractor durability testing of the dual mode retractor can be conducted between 100% extended position and any ELR mode position, where more than specified amount has been retracted. As a test for this retractor, we request cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 0 and 100% extension. We think this test cause no problem because requirement of S5.2(k) is less strict than that of this cycle test.

Please answer the following questions.

Q1 - Is dual mode retractor regarded as ELR? If so, is only the ELR requirement required?

Q2 - We requested 45,000 cycle test after dust should be conducted between 0 and 100% extension length. Is this correct? If not, how do we test the retractor.

We would appreciate if you would answer our questions.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT DAUGHERTY -- QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER SAFETY REHAB SYSTEMS, INC.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/16/86 TO TERRY WOODMAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 07/31/87 TO RICHARD J. MAHER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 02/05/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM ROBERT DAUGHERTY, OCC - 1588; UNDATED BROCHURE SAFETY PLUS MODEL 501 STROLLER ;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Daugherty:

This is a response to your letter of February 5, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). I regret the delay in this response. Specifically, your letter stated that your company manufactur es wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Your letter stated that your company believes that Standard 213 does not apply to "durable medical products (wheelchairs, positioning systems)" and asked if this belief is correct. As explained below, y our belief is not entirely correct.

Section S3 of Standard No. 213 specifies that "this standard applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft." Section S4 of the standard defines a child restraint system as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, desig ned for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." No exception is made for restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children who weigh 50 pounds or less. Further, paragraph S6.1 .2.1.1 of Standard No. 213 includes the following language: "A child harness, booster seat with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed at the center seating position of the standard se at assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6." This language makes clear that restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213.

Under these criteria, wheelchairs, strollers, and so forth would not be "child restraint systems" within the meaning of Standard No. 213 because these devices are designed to transport children outside of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Therefore, wheelchai rs, strollers, and similar devices are not child restraint system within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213. Such devices may be subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, under its authority to regulate medical "devices."

However, the devices described in your letter as "positioning systems" are child restraint systems subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Your "Safety Plus Model 501" includes a "removable positioning unit" that is designed to restrain and po sition a child riding in a motor vehicle. Your "900 Series Transporter" is designed so that the rear wheels can be folded under it to allow it to be used to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Therefore, these devices are "child res traint systems" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213, and must be certified as complying with the requirements of the standard. NHSTA has said in the past that, since it is possible to offer handicapped children the same level of crash protectio n afforded to all other children, there is no reason to permit handicapped children to be (See the enclosed October 16, 1986 letter I sent to Mr. Terry Woodman on this subject.)

You also asked if there are any standards applicable to "tie-downs" used on school buses. These "tie-downs" are straps designed to restrain wheelchairs and their occupants in a motor vehicle in the event of a crash. Since wheelchairs are not subject to Standard No. 213 or any other of this agency's regulations, as explained above, we have no standard applicable to "tie-downs" or other devices used to position wheelchairs in motor vehicles. I explained this in detail in the enclosed July 31, 1987 lett er to Mr. Richard Maher.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Ms. Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/88

FROM: LEONARD M. PERKINS -- L AND M COMPANY

TO: ROBERT BURNLEY -- SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/06/89 EST, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LEONARD M. PERKINS, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We have an automobile safety device worthy of your consideration.

According to a recent survey we read, the rear window brakelight has reduced rear end collisions by about 25% nationwide. We have travelled bumper to bumper freeway traffic for many years and found directional signals on most new cars very difficult to see, due to our line of vision being concentrated on the cars in front, on each side and the closeness of all cars at speeds of 50-60 miles per hour. Also, the placement of these signals now are where the car design people think they blend in best, m ainly in the bumper area.

Our design patent has moved these signals up where they can be seen readily as the rear window brake light (see enclosed copies of patent application). Our suggestion for color of these directional side lights would be yellow, an eye catching color f or split second sightings. We feel that the turn signals joined with the rear window brake light should have a dramatic effect on rear and side collisions.

Having spent much time driving Los Angeles and Phoenix freeways, we feel this would not only cut down accidents, but save millions of dollars in property damage each year.

We have been told by informed sources that this conception is at present illegal. Your comments and help would be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

(FIGURES 1 - 5 OMITTED)

ID: nht88-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER (SSF)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/ 13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: It is assumed that NHTSA standards relating to automobile brake lights require that brake lights be steady burning. If so, this would exclude a device such as the SSF.

However, I appeal for a variant interpretation which would allow use of the SSF for the following reasons:

1. The SSF would actuate only rarely - perhaps as little as 1% of all brake applications. The highway would not be "filled with blinking lights." Furthermore, actuation would be only momentary because heavy deceleration cannot be sustained for more tha n a few seconds. The deceleration level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined and preset during development and testing and the point of actuation would be set at a level which maintains the respect of drivers. This means rare actuation in only the final - but critical - segment of the deceleration envelope. In fact, I would request that NHTSA establish standards that specify factory-sealed units and standardize deceleration limits under which the SSF actuates to insure infrequent actuat ion.

2. The concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system.

3. Whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration. Any device which could prevent a significant percentage of high-speed rear-end crashes, ruptured gas tanks, and possible serious injuries or fatalities would seem to be in the best interest of NHTSA and in the best interests of American families traveling U.S. highways.

4. Development of the SSF would be expensive and I am not willing to undertake that expense unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model. I think this is a fair and reasonable reques t.

ID: nht88-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/88

FROM: CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VICE PRESIDENT MARKETING VERNE CORP

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP, SECTION 101[3]; PART 571[A]; LETTER DATED 10/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are in the business of manufacturing the Dragoon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV) that is presently used by the U.S. Armed Forces. This vehicle is rubber tired, all terrain and amphibious. It is capable of resisting fire from most conventional ballist ic level three weapons. We are now considering the possibility of making this vehicle available to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and security vehic le. Through our market research we have found their primary uses would be as follows:

-Rescue wounded or disabled people or officers during hostile cross fire situations.

-Protection for law enforcement personnel during drug enforcement or other types of enforcement activities that require addition protection for the officers.

-Rescue during floods, tornados or other types of disasters.

-Airport or other municipal security requirements.

Because our vehicle is only 8' wide and 20' long it can travel easily on the highway to and from where it is needed. This is a big advantage to the usefulness, however it may require that the vehicle to be titled like other police vehicles.

We would like to know the procedure for getting this vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle. We have several of law enforcement agencies as well as the Border Patrol interested in our vehicle and have been ask if we can supply a certificate of origin with the proper VIN number so the vehicle can be titled. Our average annual production of this type of vehicle is has been 60 units and we never sell this equipment to private citizens. We estimate that approximately 10% of our production would b e sold to law enforcement agencies.

Enclosed you will find a booklet outlining the specification of the Dragoon that we are interested in being able to register in different states. As you will notice, we market the Dragoon through an affiliate Arrowpointe Corporation, however Verne Corpo ration is the manufacturer. Thanking you in advance, and if you have any question please do not hesitate in contacting me

(Booklet omitted.)

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1988

FROM: CLARENCE M. DITLOW -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-01-88 TO CLARENCE M. DITLOW, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA.

TEXT: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Joanne P. Dell'Aquilla of Dover DE who reports that GM has issued a bulletin that shoulder harnesses do not enhance the safety of rear seat passengers. The dealer further stated that shoulder harnesses are un available for her 1988 Buick Regal. The dealer was apparently referring to the enclosed GM Parts Bulletin IB No. 88-68.

This report is so disturbing that we ask you to investigate it. First, all cars made since 1972 have anchors for shoulder belts so installing such belts is feasible. In response to the Center's concern about installing shoulder harnesses in older cars, NHTSA Administrator Steed wrote us on April 28, 1987:

General Motors is already offering such kits to the public through its dealers. . . . NHTSA has encouraged manufacturers to offer well designed retrofit kits for those consumers who desire them, and we will continue our efforts in that regard.

Second, the Center is not aware of any research that finds as GM states:

GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered to rear seat occupants by the lap belt alone.

As the Chief Counsel, you are well aware that the purpose of the rear shoulder belt anchorage standard is to enable consumers to install shoulder belts in the rear seats of their vehicles. As Administrator Steed states, the agency is committed to encour aging retrofits shoulder belts. GM's refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating the purpose of the standard and the Administrator's policy.

A response indicating the action taken on this issue is requested.

Date:8/2/88 From:Joanne P. Dell'Aquila To: Center for Auto Safety

On Friday July 22, 1988, 20/20 News Magazine broadcasted a program about seat belts/shoulder harnesses in rear seats of American autos. It was suggested by the program that cars are already set up to receive the rear harnesses (and have been since the 7 0's) and that owners should demand they be installed. Today I called the dealer where I purchased by 1988 Buick Regal and requested they be installed. I was advised that GM, in response to the broadcast, had issued a bulletin which states that GM's Eng ineering Department does not feel harnesses in the rear seats enhance the safety for the passengers seated there. It was further stated that the harnesses are unavailable.

I am writing to determine if GM does in fact have to provide the rear harnesses if requested. Do I have protection from a consumer agency if they do not. If they do install the harnesses as requested, are they considered optional equipment at my expens e? I am sure you have been inundated with inquiries about the program and the problem, but I hope you will be able to response to my letter.

The dealer mentioned above is Kent County Motors, 2181 S. duPont Highway, Dover De 19901. The service manager is Wayne Atkins.

ID: nht88-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/88

FROM: MERRILL J. ALLEN

TO: PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

TITLE: AFFIDAVIT OF MERRILL J. ALLEN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108(A) 2(A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/02/87 FROM NATIONA L PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BO ARD

TEXT: IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Application of:

HAROLD A. CAINE Serial No.: 113,544 Filed October 26, 1987 For: AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENTGroup Art Unit: 268 Examiner: Joseph A. Orsino September 6, 1988

AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132

Hon. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231

SIR:

I, MERRILL J. ALLEN, hereby declare that:

1. I have been a Full Professor of Optometry, at the School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, since 1959 and taught many of the optometry courses offered by the School.

2. That I have had extensive experience in connection with highway safety, and particularly, in connection with the use of lights in connection with highway safety, and have been involved in projects relating to running lights, glare and driver visio n, the relative visibility of highway distress signals, the study of visibility of highway targets through clear and tinted automobile windshields, etc.

3. That attached herewith as Exhibit A is a copy of my biographical background, including my education, employment, research projects, practical experience, talks

2

and research papers, membership on committees, consultantships, and licenses.

4. That I have published about 206 articles covering clinical optometry, theoretical optometry, physiological optics, highway vision and motor vehicle design, etc., and that a copy of my publications list is herewith attached as Exhibit B.

5. That I am familiar with the invention of Harold A. Caine as is claimed in the above identified patent application and, specifically, the use of his high, centermounted combination warning and brake light arrangement for automotive vehicles, using in conjunction with a red light, an amber/yellow light which is kept on as a running light, both during acceleration and coasting and switching to the red light only upon braking of the vehicle.

6. That I have also been familiar with the type of devices cited by the Examiner as constituting the prior art and, specifically, a system having a combination of three lights, including a green running light during acceleration, a yellow light durin g coasting and a red light during braking.

7. That I have been advised that the Examiner has rejected the invention of Harold A. Caine based upon the fact that the Examiner is of the opinion that whether two or three colors are used and the particular color used would all have been an obvious matter of design choice.

8. That I do not agree with the Examiner's conclusion in this matter, and that my opinion is that the use of the yellow/amber lights as a running light instead of a green light is not a matter of obvious design choice and clearly brings about improve d results, and that the use of only two colors, specifically, the yellow/amber and the red

3

is not an obvious modification of the three light system using green, yellow and red, and also clearly brings about improved results.

9. That, specifically, a far sighted driver will see a green light clearest while a near sighted driver will see a red light clearest. The yellow light will be less affected by the driver's refractive error than either red or green, therefore, yello w/amber is more suited for use as a running light than is green.

The colors green and red are strong signal colors where as yellow is not. Thus, traditionally green has been used in signals as meaning "go". The purpose of a running light on the back of a vehicle is to signal "presence" and not "acceleration", ther efore, the use of yellow is importantly different than the use of green as a running light and should result in greater distance between motor vehicles.

At night, the average illuminant color encountered, consisting of tungsten head lamps, quartz halogen head lamps, tungsten street lamps, low and high pressure sodium vapor street lamps and high pressure mercury street lamps, is on average in the yello w part of the visible spectrum. The perceived distance of a running light is determined under low visibility conditions by binocular vision using stereopsis. Chromeostereopsis is a perception of colors at different distances due to chromatic aberration and slight optical element misalignments in the eye and/or due to prism incorporated in spectacle lenses. in the population various degrees and direction of chromeostereopsis exist. Hence, for about half the population green will be seen closer than yel low while for the remainder of the population green will be seen farther

4

away. Since the average illumination at night is yellowish, it follows that a yellow running light will not be subject to chromeostereopsis errors in distance judgment by any part of the driving population, whereas green could be subject to a significan t error in judgment of its distance. Accordingly, the use of the yellow/amber as a running light rather than using the green of the prior art as the running light is not an obvious substitution and does bring about clearly beneficial results in that mor e appropriate stopping distances would be provided.

Additionally, it is my opinion that yellow is recognized by the masses as providing an indication of warning. Green, on the other hand, has the effect of providing an indication of complete safety. A trailing driver seeing a green running light is p sychologically of the opinion that everything is safe and he may be lulled into a false sense of security. Should the forward vehicle suddenly change from an acceleration condition to a braking condition, the lights will switch quickly from green to red and the driver of the trailing vehicle may not psychologically react as fast as he could if he had not been viewing green. On the other hand, when he sees yellow/amber as a running light, psychologically he is already in a state of cautious awareness a nd will probably react more quickly to a sudden change to a red condition upon application of the brake in a forward vehicle.

10. That I additionally believe that using a two light system is less complex than a three light system. Using the green, yellow and red lights provides various combinations of lights that may become confusing during normal driving when the lights c ontinuously change from green to yellow upon application and removal of acceleration

5

pressure. This is especially the case if the yellow signal blinks as is provided in the prior art cited by the Examiner. By using a simplified system having only yellow/amber and red, the driver of the trailing vehicle can more easily respond to emerge ncy conditions and this should bring about an improved situation of safety.

11. That I further declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made upon information and belief are believed to be true and further that willful, false statements and the likes, are punishable by fine or impr isonment or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that willful, false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent resulting therefrom.

Dated: Sept 9, 1988 Merrill J. Allen, ODPhD Professor Emeritus

DOCKET NO.: 8877 9/6/88