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

ID: nht88-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

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 KATH LEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE 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: Dear Ms DeMeter:

I recently sent two letters to NHTSA, the first dated June 9, 1988 and the second dated June 23, 1988, in which I described my invention, the "Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF)." I requested an evaluation or interpretation to determine if my device would meet the standards established by NHTSA, AND I also requested "reasonable confidentially." You responded in a letter dated July 13, 1988 that NHTSA "requires that all of its interpretations be made publically available."

Since the SSF is now registered in the U.S. Patent Office, I have decided to allow NHTSA to conduct an evaluation and publicize the results as required.

However, please ignore the two letters referenced above for purposes of the evaluation and replace them with Enclosures (1) and (2), attached. The Enclosures attached will be much easier for the evaluators to follow than the two misdirected letters, which are somewhat disjointed and contain extraneous details.

Thank you for your attention.

Enclosures: (1) Request for Evaluation/Interpretation of Proposed Invention: "Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF)"

(2) An Appeal for Variant Interpretation of NHTSA STANDARDS as they Relate to Brake Lights and the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF)

ID: nht88-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 3, 1987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, 1988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not nece ssarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn lamps. Each of the fiv e lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an ite m of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement

2 the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. 108 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fa ct that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 would encompass a certification that there is no i mpairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. 111 Rea rview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a s afety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicle if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modific ation is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, supplem entary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. 108. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible

3 to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant port ions of Standard No. 108 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, y ou should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. 108, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Enclosures

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: REQUEST FOR EVALUATION/INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION: "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 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STO P 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; LET TER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: The Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF) would work in conjunction with standard automobile brake lights. During routine decelerations, the brake lights would function normally. However, at unusual or "unexpectedly" high deceleration rates, such as when a driver suddenly sees a dog on the road or an accident ahead, the SSF would utilize a pendulum-type accelerometer in conjunction with a special high-speed flasher to rapidly flash the brake lights automatically (such as drivers sometime attempt to do themselves to warn the driver behind but only when they have time).

To make the effective flash rate even higher, the high-mount light would flash in rapid sequence with the two lower brake lights, the two lower lights flashing simultaneously.

I believe this concept would be especially effective in preventing high-speed crashes such as on Interstate highways when separation intervals are greater and when rapid deceleration may be completely unexpected. These crashes too frequently result i n ruptured gas tanks and fatalities.

The SSF would be especially applicable, I believe, to automobiles equipped with anti-skid brakes. Ironically, cars with anti-skid brakes may become involved in accidents because of their superior braking performance when the car behind them crashes i nto them because the car behind is not equipped with anti-skid brakes and therefore cannot match the braking performance. The SSF could provide the extra 2-or 3- second warning which could be the difference between a controlled stop and a disastrous cra sh.

A special feature would be the "Crash Lock-Up Mode." This feature would cause the system to "lock-up" in the rapid warning flash sequence mode whenever an "impact-level" (i.e., an actual crash) is encountered. When drivers have an accident, they are often confused and disoriented and consequently fail to take measures to warn other drivers - such as turn on the hazard warning flashers. The Crash Lock-Up feature would automatically send out a continuous warning when an actual crash occurs, thus possi bly preventing yet another crash. The Crash Lock-Up would remain actuated until the ignition switch is recycled. This feature would be especially helpful if a crash occurred on a foggy night or when the visibility is otherwise poor.

The actual point or g-level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined by testing and the units would be preset and sealed at the factory. I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for up-grades or down-grades. The system would act uate somewhat later on an upgrade and somewhat earlier on a downgrade, which would be inherently appropriate. Likewise, I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for the size of the automobile because the deceleration level would be the criti cal factor, regardless of the size or weight of the automobile.

ID: nht88-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/88 EST

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

TO: DAVIS THEKKANATH -- SR. SUPERVISING ENGINEER, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-18-87, SUBJECT: FMVSS 121, TO NHTSA, FROM DAVIS THEKKANATH -- OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Section S5.1.1 of the standard requires trucks and buses to have an air compressor of sufficient capacity to bring the pressure in the supply and se rvice reservoirs from 85 psi to 100 psi within a specified time. You inquired about the meaning of this requirement in the context of a truck with a trailer behind it. You particularly asked whether the air compressor capacity requirement includes the volume of service reservoirs for the trailer. As discussed below, only the truck reservoirs need to be considered for this requirement.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manuf acturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.1 and S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121 read as follows:

S5.1 Required equipment -- trucks and buses. Each truck and bus shall have the following equipment:

S5.1.1 Air Compressor. An air compressor of sufficient capacity to increase air pressure in the supply and service reservoirs from 85 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) to 100 p.s.i. when the engine is operating at the vehicle manufacturer's maximum rec ommended r.p.m. within a time, in seconds, determined by the quotient

(Actual reservoir capacity x 25)/Required reservoir capacity.

The reference in section S5.1.1 to "supply and service reservoirs" refers only to the supply and service reservoirs in the truck or bus subject to the requirement. Similarly, the term "actual reservoir capacity" refers only to the actual reservoir capac ity of that truck or bus, and the term "required reservoir capacity" refers only to the reservoir capacity required for that truck or bus. Thus, for a truck designed to tow an air-braked trailer, only the truck's reservoirs need to be considered for this requirement. For purposes of testing, the towing vehicle protection system would be activated.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify air compressor capacity for towing vehicles in terms which address towed vehicles, we assume that manufacturers of vehicles designed to tow air-braked vehicles will design them to have sufficient air compressor cap acity to ensure safe braking performance under conditions of reasonably foreseeable use, including when they are towing air-braked vehicles.

ID: nht88-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/20/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM GEORGE ZIOLO RE HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108; OCC - 1932;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988, asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible "because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'." You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that "S4.4 app ears to permit such a combination."

Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions; in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7" diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4" diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp head lighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equ ipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles." The SAE Standard establishes at two tes t points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and 10,000 candela. The Type 1C1 head lamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped

with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only 10,000 is allowable).

Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehic le itself through creation of a "veiling" glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,