ID: nht93-1.2

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: Joseph G. Wilson -- President, The Monmouth Corporation

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to Joseph G. Wilson (A41; Std.108)

TEXT: The Monmouth Corporation has developed a system, which protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision. With BLU-LITE installed in your vehicle, you are able to signal the driver behind you instantly while braking suddenly to avoid an accident.

We would welcome an opportunity to demonstrate our system to you and your staff at your earliest convenience. Until that time we are sending you a brochure describing the advantages of the BLU-LITE SYSTEM FOR YOUR PERUSAL.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment: Copy of Blu-Lite brochure "Drive Safely with Blu-Lite." (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.20

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack --Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David H.B. Lee -- President, Lee Family, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from David H.B. Lee to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8162)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1992, with respect to a "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor", for which you have requested a review and testing. You have also asked for our comments and advice on the sale and promotion of this product. We assume that you would like to sell it in the aftermarket to vehicle owners.

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed, and are able to advise you on this basis. The tape shows that the device is intended for installation by the owner of the vehicle, and, when installed, causes the center highmounted brake lamp to flash in proportion to braking effort (i.e., a panic or quick stop produces a higher flash rate than a stop made at a slower vehicle deceleration).

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer. Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for center highmounted stop lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements is that the center highmounted stop lamp be steady burning when it is in use. Because the Sensor creates a flashing light, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to use it as original equipment on a vehicle subject to Standard No. 108's requirements for center lamps. These vehicles are passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993.

The Safety Act governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install the Sensor without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of the Sensor by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under the Act, these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as the Sensor which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of a flashing center highmounted stop lamp, and recommend that you consult

the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are returning your videotape and sample Sensors.

ID: nht93-1.21

DATE: January 28, 1993

FROM: Steve Flint -- Century Products Co.

TO: Dee Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Car Seat Registration Card

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-24-93 from John Womack to Steve Flint (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT: Attached is our latest registration card version. As I stated, we can add borders (or colors) to separate the English/U.S. card from the other languages.

Please review and let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your efforts.

Attachment: Century Products Registration Card (Text omitted.)

ID: nht92-7.34

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Al Twyford

TO: Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Al Twyford (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I would like to voice a complaint about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4), which operate at the same time. When approaching these vehicles at night, going in the opposite direction, it has the same effect as a car approaching my vehicle with the high beam headlights on. I have had conversations with the California Highway Patrol and Department of Motor Vehicles, and they claim that these headlamps are approved for auto manufacturers by your department. They claim they can do nothing about the problem, without a change on the matter by your agency.

If you are committed to Highway Safety, why would you approve these headlamps for automobiles? Night driving is bad enough, without adding more vehicles to the highway with these extra bright lights which have the effect of highbeam brightness. I would like to ask that you re-examine your approval of these extra headlamps, and do some further testing under night time driving conditions. I personally have responded to these automobiles with the four lights with a dose of my highbeams to get these drivers to turn off the extra set of headlights. This doesn't seem to work as they either don't realize what they are doing to oncoming traffic, or can't turn off the lower set of lights. I might add that from the rear of my vehicle, it's the same problem; the approaching vehicle has the effect on me of highbeam lights in my rear view mirror and side view mirror.

I would appreciate some feedback on this problem, and what you propose to do about it. If you do nothing, I plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-7.35

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Vernon Wright; Wisconsin Specification File

TITLE: Request for Interpretation: Reference: (1.) 49 CFR Part 571.131 Section S5.5. (2.) Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 300.64 - Stop Signal Arm

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas Turner (A39; Std. 131)

TEXT:

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of implementing changes to conform to the new stop signal arm requirements of FMVSS 131. Reference 1 requires that, "THE STOP SIGNAL ARM SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum WHENEVER THE RED SIGNAL LAMPS required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 ARE ACTIVATED (emphasis added); except that a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The standard continues with requirements for this device including the requirement that an audible signal shall sound when the device is activated.

These requirements are logical and can be implemented in conjunction with the use of the eight light warning systems currently required in 46 of the 50 states; however, when these requirements are considered in terms of a four light warning system, there are certain operational issues that need to be considered. Specifically, the state of Wisconsin requires a four light warning system and a stop signal arm on school buses and has the following requirements for stop signal arms per Reference 2; "(2) Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

To meet these requirements, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. In order to comply with the new FMVSS 131 standard, we are adding a warning buzzer that will sound when the alternating red flashing lights are activated but the service door has not yet been opened to activate the stop signal arm. We believe that this system meets the intent of Standard No. 131 but are concerned about compliance with the wording of the standard in terms of requiring "automatic extension" of the stop signal arm. The system described above for Wisconsin provides for manual activation of both the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm and is not "automatic." However, it appears to meet the intent of the standard by having the stop arm extend when the service door is opened and the alternating red flashing lights are on, and by having a warning buzzer activated whenever the arm is not extended and the lights are on.

It is our understanding that the Wisconsin requirements are necessary so that the alternating red flashing lights can be used to warn traffic of an impending stop and the stop signal arm is used to actually stop traffic. They do not

want the stop signal arm to extend automatically when the red lights are activated. For an eight light warning system, the amber lights are used to warn traffic of an impending stop and it is proper for the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm to be activated simultaneously to stop traffic. Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require as a minimum a four light warning system and allow an eight light warning system, the requirements of Standard No. 131 must be compatible with both systems.

Based on the above information and reasoning, and with the best interests of school bus safety in mind, Blue Bird requests confirmation that the warning light and stop arm system and operation, as required by Wisconsin and described above, conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 131 section S5.5. Specifically we request written confirmation that when a four light warning system is used and is activated by a driver actuated switch, it is permissible for the stop signal arm to be activated by opening of the service door, provided that an audible signal warns the driver when the alternating red flashing lights are on but the stop signal arm has not been extended.

Blue Bird is working to resolve all system design and operational issues regarding Standard No. 131 in the very near future so that changes in production can be implemented in time to meet the September 1, 1992 effective date. Your prompt consideration and response to this request is, therefore, urgently requested.

ID: nht92-7.36

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Hank Hessey -- President, Hebco Products, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: Subject: D.O.T. 106/S7 Air brake hose

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Paul J. Rice to Hank Hessey (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I'm writing in regards to the manufacturing of air brake hose no. 106. I would like to have an official opinion on what requirements and testing responsibilities are placed with the manufacturing of such hose, per D.O.T. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-7.37

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Michael J. Sens to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7135)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance -- Passenger Cars, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ-7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., S1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of

33 degrees, departure angle of 25 degrees, breakdown angle of 18 degrees, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . (C)omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.38

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Bill Willett

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/92 from Paul J. Rice to Bill Willett (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am proud to have the oportunity to have talked with Mr. VanIderstine.

I feel that the flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used.

The back windshield light used since 1986 is also an improvement. The cars before 1986 are the main concern to me. I believe if this were used on older cars that accidents would be prevented.

A survey of Alabama citizens interested in this safety device and how it has affected them over a period of time is one of the first projects of the new unit.

I am interested in knowing what I can do and what I can't do.

Example: Can a 10.00 fee be charged with a survay group member installing it free of charge. Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights.

At the present time I'm testing and looking for the proper flickering device to use.

This flickering brake light flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and the emergency flashers.

It is intended to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used -- unlike that used in California which I'm told only flashed for a second or two.

Very soon I plan to go to California and get information that might help me in Ala.

At this point it would mean a great deal to me if you responded with a letter supporting my effort in looking for a safer product and hopefully getting a good positive survey.

Sir, if you have any advice on the project I'd sure like the help. Thank you.

ID: nht92-7.39

DATE: April 16, 1992

FROM: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA, U.S. DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/15/92 from Paul J. Rice to Neil Friedkin (A39; Std. 108; Std. 208; Std. 216); Also attached to letter dated 4/13/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Neil Friedkin

TEXT:

Enclosed is a copy of the letter provided to me by Paul Jackson Rice on April 13, 1992.

I would appreciate your providing me with the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars, if possible.

Once again, thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Attachment

NHTSA interpretation letter dated 4/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Neil Friedkin. (Text omitted here.)

ID: nht92-7.4

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Al Twyford

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Al Twyford to Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration (OCC 7244)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Enclosure

April 16, 1992

The Honorable William S. Cohen United State Senate Washington, DC 20510-1901

Dear Senator Cohen:

Thank you for your letter requesting information on the quality of automobile headlamps. Our information should help you respond to a letter from Mr.

Lowell Spicer, of Brunswick, Maine, who wrote you about headlamp glare and other issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects. One of these standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," addresses the safety requirements for vehicle headlighting.

Two of FMVSS No. 108's requirements standardize the beam pattern and light intensity of headlamps. All new headlamps must meet these requirements, which have remained essentially unchanged since 1978. Halogen headlamps may appear much brighter, but they meet the same minimum and maximum output requirements as normal incandescent headlamps. They appear much brighter because of the color spectrum of their light, i.e., they emit light which appears whiter than the light emitted by incandescent headlamp. Another of FMVSS No. 108's requirements allows headlamps to be installed or "mounted" in a proper ground clearance and ramp angles for heavy duty and other vehicles. Because of their size and other characteristics, trucks often have headlamps that are mounted higher than other vehicles.

Our headlamp compliance tests for beam pattern and light intensity show, that when properly aimed, recent model-year headlamps generally fall well within the limits established for glare brightness. However, our tests do not account for the effect of different mounting heights or misaiming. Headlamp replacement and vehicle loading can alter headlamp aim and are often the cause of glare complaints.

Another aspect of recent model-year vehicles that could be contributing to glare is the improper use, misaiming or improper installation of auxiliary fog or driving lamps. These are regulated solely by state law.

The agency has found that factors such as reduced night vision capabilities as people age can adversely influence driving performance. Headlamp glare resistance reduces with driver age. According to research, the headlamp glare resistance of the human eye at age 20 is twice as good as it is for the age of 72. Contrast sensitivity is also an important factor in night vision, and it reduces dramatically, requiring more illumination to see objects as drivers age.

Concerning vehicle headlamps and their brightness due to misaim, States regulate headlamp aim in motor vehicle use and inspection laws. Maine has an annual motor vehicle inspection law. Should Mr. Spicer want to contact his State on the matter of headlamp aim inspection he should contact the following:

Administration of Laws Mr. G. William Diamond, Secretary of State Department of Secretary of State Nash School Station, #148 Augusta, ME 04333

Enforcement of Laws Mr. John Atwood, Commissioner

Department of Public Safety 336 Hospital Street Augusta, ME 04333.

I hope that we have provided enough information to help you answer Mr. Spicer's concerns.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe