ID: nht80-1.6

DATE: 01/21/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Edison Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1979, inquiring if it is permissible for your suppliers to cut off the DOT serial numbers on used tires before selling those tires to your company. You stated in your letter that your company buys used tires from several companies. These tires generally either have cuts in the tread or sidewalls or are out of round. Your company then resells the tires to another company, which resells the tires to the public.

The answer to your question is no. The presence of the DOT identification number on tires is required by several of this agency's regulations. Our tire identification and record keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) requires that each manufacturer place the DOT number on at least one sidewall of each tire that it manufactures. The number serves several purposes. It is indispensable in aiding consumers to identify tires subject to a recall campaign for safety defects and noncompliances with the safety standards. It also aids this agency in enforcing its tire safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109 (Passenger car tires, 49 CFR 571.109) and 119 (Tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.119) require that each tire manufacturer certify that its tires conform to all applicable Federal safety standards by branding or molding the DOT number on the tire.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), states that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on. . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." By removing the DOT identification number from a tire, the person would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire for compliance with the requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 9, 1979

Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

This letter is to follow up the several phone calls I have had with you regarding the legality of cutting Department of Transportation serial numbers off of used tires.

At your earliest convenience, please send me a written reply to the question following the two situations described below:

1. My company, Edison Rubber Company, buys tires that have cuts in the sidewall or tread from several companies. Edison Rubber Company then sells these cut tires to another company which repairs the cuts and then resells these tires to the general public.

2. My company, Edison Rubber Company, also buys from several companies tires that are out of round (the customer felt that their car did not ride smoothly). Edison Rubber Company then resells these tires to another company which resells them to the general public.

My question relates to both of the above situations: Are the companies that sell these tires to Edison Rubber Company allowed to cut the serial numbers off of these tires legally so as not to get them back as adjustment tires?

Your speedy response is appreciated as it would save my suppliers much time and effort in disposing of their junk tires. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

Jeffrey Libman, President -- Edison Rubber Company

ID: nht93-6.44

DATE: September 23, 1993

FROM: Barry H. Wells -- M.D., Drs. Herzinger, Biles, Zagula & Wells, P.A.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Atty., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to Barry H. Wells (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

Thank you for the information regarding the upcoming NHTSA publication on the problem of jackknifing in tractor-trailers. I look forward to reading the document. As I mentioned, I would welcome the opportunity to either testify or to go on public record in writing as to the existence of a safety device for tractor-trailers that has been tested and proven to eliminate jackknifing and to stop fully-loaded trucks in distances comparable to those of an automobile.

I have enclosed a promotional videotape featuring the brake. As you can see, it has been tested under a variety of driving conditions and with maneuvers that should precipitate a jackknifing of the test vehicle- maneuvers which also anticipate the agency's goal of establishing performance requirements for a braking-in-a-curve test, as well as a lane- change test. These test were all supervised by Dr. Everett C. Carter of the University of Maryland Transportation Studies Department.

In reading the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 110) that you recommended, I was encouraged to discover that NHTSA is "undertaking a comprehensive effort to improve the braking performance of heavy vehicles." It is apparent from my review of the material I requested from the Federal Highway Administration (Accidents Reported by Motor Carriers of Property, 1990, publication no. FHWA/MC-93/011), that the highways are becoming increasingly unsafe as automobiles share the road with more heavy trucks which differ dramatically in their stopping characteristics, especially in inclement conditions. This report cites a 37% increase in the number of accidents in 1990 over the 1986 totals, a 26% increase in the number of fatalities for the same period, and $507 million worth of property damages for 1990. A recent spate of fatal tractor-trailer accidents on the Capitol Beltway has drawn local attention to the problem, and calls have been made for more vigorous safety inspections. However, even doubling the number of inspection teams could not truly make the roads safe, as even under the best road conditions and with properly operating equipment, the fact remains that tractor- trailers require stopping distances that they cannot maintain on the crowded highways, and under inclement weather conditions, they are extremely difficult to stop quickly in a controlled fashion.

Further on in the same ANPRM, it is stated that "...interested persons are requested to provide any relevant factual information on the anticipated safety benefits...of improv(ing) the lateral stability and control performance during braking of heavy trucks," as well as "the type of equipment needed to comply with the new requirements." This relatively simple safety device, which is easy to retrofit on existing equipment or to assemble on original equipment, seems to address directly the problems of lateral stability and increased stopping distances of tractor-

trailers and should save lives if in widespread use.

While I recognize that the agency cannot specifically promote the use of a particular manufacturer's product, it would seem that, from what I have seen of the complexity and cost of the antilock braking systems as well as their performance, the agency would at least be interested in testing the E.B.T. system as extensively as it has the ABS.

Again, I thank you for directing me in obtaining the rulemaking documents, and I look forward to the upcoming NHTSA publication and any opportunity to comment in the Public Docket. If you can offer any further direction, please let me know. I have been told by a friend, who is an aide to Rep. Dan Hamburg of California, that I should inquire as to an opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Public Words and Transportation, or the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Any guidance such as this is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht80-1.14

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1979, requesting an interpretation as to whether the VIN plate samples you enclosed with your letter comply with the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

You enclosed two proposed VIN plates in your letter, one for automobiles and one for motorcycles. The VIN plates themselves and the preprinted lettering which appears on them seem to conform to the requirement of Standard No. 115. The lettering is clear and indelible, as required by S4.3, in that it cannot be removed without damage to the surface on which it is printed. Further, the plate when riveted to the vehicle would be considered to be permanently affixed in that it cannot be removed without damage (S4.3). The type face utilized for the lettering consists of capital, cans characters with a minimum height of 4 mm as required by S4.3.1.

The letters stamped on the automobile VIN plate, "SL5322AS000001", can hardly be seen, and would not appear to meet the requirements of S4.3 and S4.4.

ID: nht93-4.18

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Charles H. Taylor -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Charles H. Taylor (A41; Part 571).

TEXT: I am writing to urge the Department of Transportation to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations.

While there may be good reasons for not allowing surplus Humvees to be sold to the general public, I believe that new regulations regarding Humvees should be drawn up making a distinction between the general public and a law enforcement agency operating Humvees with trained drivers to carry out its official duties.

As you will note from the enclosed correspondence I have received from Charles Long, the Sheriff of Buncombe County, North Carolina, Humvees were invaluable in assisting the Sheriff's Department in their efforts to aid the citizens of Buncombe County during the recent massive snowstorm last March. I am also enclosing the reply of the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long's letter.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

March 31, 1993

The Honorable Charles Taylor 11th Congressional District 516 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Taylor:

As I am sure you are no doubt aware, Buncombe County was one of the recent "Blizzard of '93" victims, and according to the local newspaper, we were one of the two hardest hit counties in the Western part of the State. Even with four wheel drive vehicles, travel was near impossible without chains, and for the first time that I can remember, County agencies were closed for three consecutive days.

Our Department was receiving calls for assistance faster than we could answer, and actual response was a nightmare. By the second day of the storm, we requested and received the assistance of the North Carolina National Guard who provided four wheel drive HMMWV vehicles (with drivers). We pride ourselves in being one of the best Sheriff's Departments' in the State, but there is no

question that we would never have been able to have done our jobs during this storm without these vehicles.

After the initial dilemma of the storm concluded, we critiqued our emergency operation plans, and one of the items we felt we should attempt to procure for future emergencies is a HMMMV vehicle, and accordingly, wrote to the State Agency for Surplus inquiring into this process. I have this date received word from State Surplus informing me that the Department of Defense has determined these type vehicles are unsafe for civilian agencies and cannot be surplused to same.

I strongly disagree that these vehicles are "unsafe for civilian agencies", at least, in that term. Frankly, lives were saved and damage to property minimized on account of these vehicles and certainly, had we not utilized them, it would have had serious repercussions and been much more "unsafe". To ban their use by any agency other than the military appears to me to defeat the original purpose of the design of this vehicle. I understand that the operation of this vehicle is unique, but in my Department alone there are at least five (5) individuals who are qualified, and at least two (2) who could become qualified operators of the HMMMV vehicle through their National Guard or Army Reserve Training.

The cost of these vehicles new would be exorbitant to an agency requiring such seldom use; however, I do understand they are available in the private sector under a different package. The only way an agency such as ours could purchase such a vehicle would be through surplus, given the price of the vehicle.

The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance in this matter in addressing this issue with the appropriate persons to either eliminate the ban to "civilian agencies", or, in the alternative, relax the language so as to allow emergency agencies to be allowed privy to this surplus, under the same guidelines as is required by the military.

Your kind assistance would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Long

CHL:j

cc: Senator Sam Nunn 301 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001 ATTN: Charlie Harman Senator J. James Exon 528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001

ID: nht75-4.9

DATE: 05/20/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1975, request for confirmation that the emergency braking stopping distance requirements in S5.7.2.3 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, specify that, when stopped six times for each configuration of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1 on a road surface with a skid number of 75 (with a single failure introduced in the service brake system), the vehicle must stop at least once within the distances specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12-foot roadway. You also request confirmation that modulation of the service brake control during the stop is not prohibited.

With certain exceptions, the statements in your letter are correct. Your interpretation only sets out the basic stopping distance requirements for those vehicles which the manufacturer has chosen to make conform to S5.7.2 of the standard. Thus, your interpretation does not include any of the requirements of the emergency braking capability option found in S5.7.1. Additionally, your interpretation does not include the requirements for a truck-tractor at unloaded vehicle weight plus 500 pounds, or for the trucks and buses which qualify for the interim requirements of S5.7.2.3.1 and S5.7.2.3.2.

Section S5.7.2 does not prohibit modulation of the emergency braking capability, and modulation by means of the service brake control is therefore permissible.

YOURS TRULY,

April 1, 1975

Richard Dyson Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Please review our interpretation of Sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 of FMVSS 121 which pertain to emergency brake system operation and performance.

Our interpretation is such that:

1) During an acceptable emergency braking stop, the stopping distance must not exceed the values specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12 foot roadway.

2) When stopped six times, for each combination of weight and speed specified in 5.3.1.1, with a skid number of 75, at least one acceptable emergency braking stop must occur.

3) During an emergency braking stop, the emergency braking system may be modulated. Modulation occurs by actuation of the service brake control.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Danny J. Lanzdorf Supervising Engineer

ID: nht76-3.39

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: THOMAS L. HERLIHY FOR STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jack Roadman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of February 26 and March 8, 1976, concerning the certification of a truck that you wish to build with a chassis that you have purchased from International Harvester. You have indicated that the chassis did not include an engine, transmission, or radiator. You installed a diesel engine, transmission, and a new driveshaft, and made various modifications to the chassis. You have had difficulties in persuading a body manufacturer to install a truck body.

The source of your difficulties appears to be a misunderstanding of the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the accompanying certification regulations. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to completed motor vehicles and to certain items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses, tires). The manufacturer of a motor vehicle or an item of equipment to which a standard applies is required by Section 114 of the Act to certify that his product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

An incomplete vehicle is, strictly speaking, an item of motor vehicle equipment. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply directly to these particular equipment items, and thus there is presently no certification requirement for incomplete vehicles. The manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle is required by Part 568, however, to furnish an "incomplete vehicle document". This document, which is described in @ 568.4, must indicate the conformity status of the incomplete vehicle with respect to each standard that applies to the vehicles into which it may be completed.

The chassis that you bought from International Harvester (IH) was an item of motor vehicle equipment to which no standards apply. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish you with a certification of compliance. Further, the chassis was not an incomplete vehicle because it lacked an engine and transmission. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document. Because of your operations on the chassis, you are the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle. You, therefore, are the person required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document.

Your letter also indicated a concern they you were not given a "certificate of origin" by International Harvester when you purchased the chassis. Federal law does not require the issuance of a certificate of origin. Unless you intended to refer to the Section 114 "certification" discussed above, I assume that you have in mind a document that would be the subject of Pennsylvania state law.

Copies of the Act and the certification regulations are enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht87-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: American Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Head, Administration Government Relations Department American Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 1100 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, CA 92622-1100

Dear Mr. Petler:

This letter responds to your letter of June 12, 1987, stating that your company wishes to and the following additional language to the Part 567 certification label:

"This vehicle equipped for 800 lb./360kg payload. See owner's manual for additional information.

You further state your understanding that NHTSA has permitted manufacturers to put information on the certification label beyond what Part 567 requires. You include two samples (-A- and -a-) representing certification labels, showing alternative location s on the label for your statement. The sample you designate as -A- shows your statement just above the required vehicle identification number, and just below the statement that your vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd. The sample you designate as -B- shows your statement just below all of the information 5567.4 requires a manufacturer to put on the certification label. You ask which sample the agency would find acceptable.

You are correct that the agency his permitted manufacturers to include information on the certification label beyond that which Part 567 requires. There NHTSA has acquiesced in this practice, the additional information appeared after that required under 5567.4(g). Sample B shows the placement of your additional statement after the required Part 567 information. NHTSA finds that Sample B is acceptable so long as your label otherwise complies with Part 567. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Part 561 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., of Japan, we are requesting an interpretation of Part 567-Certification, 567.1, as it applies to the placement of additional wording in the form of a statement addressing vehicle payload on the vehicle certification l abel. The additional statement reads:

"This vehicle equipped for 800 lb./360kg payload.

See owner's manual for additional information."

I have attached a drawing showing the statement placed in two different locations as illustrated in samples A and B. Suzuki's preference is sample A with the added statement being placed between the vehicle conformity statement and the VIN. If sample A p lacement is not acceptable to NHTSA. Suzuki would use sample B placement with the added statement appearing below the vehicle type description.

It is our understanding that NHTSA has permitted the use of additional wording or information on certification labels in response to requests like ours from other manufacturers. Suzuki also believes the addition of payload information for this particular vehicle would be of value to the vehicle owner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response to our request for interpretation. Sincerely,

AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

Frederick M. Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department

FMP:bf

ID: 86-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Clark, Esq -- Tabbert and Capehart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Clark, Esq. Tabbert & Capehart One Indiana Square Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

This responds to your letter dated October 21, l985, inquiring about the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.

The relevant federal statute in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.

As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles will be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7 Certification. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

In addition, please note that your client should take care in making the conversions not to harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Jeffrey R. Miller, Esqu. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

On Tuesday, October 15, l985, I telephoned your office and spoke with Mr. Steve Oeshch regarding a client of this firm who wishes to convert fully assembled automobiles into limousines. After speaking with Mr. Oeshch, he suggested that I write to your office and request a formal interpretation in regard to this matter, in view of the facts as discussed.

The client is a new car dealer in Anderson, Indiana. He desires to purchase full assembled new automobiles from the manufacturer and subsequently convert them into limousines. The limousines will in turn be sold wholesale to dealers.

I wish to know which Federal Department of Transportation statutes must be complied with and how to classify the client, i.e. dealer, manufacturer or remanufacturer.

Could you kindly at your earliest convenience render an opinion regarding this matter. Any assistance you might give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Clark

ID: nht94-5.33

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: R.H. Goble -- President, R.H. Goble Enterprises, inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/94 from John Womack to R.H. Goble (A42; STD 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(a))

TEXT: R.H. Goble Enterprises has developed a new lighting system to be added to motor vehicles. We are soliciting input from you as to the current rules and regulations and how they may apply to this new system. Specifically, can brake lights appear over the wheels and in the front of a vehicle?

Traffic and highway safety is a critical factor in our society. New ideas have evolved over the years to improve highway safety. The most recent innovation is the introduction of the eye-level rear view brake light. Rear-end collisions have been reduced by fifty two percent as a result.

This new concept worked because it introduced a change which was immediately apparent to drivers following a vehicle. We believe this same principle should be applied to the front and sides of a vehicle. The, other drivers could discern the braking intent of the operator from any direction. This is especially true in congested areas where one must watch for vehicles entering from side streets and on coming traffic. This can be accomplished by simply wiring the brake lights to the directional lights with an ordinary bridging connector.

NOTE: When wiring the brake lights to the front directional and side marker lights the brake lights are over ridden by the directional lights.

Also, when the brake lights are applied both sides light up, with the directional light on one side flashing.

Brake lights will not interfere with the directional lights or hazard lights functions.

As seen in the enclosed packet we are introducing a further safety enhancement for vehicles. The Wheel Well lighting system provides indication of the drivers intent when viewing the vehicle

2

from any direction. This takes more of the guess work out of being a defensive driver.

The obvious awareness of another vehicle and the intentions of its operator are the keys to avoiding a collision. The Wheel Well lighting system provides complete illumination around the vehicle, with all light indications or signals being visible from any direction. Therefore, we can provide the same safety advantages for all drivers, not just those approaching from the rear. In addition, the reflection of the Wheel Well lights off of the wheels will draw attention to the vehicle even more.

This is not just an idea. Our lighting system is already being used on a few vehicles locally. Four hundred lights have been produced to perform a marketing trial and provide consumer feedback.

The Wheel Well lights utilize standard lights, bulbs, and wiring. They are inexpensive and simple to install. We believe this new patent pending product will do even more to revolutionize highway safety than even the eye-level rear view brake light.

Please understand that these new lights are standard vehicle lights already manufactured by Peterson Manufacturing. Our system merely provides for placement of the newly designed lights above the wheels. They are directly wired into the vehicle and provide the same signaling around the vehicle as can be seen from the rear of any standard vehicle.

Please advise us as to the legality of providing this new system in existing vehicles.

ID: nht92-6.37

DATE: May 26, 1992

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

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-93 from John Womack to Steven Henderson (A41; Std. 108).

TEXT: My name Steven Henderson. I am PhD student in the Department of Psychology a McGill University, where I am studying visual perception. My coinventor David Kernaghan and I have designed, built and filed a patent application for a horn-activated headlight/signallight flasher system that enables motorcyclists to temporarily make themselves more conspicuous to other drivers. I have enclosed the patent application for your information. The U.S. Patent Office has granted claims 1-3 and 7-9 in their first response. Claims 4-6 were contained in a more recently submitted continuation in part (CIP).

The horn flasher is used in the following manner. When a motorcyclist becomes aware that another vehicle is about to encroach on his or her path of travel, a push of the motorcycle's horn button causes the headlight and signal lights to flash 10 times per second. (Ten hz is the frequency to which the human eye is most sensitive.) The flickering light in the car driver's visual periphery will immediately cause him or her to flexively fixate the motorcycle's location. By being made aware of the motorcycle's presence, the car driver is prevented from causing an accident. Our hope is that this invention will help to avert some of the approximately three thousand fatalities suffered annually by motorcyclists in North America.

I have exchanged correspondence with Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Council, NHTSA, concerning the application of DOT Standard No. 108 to our device. I have found his recommendations to be invaluable to our efforts to modify the device to more closely comply with the standard. However, as the invention was not envisioned when the standard was initially written, our device appears not to be in compliance with S5.5.10(c) and (d), and S5.6 of the standard. In his letter of August 28, 1992, Mr. Rice recommends the following:

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders ... You may petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety.

Accordingly, I am acting on Mr. Rice's suggestion, and have enclosed a petition requesting that the agency for rulemaking amend Sections S5.5.10 and S5.6 of Standard No. 108 in order to permit the use of our device. I have also enclosed the U.S patent application submitted for the device. (On the advice of Mr. Rice, the circuit has been modified so that if the horn button is pressed while signalling for a turn, the appropriate signal light flickers at 2 hz, as required by SAE J590, rather than emitting 2 hz bursts of 10 hz flicker,

as does the unmodified circuit. Please also note that the tail light is always steady-burning, as required by Section S5.5.10(d).

As I state in the enclosed petition, I feel very strongly that our device furthers the purpose of Standard No. 108 as stated in Section S2, as it will:

reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents ... by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood.

Furthermore, Section S5.5.10(b) illustrates an intent to allow a device similar to ours, by stating:

(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes.

I therefore request that you grant careful consideration to our petition to amend DOT Standard No. 108 so as to allow the use of our device.

Thank You.