ID: nht81-2.4

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Williamsen Truck Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. F. E. Stephens Vice President, Marketing 1925 Indiana Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84125

Dear Mr. Stephens

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 8, 1980

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

ATTENTION: VIN coordinator Gentlemen:

We submit herewith our VIN number for the trailers we build as follows for your approval.

Williamsen manufactures end dump trailers, bottom dump trailers and trailer chassis as semi trailers, full trailers, and pony trailers in tandem axle, two axle, triple axle and four axle configerations as per drawings and pictures enclosed.

The Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. has assigned to Willamsen a (WMI) code of 1W9 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th characters of the vehicle identifier section as: 004

Our model years starts October 1, 1980 through September 30, 1981 so our VIN number is constructed as follows:

1st, 2nd 3rd characters 1W9=Assignment from Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

1 = Full trailer 4th Character 2 = Semi-trailer 3 = Dolly (no body) 4 = Pony trailer

B = FRP Bottom dump C = Chassis only (no body) D = Steel Bottom dump 5th Character E = Steel end dump F = Aluminum bottom dump G = Aluminum end dump H = Steel sand master

6th & 7th Characters = Length, feet

8th Character = Number of Axles

9th Character = Check digit

10th Character = Year model

11th Character = S = Salt Lake City, Utah plant 0 = Ogden, Utah plant D = Dallas, Texas plant 12th, 13th, 14th Characters = 04 - Assignment from Society of Automotive Engineering, Inc 15th, 16th 17th Characters 001 thru 090 = Starting of production at beginning of our 1981 production year October 1, 1980 for each type and length of trailer. Then continuing each year thereafter with consecutive numbering until we reach 999 at which time we will start over again 001 thru 050. This should take several years.

Our Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for trailers manufactured by Williamsen starting with first trailers of each type and size on October 1, 1980 will be as follows:

Two axle full trailer with:

Steel end dump body - 16' 1W9 1E162 0 BS004001 Aluminum end dump body - 16' 1W9 1G162 8 BS004001

Four Axle full trailer with:

FRP bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1B294 6 BS004001 Steel bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1D294 3 BS004001 Aluminum bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1F294 0 BS004001 Chassis only (no body) - 20' 1W9 1C204 3 Bs004001

Tandem axle semi-trailer with:

FRP bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2B292 2 BS004001 FRP bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2B372 1 BS004001 FRP bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2B402 1 BS004001

Steel Bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2D292 X BS004001 Steel Bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2D372 9 BS004001 Steel Bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2D402 9 BS004001

Aluminum Bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2F292 7 BS004001 Aluminum Bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2F372 6 BS004001 Aluminum Bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2F402 6 BS004001

Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-41' 1W9 2H412 5 BS004001 Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-47' 1W9 2H472 6 BS004001 Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-51' 1W9 2H512 8 BS004001 Dolly:

Single axle - 06' 1W9 30061 5 BS004001 Tandem axle - 08' 1W9 30082 X BS004001

Two axle pup or pony trailer:

With steel end dump body - 25' 1W9 4E252 5 BS 00401 With aluminum end dump body - 25' 1W9 4G252 2 BS004001

Triple axle pup or pony trailer:

With steel end dumkp body - 24' 1W9 4E243 2 BS004001 With aluminum end dump body - 24' 1W9 4G243 X BS004001

We trust this meets with your approval and we may receive same shortly.

Sincerely,

WILLIAMSEN TRUCK EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

F. E. Stephens V. P. Marketing

FES/sr

enc. 03/17/81

ID: nht81-2.40

DATE: 06/29/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Devlin Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1981, letter asking for information relating to the agency's recordkeeping requirements.

I have enclosed copies of the agency's major recordkeeping regulations and portions of one statute that requires the retention of information. This information describes the types of records to be retained and the periods that retention is required. The agency has not specified the form or location for record retention, but it has stated that records must be readily retrievable when necessary. The agency has not imposed a penalty for accidental loss of records. I can see no instance in which a penalty would be imposed for such an accidental loss.

Finally, you ask for any recommendations that we might have with respect to record retention. We only suggest that records be maintained in an easily accessible manner so that they can be used effectively in removing dangerous vehicles or equipment from the highway. Other than this general recommendation, the actual recordkeeping techniques that a company should use would depend upon the size and sophistication of the company.

If you have any questions concerning any of the materials that I have provided you, you may contact Roger Tilton of my staff (202-426-9511).

ENCLS.

DEVLIN ASSOCIATES, INC.

April 28, 1981

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Tilton:

RE: RECORDS RETENTION

We have been asked to identify "Records Retention" requirements for several clients. We have used the "GUIDE TO RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS" as a starting point. However, we do require additional information. Please forward any additional information which will assist us to determine:

1. Specific records to be retained and retention periods.

2. Acceptable retention media (paper, film, microfiche, magnetic tape, etc.)--requirements for above (i.e., computer equipment and programs to read magnetic tape, etc.) 3. Location for retention of all data.

4. Penalty for loss (in particular, in case of fire, or accidental loss.)

5.. Recommendations

We will appreciate any assistance and information you can provide in this regard. Please address your response to my attention.

Judith I. Robey Executive Vice President

ID: nht81-2.41

DATE: 07/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborg AB, Tire Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking for information concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), as it applies to motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked what markings must be on the sidewalls of knobby motorcross tires (motorcycle tires designed for off-road use) to satisfy the requirements of Standard 119.

If your company designs the tires exclusively for off-road use, with no expectation that they will be used when the motorcycle is on the public roads, Standard 119 is not applicable to the tires. Therefore, no markings would be required on the sidewall of the tires. On the other hand, if you believe the motorcross tires will, in fact, be used on the public roads, as well as off-road, they must meet the marking requirements specified in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed).

Standard No. 119 and its marking requirements apply to all new tires designed for highway use on non-passenger-car motor vehicles. In response to the petitions for reconsideration of Standard 119, the agency stated that manufacturers of motorcross tires would have to determine if the tires were designed for highway use (see 39 FR 5191, February 11, 1974, copy enclosed). In the absence of a showing to the contrary, however, this agency would assume that motorcycles equipped with motocross tires are ridden on the public highways to and from race competition or trail use, which would mean the tires are subject to the requirements of Standard 119.

Following the publication of the above-mentioned notice, a manufacturer of motocross tires requested an interpretation of Standard 119, and stated that its motocross tires are not suitable for use on public roads, and are not designed for such use. The agency responded that such tires are not subject to the requirements of Standard 119, based on this set of circumstances.

However, as noted above, each manufacturer must make this determination. Please note that if you decide that the tires are not subject to Standard 119, 49 CFR Part 574 prohibits the DOT certification label from appearing on the sidewall of the tire. Please further note that a manufacturer's determination of this point is not dispositive. That is, this agency has authority to independently re-examine the manufacturer's determination. If the manufacturer's determination was incorrect, the manufacturer would be liable for civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each tire imported into this country which did not meet all the requirements of Standard 119. If you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Gentlemen,

Trelleborg AB, a Swedish Tire Manufacturer, Code no LW, plan to export motorcycle tires for motocross ( = Not for highway use) to USA.

Actual sizes are: 4.50-17 and 4.50-18.

Please tell us what we have to observe regarding the text on the tire walls.

Sincerely,

TRELLEBORG AB -- Tire Division;

Erik Sundelin -- Diplomengineer

ID: nht81-2.42

DATE: 07/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Airstream

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1981, letter asking for a clarification of the certification requirements applicable to vehicles that you manufacture. The units frequently are completed by you, but in some instances, they are shipped to a final manufacturer for completion of the interior work.

Your first question asks whether you should label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer since your vehicle is road worthy and needs only the addition of an interior finish prior to sale. In order to certify the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer, the vehicle that you produce must be a completed vehicle (49 CFR Part 568). A completed vehicle is one that is finished and requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions with the exceptions of minor finishing operations or readily attachable components. If your vehicle is completed in a manner that it can perform its intended functions, you may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. The person performing alterations on your vehicle may then be required to add an alterer's label.

If the finishing operation that will be made to your vehicle is more than the attachment of readily attachable components or minor finish work, the person doing the finishing work may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. In determining whether the installation of a bathroom, kitchen, furniture, beds, appliances, or seats is an installation of readily attachable components, you should consider whether it requires special expertise or tools. If it requires either, it is not the installation of readily attachable components.

Your second question asks whether your vehicle would be considered a chassis-cab in those instances where another manufacturer might be attaching a final-stage label. The answer to this question is no. The definition of chassis-cab in part 567, Certification, states that it is a vehicle with a completed occupant compartment that needs only the addition of work performing or load carrying components to complete its function. It appears that your vehicle does not have a completed occupant compartment and, therefore, would not be considered a chassis-cab.

Finally, you ask what will happen if you label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer and a subsequent manufacturer significantly alters the vehicle. You ask whether you could treat the vehicle as an incomplete vehicle and furnish the documentation required by Part 568. If you label the vehicle as a final-stage vehicle, you cannot treat it as an incomplete vehicle. However, you may convey information similar to that conveyed in an incomplete vehicle document to the subsequent manufacturer to ensure that it can comply with all of the standards. In fact, that manufacturer may require such information in order to be able to make the necessary modifications.

ID: nht81-2.43

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carabela USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1981 requesting "the candlepower rating on a moped headlamp."

I enclose a copy of SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps April 1964, which contains the information that you request. Most mopeds develop 5 horsepower or less and thus qualify as a "motor driven cycle."

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ENC.

Carabela USA, Inc.

6-8-81

Office of Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Please quote me the candlepower rating on a moped headlamp, if any. Thank you.

Barry N. Aebischer Mktg. Coordinator

ID: nht81-2.44

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Burlington Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehcile Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of "edger fabric strips", pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.

The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b), because it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.

In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in your request for an interpretation, is the following statement: "The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt . . . ." Similarly, in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments section of the patent, Section 3 begins, "The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt . . . ." Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Stanard 117; "No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing."

Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered a belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of "edger fabric," the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable with the existing cords of the casing that is used.

Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreaded passenger car tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.

Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards.

ENC.

May 1, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Attention: Stephen Kratzke

Re: NHTSA Standard No. 117 - Retreaded Pneumatic Tires

Dear Sirs:

Upon suggestion by Mr. Stephen Kratzke, I am writing to request an interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 117 relating to retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. In particular I would appreciate a written opinion as to whether S 5.2.2(b) of the Standard would apply to a retreading process by which the tire was stripped and a recap containing "edger" fabric molded therein then bonded to the carcass. For your better understanding, please note that "edger" fabric is a narrow strip of fabric positioned on each side or shoulder of the recap around the entire perimeter of the tire. The strips are intended and believed to aid in the prevention of steel belts "turning up" and rendering the recapped tire unsafe.

A careful reading of Standard No. 117 convinces me that "edger" fabric strips which are molded into the retread prior to the retread being secured to the casing is not addition or replacement of a belt or ply to the casing as contemplated by Standard 117. In fact, the purpose of the "edger" fabric is entirely consistent with the purpose of Standard 117 in that it is intended to make a retreaded steel belted tire safer and longer lasting than if the fabric were not incorporated into the recap. To hold that the "edger" fabric falls within the language and intended scope of Standard 117 would therefore run counter to the purpose and policy considerations behind the Standard.

In order that you may more fully understand the nature of the recapping process utilizing an "edger" fabric incorporated into the recap, I have attached hereto a copy of a U.S. patent generally directed to the process and highlighted some of the more pertinent portions. I hope that the above is sufficient for full understanding of our request, but please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 379-4517 if I may offer further explanation.

We respectfully solicit an expeditious opinion on this matter and thank you for your assistance to us.

Richard E. Jenkins Assistant Patent Counsel

ATTCH.

ID: nht81-2.45

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1981, concerning the strength requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, for a dual buckle (i.e., a two buckle unit) anchored in a vehicle by one common anchorage attachment.

As explained below, I disagree with your judgment that the standard does not deal adequately with the dual buckle design. Your proposal to test the dual buckle with 5,000 pounds of force is also incorrect; the correct force is 6,000 pounds.

Section 3 of the standard defines "hardware" as "a metal or rigid plastic part of a seat belt assembly." That section further defines "attachment hardware" as "any or all hardware designed for securing the webbing of a seat belt assembly to a motor vehicle." As described in your letter and shown in its attached photograph, the dual buckle has a common metal anchorage attachment. Since the purpose of that metal part is to secure the webbing to the vehicle, it is considered attachment hardware.

Section 4.3 (c)(2) specifies that "attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6,000 pounds or 2.720 kilograms without fracture . . . ." Since the common anchorage attachment is designed to receive the force created by the ends of two seat belt assemblies, it must meet the requirements of S4.3(c)(2).

You are correct that the attachment bolt is required to withstand a force of at least 9,000 pounds or 4,080 kilograms under paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of the standard.

Sincerely,

MARCH 12, 1981

F. BERNDT, CHIEF COUNSEL -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs,

FMVSS 209

We have been asked to test for FMVSS approval a Dual Buckle anchored in the vehicle by one bolt, the Dual Buckle having common anchorage attachment.

The standard does not cope fully with this design and I suggest that it is tested in the following manner. The Dual Buckle should be tested statically at 5000 lbs and survive this test. This test would be in addition to the loop load test. The anchorage bolt would be tested to 9000 lbs. I have chosen 5000 lbs as a test limit for the following reason. The loop load test is done at 5000 lbs, the attachments being subjected to a load of 2500 lbs during this test. To prove the dual buckle we need to test it statically at twice this load of 2,500 lbs i.e. 5,000 lbs.

I would appreciate your comments on my proposal.

I have also written this letter to Mr A Cardarelli of AAMVA.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

(Photo Omitted)

ID: nht81-2.46

DATE: 07/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht81-2.47

DATE: 07/14/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firestone Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, describing a situation in which a railroad car full of new tires caught on fire. As a result of the damage caused to the tires by the fire, Firestone's quality control staff determined that the tires could no longer be certified as safe for highway use. The railroad company has refused to pay your claim for damage to the tires unless Firestone releases the damaged tires to the railroad company. You stated that the railroad company will either sell the tires through its salvage outlets or use the tires on company vehicles. You ask whether you can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad company.

If Firestone releases the tires and the railroad company sells the tires or uses them on the public roads, both Firestone and the railroad company would violate an express provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) ("the Safety Act"). Therefore, you can rightfully withhold the tires from the railroad company.

Your letter did not indicate whether the damaged tires were tires for passenger cars or tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. In either case, the tire manufacturer is required to certify that each tire fully complies with certain marking requirements and with specified performance requirements (resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance) of Safety Standard No. 109 in the case of passenger car tires (49 CFR @ 571.109) or of Safety Standard No. 119 for tires other than passenger car tires (49 CFR @ 571.119). This certification is made by the manufacturer by molding the letters "DOT" into the sidewall of the tire.

As a result of the damage to this particular shipment of tires, your company has determined that this certification is no longer valid. This determination obligates Firestone to remove the "DOT" symbol from the sidewall of the tires.

Without the "DOT" symbol, these tires would clearly not comply with the requirements of either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). provides:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . .

Firestone would violate this prohibition if it were to deliver tires to the railroad company which were not certified as complying with the appropriate safety standard. The railroad company would violate this prohibition if it sold or offered to sell uncertified tires, or if uncertified tires were used by the company on the public roads (introduction in interstate commerce). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies penalties of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108, and each tire delivered by Firestone or sold or used by the railroad company would constitute a separate violation of section 108. Section 109 specifies that the maximum civil penalty which can be imposed for a series of related violations, which this would be, is $ 800,000 for each violator.

You indicated that Firestone would not release the damaged tires for use in any case, because of the potential safety hazard. I hope that this response reinforces that position. Should you need any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please show this letter to the interested railroad company so that it will realize the serious nature of its contemplated actions.

SINCERELY,

Firestone TIRE COMPANY

June 24, 1981

The National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Steven Kratzke

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Pursuant to our phone conversation this morning, we would appreciate hearing from you and the National Highway Safety Administration as to the disposition to be made on tires which have been exposed to fire while in transit. We experience approximately five of these situations per year and recently we've experienced an incident where the carrier is demanding that we release to them the salvage.

In this particular incident, the carload of 1,596 tires was shipped from our Decatur, Illinois Plant back in June of 1979. Enroute the carrier noticed a missing hasp and ordered the car confined to its repair track until a new hasp could be affixed to the car. In the process of welding the hasp on to the car a small fire started which the carrier's employees quickly extinguished. After a break for lunch and the subsequent return from lunch the car was again found ablaze. The car was again extinguished by both the railroad's employees and the local fire department.

Our Quality Control people inspected the tires and found them to be in a condition not suitable for highway use. The railroad retained outside experts in this area and our company likewise retained experts to evaluate the condition of these tires to confirm basically what our Quality Control people originally decided. Both these outside firms cannot guarantee the safety of these tires. The railroad has refused to pay our claim unless we release these tires to them to be salvaged through their salvage outlets to the public or for use on their own company vehicles. We find this railroad's request in total disregard of public safety.

We would appreciate your confirming in writing basically how the National Highway Safety Administration feels about this and whether or not a manufacturer of tires, such as Firestone is correct in wanting to scrap these tires in such a manner that they are never used on the highway. We are confirming at this time that we have no intentions of releasing these tires to this particular railroad but would appreciate your decision as to whether or not we can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad for their salvaging, which in the end will hopefully produce a settlement from the railroad for the value of these tires which they destroyed.

Thank you.

C. L. BIDDLE SUPERVISOR OF CLAIMS GENERAL TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

ID: nht81-2.48

DATE: 07/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CSMPCO Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 3, 1981, providing additional information about the "Downshift Warning System Kit."

After reviewing this information and the points you make concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, we wish to point out that the pertinent provisions of this standard are S4.1.3 and S4.5.4. For your information, a copy of Standard 108 is enclosed.

You will note that S4.1.3 provides that: "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." Further, you will note that S4.5.4 provides that: "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This means that your system must not impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps that are original equipment on the vehicle, and that any application of the service brakes that does not activate the stop lamps would be inconsistent with Federal requirements. As we have made no formal study of your system, you will have to determine whether a vehicle on which it is installed would meet Standard No. 108.

Also enclosed for your information is a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) is interpreted to mean that the installation of your system on a used vehicle by a person other than its owner must not render inoperative in whole or in part, the stop lamp system. However, the prohibitions of the Act and the standard do not cover sale of your system as an aftermarket device nor its installation solely by the vehicle owner. Use of it is subject to State regulation.

We would also like to call your attention to the agency's study: "Field Test Evaluation of Rear Lighting Deceleration Signals - Analytical and Experimental Studies (1979)" (DOT HS 805 061). We urge that you obtain a copy of this report and consider it carefully with regard to your system. You may obtain a copy by writing to the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

The agency has tentatively decided that a single high-mounted auxiliary stop lamp is the most effective way of preventing rear end collisions and has proposed that such be made available both as original equipment and in the aftermarket. I enclose a copy of the proposal for your consideration.

ENCLS.

CSMPCO CORPORATION

March 3, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Compliance status of the "Chicoine Downshift Warning System Kit" with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 105, 108 and 121.

In your letter of November 14, 1980 you informed me:

* Your review of standard Nos. 105 and 121 show that installation of the kit on a vehicle would not render it noncompliant with them.

* I regard to the lighting standard No. 108, you have several questions for me to answer.

But first, I wish to inform you that I have added a "Conditioned Availability" ancillary system, to the basic kit (return samples). It is a permissive concept introduced to guard against the main system's abuser by its user(s), whether the attempt(s) is inadvertently or maliciously perpetrated.

If you will, please carry the evaluation of compliance to the lighting standard No. 108, using my up-graded system.

I have two versions to present of the ancillary system for the compliance evaluation:

First version: Vacuum Control/engine intake manifold's high vacuum condition triggers, a normally openned, permissive switch's closing. The switch is wired in series with the gear shift knob switch, the closing of both switches is required for the activation of the brake lights.

A vacuum delay valve and a vacuum control valve are added to the ancillary system, to give it a time delay effect that will reduce the system sensitivity to the intake manifold vacuum fast variances. This way an operator can upshift without incurring activation risks of his vehicle brakelights.

1) Delay Valve

A delay valve is fitted in the vacuum line between/near the permissive vacuum-operated switch and the present vacuum control valve. The delay valve is an air flow (vacuum) restrictor, it allows unrestricted flow of air one way and impeded flow the other way. It is necessitated for protection continuity in upshift operation.

2) Present vacuum control valve

The preset control valve is vacuum operated and is fitted in the vacuum line between/near the delay valve and the intake manifold. The preset vacuum control valve closes when the vacuum drops by 5" hg. below the triggering vacuum setting of the permissive vacuum-operated switch. It is necessitated for protection continuity in upshift operation.

Second version: Electronic control/the control device's logic reads the vehicle's deceleration rate and compares it to the manufacturer selected rates (i.e.: 1.5 mph/sec. is acceptable). And as long as the vehicle deceleration rate matches or exceeds the device's set rate, the control device enters and remains into an available operative mode. With the electronic control device in an available operative mode the vehicle's operator can then activate his vehicle's brakelights by using the gearshift switch.

Hall Effect Devices or Wire Coils are used with magnets to generate signals of vehicle velocity to the electronic control device. The takeoffs are from the vehicle's drive shaft or the vehicle speedomaster cable.

A power transistor that is built-in with the electronic control device, is used instead of the electrical-mechanical relay found in the basic kit.

To your first question: "We would like to know if your system prevents the turn signal lamps from flashing, in lamps combining stoplamp and turn signal lamps."

The answer is no. My system will not prevent the turn signal lamps from flashing in lamps combining stoplamps and turn signal lamps.

First reason) The brake switch is not a controlling component for the turn signal lamps flashing operation(s).

Second reason) The kit's relay contact are wired in parallel with the brake pedal stoplamps switch's tabs in other words, the existing switch is simply wirejumped and the kit's relay switch is substituted for the existing brake switch.

I have a '78 Fiesta-Sport Model and it has the lamps combining stoplamps and turn signal lamps that your question refers to. Closing of the brake pedal switch does not prevent the turn signal lamps from flashing, nor does the closing to the kit relays contact prevent the turn signal lamps from flashing. I carried the experience in my garage.

Reply to your second question and closing request: "We would like clarification whether the system activates the stop lamps by pushing the button alone or whether actual motion of the gear shift lever is also required. If the former, we would appreciate your views on possible abuses) of the system, . . . . "

Your second question and closing request convey a message of concern for abuse(s) of the system. That message has influenced my decision to supplement my basic kit with the conditioned availability ancillary system, both versions are automated, beyond operator's control, and work on a permissive concept basis to keep in check main system's abuses.

The content in your second question is a good example of conditioned availability -- the motion of the shift lever be reflected as a condition to fulfill for the system operativeness. But I have not selected as a requirement the motion of the shift lever for the system operativeness.

I have given consideration to the following points:

1) The gear selection(s) for an upshift or a downshift in vehicle(s) equipped with a manual transmission is left to the operator's discretion and vehicle's demand(s).

2) The traffic flow pattern(s) does very i.e.: A traffic flow pattern may dictate a downshift:

* for an acceleration of the vehicle

* for a deceleration of the vehicle

3) The cost of retrofitting of the vehicles already on the roads.

4) The selected permissive ancillary systems' operations:

* are to be fully automated

* are to be controlled by inputs that are relating to the vehicle modal status of acceleration and deceleration.

* in case of component(s) failure, the system is to become inoperative, the fail safe concept.

5) The activation of the downshift warning system kit is to remain a manual, conscious operation by the vehicle operator.

6) The language of the vehicles' stoplamps: To the non-lead driver, the following message have become universal standards, for the vehicles moving on relatively flat grade.

1. Stoplights OFF - Brakes OFF - STOP NOT IN Progress

2. Stoplights ON - Brakes ON - STOP IN Progress

*3. Stoplights OFF - Brakes ON - STOP IN Progress

**4. Stoplights OFF - Brakes OFF - STOP IN Progress

* The message applies in cases where the stoplamps system of the lead vehicle is defective (i.e.: burnt stoplamps).

** The message applies in cases where the lead vehicle operator uses the engine brake (downshifts) to come to a stop or a slowdown. I refer to this message as "The Burnt Stoplights Syndrome."

Note: Operating a vehicle that has its stoplamps system out of order (i.e.: burnt stoplamps) is inconsiderate of other people's safety and is incomsiderate of one's (operator) own safety as well. The same can be said for the operator(s) that downshift to a stop. I address this "The Burnt Stoplamps Syndrome." The use of the device can help keep in check "The Burnt Stoplamps Syndrome." The device restores safety to the operator(s) that uses the downshift method to stop/slowdown his vehicle. The following driver(s) will share same.

7) The device is not to impair the integrity and effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. The device is to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires.

Downshifting makes use of engine braking energy instead of letting it be wasted. In a world that is energy short, let's make it safe to use that stopping method.

I trust that I have satisfactorily answered your questions. Enclosed is a flow-sheet layout copy of the kit's components and wiring, first version adaptation.

Gustave J. Chicoine, President CSMPCO Corporation ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

WIRING DIAGRAM