ID: nht95-4.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 17, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Young -- Wheeled Coach

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/17/95 LETTER FROM Jim Young to John Womack (OCC 11303)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 17, 1995, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as in relates to "customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting." You have described these op tions as:

"Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights. The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become stead burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc. . .)"

As you clarified in a phone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on November 2, the "rear facing warning lights" are part of the ambulance lighting system which is not a system required by Standard No. 108. This option is permissible. Althoug h there is no Federal legal requirement that governs the performance of ambulance warning systems, we recommend that the rear facing warning lights are red, the required color for stop lamps, inasmuch as the intent seems to be provide an additional indic ation that the brake have been applied.

"Brake Enhancer. Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning.

"Back-up alert strobes. Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear."

Optional equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have not indicated the color of the strobe lamps. If they are red or amber, they could cause confusion in the eyes of an obser ver when operated simultaneously with the steady burning

P2

white backup lamp. There is a lesser possibility of confusion if they cast a white light, as long as they do not mask the steady burning backup lamp. In that event, the strobes could be fitted to the ambulances.

"Taillight flashers. Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work of the rear doors on the ambulance are open."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires taillamps as well as stop lamps to be steady burning, under all circumstances.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 17, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM Earl Eisnhart and Larry W. Strawhorn to John G. Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock power circuit requirements set forth at S5.1.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.] This provision states that

S5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles. Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to tow another air- braked vehicle shall be equipped wit h one or more separate electrical circuits, specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each town vehicle to be fully operable. (Emphasis added.)

You believe that the phrase "separate electrical circuit" allows for the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. You further believe that the ABS malfunction signal can be multiplexed on any circuit of the connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the circuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable.

In the March 10, 1995 final fule, NHTSA decided to adopt the proposed full-time power requirement for trailer ABSs. (60 FR 13216) The agency explained that it amended the standard's wording to clarify that towing vehicles must have a corresponding separ ate cirucit specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles. The agency stated that requiring a separate circuit "will ensure the strongest possible source of electrical power from the tractor to ensure the functionin g of all the ECUs and modulators that are employed in the antilock brake system, or systems, on single trailers, or multiple trailers and converter dollies in multi-trailer combinations." It also stated that this requirement will ensure a continuous malf unction indication whenever a malfunction exists. The agency further stated that it has left the decision about which type of connector should be used to the industry.

In response to your question about the use of one of the pins in the seven-pin connector to provide full-time power for the ABS, the use of such a pin would be permissible provided that the

P2 pin services a "separate" electrical circuit to "specifically provide" full time power for the trailers in combination vehicles. This means that the circuit's sole function must be to provide ABS powering, i.e., other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit. This would preclude the use of the pin to power the ABS malfunction signal. Since the requirement for the ABS malfunction circuit did not specify that the circuit used for transmitting the malfunction signal be a " separate" one, ABS malfunction signals can be multiplexed on other circuits with pins in the electrical connector, but no on the circuit and pins used to power the ABS system.

It is important to note that the ABS semitrailer fleet study report (DOT HS 808 059) concluded that the voltages delivered by powering system approaches that employed dedicated separate circuits (i.e., the Cole Hersee, ISO, and 6-pin auxiliary systems) w ere well within the required limits for ECU powering; whereas, the voltages delivered through the stoplamp circuit did not perform as well. The agency concluded that these data indicate the superiority of a separate circuit powering of the trailer ABS a nd therefore, justify the separate circuit requirement.

As you are aware, NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration about the separate electrical circuit. The agency anticipates that the final rule in response to these petitions for reconsideration will have a detailed discussion of these requirem ents. In addition, the agency may decide to modify these requirements.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A.D. Fisher

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/11/95 LETTER FROM A.D. Fisher to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1995, asking for our comments on the relationship of your lighting invention, "The Enlightener," to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

The Enlightener is intended to replace the center highmounted stop lamp. The lens has two colors, divided between amber at the top and red at the bottom. The amber portion is lit in a steady burning mode when both the accelerator and brake are not depre ssed, and in a flashing mode when the transmission lever is in Referse. The red portion is lit when the brake pedal is depressed and amber is extinguished.

This devise would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. The center highmounted stop lamp must stand alone; the lamp cannot serve another function, and paragraph S5.4(a) prohibits combining it with any other lamp.

In addition, the backup function on motor vehicles is furnished by a steady burning white lamp, required by FMVSS No. 108. The presence of a flashing amber lamp operating simultaneously would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp by sending a conf licting signal.

I am sorry that we cannot provide you a more positive response. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office by calling (202) 366- 5263.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric D. Swanger -- Engineering Manager, Specialty Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/8/95 LETTER FROM Eric D. Swanger to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Swanger:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrain Safety Devices. According to your letter, a State has requested that you use light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to outline the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade. That State believes such lighting would increase the sign's conspicuity in certain weather conditions. In your letter and in an October 2, 1995, telephone conversation with Mr. Paul Atelsek of m y staff, you expressed your concerns that using LEDs on stop signal arms may cause confusion and asked whether they are permitted. You raised three specific issues relating to viewing angles, legibility from certain distances, and inconsistencies among various jurisdictions.

The short answer to your question is that the LEDs could comply with out standard, but only under certain conditions. As you are aware, S5.3 Conspicuity states that "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Either method of providing conspicuity is by itself sufficient. I will discuss how the presence of LEDs relates to each of these options and then address your specific questions below.

Section S5.3.1 sets forth the requirements of the reflectorization option, stating that "[t]he entire surface of both sides of the stop signal arm shall be reflectorized with type III retroreflectorized material . . . ." LEDs would appear on the surface of the arm but could not, as far as we know, qualify as type III retroreflectorized material. Therefore, LEDs are not permissible when compliance depends upon the reflectorization option.

Section S5.3.2, which references S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2 specifies the lamp's color, flash rate, and on-off time. These rather specific requi rements reflect the importance of consistency in any signage or labeling requirement. However, we do not see

P2

anything intrinsic about LEDs that would preclude their use in stop signal arms with flashing lamps. As long as the familiar flashing lamps are used, we do not believe that interstate confusion would result from the addition of LEDs. Note that we do no t consider the use of LEDs as an "optional" method of compliance with S5.3.2, because the LEDs would not be centered on the vertical centerline at the top and bottom of the stop arm.

You expressed concerns in your letter about the narrow viewing angle of LEDs compared to incandescent lights, and about the legibility of the LEDs at a distance. Since the LEDs would be used as a supplement to a standard method of compliance (i.e., flas hing lamps), a diminished viewing angle is not important. We assume manufacturer's quality control practices would prevent uneven viewing angles from LED to LED within a given stop arm. While your concerns about the legibility of the word "STOP" at a di stance are important, they do not seem to relate to the presence or absence of the LEDs unless the LEDs reduce the legibility of the word. If you have data indicating that the size or spacing of the letters need to be increased to achieve greater legibi lity at a distance, you may petition NHTSA to revise the standard.

I want to raise one potential safety issue, in case you receive a request to design an LED-equipped stop signal with flashing lamps. Certain arrangements of LEDs might affect compliance by impairing the effectiveness fo the stop signal arm's flashing la mp. Very closely spaced red LEDs could enhance the readability fo the letters in poor visibility conditions. On the other hand, red LEDs spaced every few centimeters around the outline of the 15 cm high letters could appear as a random field of lights (like a Christmas tree), distracting the observer and resulting in diminished readability. Similarly, different flash rates or on-off speeds from installed incandescent lamps might detract from readability by creating a distracting double-flash effect, as you suggest. Whether a particular LED-equipped stop signal arm complies with Standard No. 131 as a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Rita Cola Carroll -- Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee, Great Valley School District, Paoli, PA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/9/95 LETTER FROM Rita Cola Carroll to NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Ms. Carroll:

This responds to your question whether a child sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection.

We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994; letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: "Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208 ."

We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safet y issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs.

As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representa tive is:

Mr. Michael Ryan governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787- 6815

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-4.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 27, 1995

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown and Platt

TO: Samuel Dubbin, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 207/Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/4/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Erika Z. Jones (A44; Redbook 2; Std. 207)

TEXT: I am writing to request an interpretation of FMVSS 207 S4.4, pertaining to labelling of certain motor vehicle seats.

S4.4 provides that:

"Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect."

It is my understanding that S4.4 does not require designated seating positions to be labeled, even if those seating positions are equipped with a folding seat back that enables that seat to be converted to a bed.

This conclusion is consistent with a letter from your office to Mr. Richard Moss, dated June 30, 1971, in which the Acting Chief Counsel advised that FMVSS 207 does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.

The vehicle seat at issue in my question is generally intended for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion, while it is configured as a bench seat. The bench seat contains several "designated seating positions" equipped with safety belts, and the se at is otherwise certified to FMVSS 207 requirements in the seat configuration. When the seat is converted to a bed by folding down the seat back, however, it is no longer "an occupant seat," as that term is defined in FMVSS 207.

Under these circumstances, it is my understanding that the labeling requirement in S4.4 does not apply, and I respectfully seek your concurrence in this conclusion.

Please let me know if I can obtain any additional information for you. I look forward to your response.

ID: nht95-4.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phyllis Armstrong -- General Sales Manager, Saturn of Puyallup, Inc., Washington

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM Phyllis Armstrong to Phillip Reckt; Also attached to 7/20/89 letter from Kathleen DeMeter to B.L. Swank

TEXT: Dear Ms. Armstrong:

This is in response to the letter in which you requested this office to confirm in writing that the information you received from Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerni ng the proper completion of odometer disclosure statements for Saturn vehicles that have been towed. The question arises because the odometer on the Saturn is designed not to register miles when the vehicle is being towed.

NHTSA's interpretation of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 ("TIMA," 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327) and the regulations implementing TIMA (49 CFR Part 580) is that when a vehicle has been towed, but its odometer is not capable of registering towed mileage, the pr oper way to complete the odometer disclosure statement is to record the number of miles showing on the odometer. It is permissible in such a situation for the transferor to certify that this number is the actual mileage on the vehicle, assuming there ar e no other reasons to believe that the reading on the odometer does not reflect actual miles driven.

The situation you describe is comparable to that in which the odometer is disconnected and the drive wheels of the vehicle are off the pavement while it is being towed. In a 1989 interpretation letter, the Chief Counsel of NHTSA stated that when the veh icle is being towed with its drive wheels off the pavement and the odometer disconnected, the mileage driven while being towed does not count, and need not be added to the mileage showing on the odometer. That letter also stated that the transferor may c ertify in this circumstance that the mileage on the odometer, exclusive of the towed mileage, is the actual mileage. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information.

P2

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on Federal odometer disclosure requirements, you may contact Mr. Morse or Ms. Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address. You may reach Ms. Leahy at (202) 366- 5263, and Mr. Morse at (202) 366-4761.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ben Ray

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM Ben Ray to John Womack (OCC 11244)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ray:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for automatic brake adjusters on log trailers. According to your letter, you manufacture log trailers, using used axles that already have what you call "regular" (i.e., manual) brake adjuste rs on them. In an October 13, 1995 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further stated that the wheels, brakes, and suspension are typically used, but that occasionally you use new brake systems. You also clarified that these tr ailers are used on the public roads as well as in the woods for transporting logs to the mills. You asked whether it is permissible to use manual brake adjusters instead of automatic adjusters. The answer depends it is permissible to use manual brake ad justers instead of automatic adjusters. The answer depends on whether your log trailers are equipped with new or used components and the trailer continues to use the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and to be owned by the user of the reassembled vehi cle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipme nt. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. Once such standard is Standard No. 121, Air brake system, which requires new trailers to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components and used materials are considered to be new trailers. Section 49 CFT 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufa cture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless each of the following three conditions is true with respect to the trailer. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not ne w and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the VIN. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

In other words, a log trailer will generally be considered newly manufactured, unless all these conditions are met. If a trailer is considered newly manufactured, then it must comply with the

P2 current requirements applicable to trailers. Among other things, this means that the trailer must be equipped with automatic adjusters. If a trailer meets these three conditions, then it is considered not newly manufactured and may be equipped with man ual adjusters.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Sahw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Danner, Esq. -- General Claim Counsel, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM Paul Danner to John Womack; Also attached to 8/9/89 letter from Kathleen DeMeter to Madeline Flanagan

TEXT: Dear Mr. Danner:

This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1995, to John Womack, then Acting Chief Counsel of this office, in which you asked for an interpretation of the proper application of Federal odometer disclosure requirements in a situation where an insure r is settling with a vehicle owner on a Claim for theft of the vehicle. Specifically, your letter requests confirmation that the information given to you over the telephone by Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accurately reflects the agency's interpretation of these requirements. For the sake of clarity, I will address the proper procedures to be followed, rather than your letter's rendition of Mr. Morse's advice.

After a vehicle has been stolen, it is of course unavailable to the insured-transferor at the time of title transfer to the insurer. Therefore, when completing the odometer disclosure needed to transfer ownership to the insurance company, the insured-tr ansferor may enter a figure that is his or her "best guess estimate" of the mileage on the odometer at the time the vehicle was stolen, not at the time of transfer to the insurer-transferee. In addition, the odometer disclosure must be dated as of the d ate of the theft, not as of the date of the transfer to the insurance company. The insured must certify on the odometer disclosure as to whether the odometer reading at the limits of the odometer, as appropriate.

In 1989, the agency issued an interpretation letter stating that this was the proper procedure for a lessee to follow when completing a disclosure to the lessor under 49 CFR @580.7 for a vehicle that had been stolen. That interpretation is equally appli cable to the situation in which the owner, rather than the lessee, is making an odometer disclosure for a stolen vehicle. I have enclosed a copy of that interpretation letter fro your information.

P2

As for the other issues raised in your letter, the following interpretation applies. Once the insured-transferor has completed the odometer disclosure and otherwise complied with requirements of state law for title transfer, the insurer-transferee shoul d then follow the procedures required by the appropriate state law to obtain title to the vehicle. If the vehicle is subsequently recovered and the insurer sells it for salvage, the insurer (which in this transaction will be the transferor) must inspect the vehicle and record the mileage that appears on the odometer at that time. If the insurer has no reason to believe that the mileage on the odometer is not the actual mileage on the vehicle, it must certify on the odometer disclosure that the mileage is the actual mileage on the vehicle. However, if the insurer does have reason to believe that the mileage shown on the odometer is not actual (e.g., if it is less than the mileage shown on the odometer disclosure statement provided to the insurer by t he insured when title was transferred to the insurance company), it must so certify on the odometer disclosure statement given to its transferee (the salvage company in your example), and indicate on the statement that there is an odometer discrepancy.

I hope this letter answers your questions about the procedures to be followed by the parties to the transactions you describe. If you have any further questions regarding legal interpretations of the Federal odometer statute and regulations, please cont act Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address or at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Clifford C. Sharpe

TO: Legal Division, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 2/2/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Clifford C. Sharpe (A44; Std. 109)

TEXT: I represent a client who purchased a Turbo Plus Radial GT steel belted radial tire bearing Dept of Transportation Serial No.: ADHY28M166 manufactured by General Tire, Inc. between April 20-26, 1986 at its Mayfield, KY plant. My client purchased the tire as "new" on November 12, 1991. The tire unraveled in March of 1993 after about 14,000 miles of travel causing injury.

Are there any regulations that address the selling as new of a tire that was manufactured 5 years hence?

Are you aware of any studies or information on the affects of age/time on an unused tire?

I will be responsible for all costs associated with this request.