ID: nht95-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: Paul Danner -- General Claim Counsel, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

TO: John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Compliance with Federal Odometer Statement Requirements

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/89 LETTER FROM Kathleen DeMeter to Madeline Flanagan; Also attached to letter dated 11/28/95 from Samuel Dubbin to Paul Danner (Part 580)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

On behalf of State Farm, I am seeking an interpretation of federal odometer requirements in the situation where State Farm is settling a total theft claim with a policyholder.

State Farm handles thousands of vehicle theft claims each year. Many times, the car is not recovered at the time we settle these claims. Federal odometer disclosure laws and the regulations enacted by authority of those laws, do not provide a clear dir ection as to how the odometer disclosure statement should be completed when a vehicle is unavailable to the transferor at the time they pass title to State Farm.

The motor vehicle departments of various states have provided different interpretations. On August 30, I spoke with Mr. Dick Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff in the Department of Transportation. Mr. Morse was candid and practical in suggesting how an insurer should comply in this circumstance. He suggested the insured-transferor should enter a figure on the disclosure form which certifies mileage to the best of their knowledge, even though it is understood that figure will be a "best guess est imate". If the insured-transferor is aware of circumstances which would require additional discrepancy statements to be marked, that should also cocur.

Mr. Morse further indicated an insurer-transferee should then process title documents in accordance with appropriate state law. Some states require a title to be placed in the name of the insurer - transferee as soon as practical. Other states do not al low transfer of title unless the vehicle is eventually recovered.

Assuming title is immediately or eventually recorded in the insurer-transferor's name, and the vehicle is subsequently recovered, the next issue is how mileage then appearing on the odometer statement should be recorded when the vehicle is sold as "salva ge". Mr. Morse indicated the insurer should inspect the vehicle and record the actual mileage as it appears. If the odometer reading appears to be accurate, no discrepancy needs to marked off. If the reading is less than what the "best guess estimate" had been, then a discrepancy would need to be recorded. If any

P2 other circumstance caused the insurer to question whether the mileage was accurate, then the appropriate discrepancy should be marked off.

It is the intent of State Farm to comply with odometer disclosure requirements in every transaction we handle. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from your office indicating whether Mr. Morse's suggested approach to completion of odo meter disclosure forms complies with the Department's legal interpretation of statutes and regulations in this area.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1995

FROM: Dorothy Jean Arnold -- M.D.

TO: Safety Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D. (A43; Std. 208)

TEXT: [Illegible Words] I contact you about having the airbags in my car disconnected or [Illegible Words] event I trade cars in the future, I am requesting that this same [Illegible Words] apply to any new vehicle.

[Illegible Words] physician, with an excellent driving record, who is physically impaired [Illegible Words] of osteomyelitis that occurred at eighteen months of age. Some [Illegible Words] of both hips and spine are present. I cannot use a seatbelt wit h comfort [Illegible Words] was granted dispensation from such usage several years ago.

[Illegible Words] please advise me regarding the legal procedure I must implement in order to remove [Illegible Words] disconnect the airbags. Your prompt response to this letter will be deeply appreciated.

ID: nht95-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 5, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Angela Mickalide -- Program Director, National SAFE KIDS Campaign

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/21/95 LETTER FROM HEATHER PAUL TO PATRICIA BRESLIN

TEXT: Dear Dr. Mickalide:

Thank you for your letter asking about the child restraint registration form required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask whether a child restraint manufacturer could make certain modifications to the regist ration form to help SAFE KIDS obtain sociodemographic and other information about the families to whom SAFE KIDS will be distributing child seats. As explained below, Standard 213 does not permit the modifications, but does permit an alternative approac h.

You explain in your letter that SAFE KIDS and its partners will be providing approximately 38,000 child seats to needy families through distribution sites. You would like to collect information about the recipient families' sociodemographic profile and o ther factors, by having the restraint manufacturer add questions to the child seat registration form. Distribution site coordinators would mail the completed forms to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for SAFE KIDS' research purposes.

The registration form you ask about is part of an owner registration program that NHTSA established to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer recall campaigns. The form, required by S 5.8 of Standard 213, is standardized in appearance, and may not co ntain other material such as questions concerning the sociodemographic characteristics of the child restraint owners. A particular problem with such questions is that their presence on the registration form might cause some consumers to resist providing the information, or to conclude that the form was for warranty purposes rather than for safety recalls. As a result, they might not return the card.

While we understand that you would like to modify the registration form only for the purposes of your distribution program, unfortunately we lack the authority to grant a special exemption for your situation.

However, Standard 213 does permit an alternative that you suggested. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you said that you are considering asking the manufacturer to place the questions on a separate form and to attach that form to the child seat. That approach is fine. The registration form has to be attached to the child seat to ensure that owners will notice the form. While we want manufacturers to limit what additional materials they attach to child seats (to ensure that attachments do not distract from the form), your supplemental form should not cause a problem since your coordinators will be involved with registering the owners. Thus, there is no risk that the registration form will go unnoticed and uncompleted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Best wishes for success in your distribution program.

ID: nht95-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisnhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LARRY W. STRAWHORN (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, Antilock Malfunction Indicator, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which requires an antilock malfunction indicator lamp to be mounted on trailers du ring an eight year transition period. This section reads (second sentence emphasized):

"S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once th e malfunction is present and power is provided to the system."

Since this requirement does not specify a specific "activation pattern", we interpret that the agency expects the industry itself to standardize on an activation pattern. This is consistent with the agency's position in Section 5.1.6.3, Antilock Power C ircuit for Towed Vehicles, where NHTSA is relying on the industry to determine the most effective way to provide separate power to trailer antilock systems.

Section 5.1.6.2, Antilock Malfunction Circuit and Signal, which requires in-cab mounted malfunction lamps for towing and towed vehicle(s) antilock systems does not specify an actuation pattern for malfunction lamps on powered vehicles either. However, t he section in the rule preamble which discusses the in-cab malfunction lamp on powered vehicles, Activation Protocol for Malfunction Indicators (page 13246 Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 47), makes it clear that NHTSA wants the activation pattern for truc k/tractor in-cab lamps to be such that "upon a failure, the lamp would activate and provide a continuous yellow signal" and would "have a continuously burning lamp in response to a malfunction." This preamble section does not discuss trailer mounted malf unction lamps.

The special SAE ABS task force, which was established last April to develop, or modify, standards and recommended practices in areas of vehicle design and performance affected by the new antilock requirements of FMVSS 121, has developed a recommendation for trailer mounted malfunction lamps which most effectively meets the needs for the lamp.

Among the task force's recommendations is one that the lamp activation pattern should be such that the lamp bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not getting electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out.

Adoption of this trailer malfunction lamp activation pattern for trailers during the eight year transition period provides significant safety advantages including:

(1) The lamp activation pattern becomes a fail safe pattern, i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is burnt out. A lamp system which activates by turning the lamp ON w hen there is a malfunction will not warn of antilock failures under these conditions.

(2) The recommended activation pattern fits in with pre-trip walk-around and other trailer inspections. In walk-around inspections, where drivers turn ON all the lamps including the stop lamps (brakes applied through use of the trailer hand valve, trail er air supply valve, stick prop, etc.) and then walk around the vehicle to detect if any lamps (this would include the antilock lamp) are not burning. This inspection is simpler and more reliable if the driver doesn't have to go through a lamp check pro cedure first. The same is also true when mechanics and officials inspect the trailer.

We respectively request that you advise us as soon as possible Whether our interpretation of Section 5.2.3.3, i.e., does not require a specific lamp activation pattern, is correct. New tractors must start complying with the new antilock system requiremen ts in 18 months. In order for tractor manufacturers to efficiently design their vehicles to accommodate trailer antilock system malfunction signals, they need to know the standard protocol for these signals soon. In order for antilock manufacturers to standardize the protocol, they need to know if our interpretation is correct.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

ID: nht95-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisenhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/17/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Larry W. Strawhorn (A43; Std. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the phrase "separate electrical circuit" in Section 5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which states:

"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 with one or more separate electrical circuits, specific ally provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable."

Our interpretation is that the phrase "separate electrical circuit" allows the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. It is also our interpretation that the ABS malfunction signal ca n be multiplexed on the power circuit or any other circuit of the SAE J560 connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the performance required by the last sentence of Section 5.1.6....3 is achieved, i.e., the c ircuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable.

The bases for our interpretation are:

We interpret separate to mean full-time power is supplied to the ABS. The preamble appears to use terms continuous, dedicated, full-time and separate interchangeably but fails to define these terms. In contrast, we interpret shared to mean that the pow er is supplied only when switched ON by some means, e.g., turn signal switch, light switch, brake pedal, etc. The preamble (FR60-47, p13250) states that "The agency further notes that requiring that trailer ABSs receive "full-time power will not prohibi t multiplexing." Therefore, we interpret that the ABS malfunction signal could be multiplexed on the power circuit. We further interpret that other trailer devices could also be powered through this circuit if they were automatically switched OFF if the trailer is equipped with an ABS, except when the vehicle is stationary. This would require that the trailer be capable of signalling the tractor that it has an ABS. The tractor would

have to be capable of receiving that signal and automatically deactivating the power to other trailer-mounted devices that now recieve power through the auxiliary pin. This solution would protect these devices from being continually powered if the trail er was equipped with an ABS, yet would still allow for the provision of power when the combination was not moving. The majority of today's applications for powering trailer equipment through the auxiliary pin, only require power when the vehicle is stat ionary.

Our interpretation of the word circuit as used in FMVSS 121 is that it refers to a single conductor between the towing and towed vehicle(s). This interpretation is consistent with preamble statements and SAE's commone use of the term. For examples, Not ice 3 of Docket 88-18 (FR57-134, p30911) states, "The stop lamp circuit is powered through one of the pins on a seven-pin connector" and in SAE Standard J560, Seven Conductor Electrical Connector for Truck-Trailer Jumper Cable, in Sectino 6.4 defines the function and color code each of the seven pins, each of which is defined as a circuit. With the understanding that a circuit refers to one conductor between towing and towed vehicle, one can comply with Section 5.1.6.3 without having to provide a separ ate ground return fro the circuit to provide full-time power to towed vehicle ABS.

Utilizing a single ground on vehicles is considered to be good engineering practice since multiple grounds can cause EMI problems and ground loops which have in the past resulted on severe damage to vehicle electrical systems and even caused numerous fir es. Without the need to provide a separate ground circuit, vehicle/antilock suppliers have the flexibility needed to provide the desired level of trailer antilock power in the most efficient method.

Because of the need to finalize design decisions, especially for truck-tractor manufacturers who must meet the requirements of the final rule on March 1, 1997, we would appreciate an early answer to this request.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Knappo

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO: 7/01/95 (EST.) LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NAPPO TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; 6/8/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SHAWN SHIEH; 5/10/91 AND 3/21/91 LETTERS FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO CHRIS LAWRENCE; 8/17/89 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; 7/8/85 LETTER FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO DON BENFIELD (STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knappo:

This is in response to your letter regarding a product that you wish to offer for sale in the near future. You have asked for information on how this product might be affected by local and national laws.

According to your letter, "Auto Ad" is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexible screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. The screen is illuminated with LEDs, controlled by a key pad mounted close to the driver. The unit will run off power from the car battery through the cigarette lighter, or "hardwired in." The diagram you enclosed shows "Auto Ad" mounted in the rear side window of a car and a van.

While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am enclosing copies of several letters we have issued in recent years concerning the applicability of Federal law to products which appear to be similar to yours (addressed to Mr. Shawn Shieh, dated June 8, 1993; Mr. Chris Lawrence, dated May 10 and March 21, 1991, Mr. Alan Eldahr, dated August 17, 1989, and Mr. Don Benfield, dated July 8, 1985).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosures

ID: nht95-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles de Saint Martin -- Project Manager, The Fairchild Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/10/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES DE SAINT MARTIN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. de Saint Martin:

This replies to your letter of August 10, 1995, with reference to "Securiflash". Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on August 21 for a clarification.

We understand that, in the event of a deceleration of 0.8 g, such as caused by emergency braking, "Securiflash" automatically activates a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps; after 5 seconds, the lamps go off.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter that we sent Saline Electronics on April 24, 1995, which provides our views that a decleration system that operates through the hazard warning system is impermissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

However, we are interested in your remark that the product "was developed after different European studies showed that 60 percent of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier." We are unaware of such studies, and would like to receive copies of them so that the agency may enhance its knowledge of the conditions under which rear end collisions occur.

If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Colleen Grant

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/17/95 LETTER FROM COLLEEN GRANT TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Ms. Grant:

This responds to your letter asking whether your 1974 Chevrolet Blazer is "street-legal." You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model "because th ere is no place to safely mount it."

We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the veh icles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles.

Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Fred H. Pritzker -- Pritzker and Meyer

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/3/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Fred H. Pritzker (A44; Std. 208; VSA 5108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I represent a young man who sustained serious brain damage in a motor vehicle collision on July 9, 1994.

At the time of the collision, my client was a rear, driver-side passenger in a 1993 GEO Tracker. The driver of that vehicle apparently fell asleep at which time the vehicle left the roadway, rolled over several times during which time my client and the other vehicle occupants were ejected.

Approximately one month before the collision, the teenage son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. The installer suggested that optimal ou tput could be obtained if the rear vehicle's seat bench was removed and replaced by a large speaker box. The teenager whose father owned the vehicle agreed and the rear seat was removed and the entire rear portion of the vehicle was fitted with a large speaker enclosure. In doing so, the "female" portion of the seat belt buckle was removed, therefore rendering inoperative the safety restraint system on the vehicle.

The installer who removed the seat and designed the speaker box was not a certified installer and had been on the job for a relatively short period of time. He had never removed automobile safety equipment in previous installations and made no attempt t o find out if this was an acceptable practice.

A drawing of the side profile of the speaker enclosure box accompanies this letter. As you can see, there is a ledge on the speaker enclosure not unlike a bench-type seat. Aside from that ledge, there is no other room in the rear portion of the vehicle (with the speaker box in it) to allow passengers to sit. The installer acknowledges that the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on. It was also carpeted. The installer also acknowledges that he anticipated that someone might sit on the speaker box and therefore, felt the need to warn the teenage operator not to let anyone do so. He acknowledges, however, that at the time the vehicle operator picked up the vehicle after the installation, he asked the installer if it were possible to af fix the female seat buckle into the speaker box (which the installer refused to do).

It was on this speaker box that my client was sitting at the time of the accident.

I have carefully reviewed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The definitions of a dealer, distributor and manufacturer at section 30102 would seem to apply to the electronics company whose employee removed the seat and rendered inoperativ e the safety restraint system, designed and manufactured the speaker enclosure box and installed it into the GEO Tracker. According to the definition, the electronics company is a "dealer" because it sells and distributes motor vehicle equipment. For t hat same reason, it is a "distributor" and "manufacturer." Obviously, the installed items are "motor vehicle equipment" because they were sold for "replacement or improvement of a system, part or component or as an accessory or an addition to a motor veh icle." It would also appear that the electronics company does repair work and, in fact, removed the prior speaker boxes, cannibalized some of the parts from that and then placed those parts in the new enclosure box installed shortly before the collision. Thus, it would appear that the electronics company meets the definition of a motor vehicle repair business as defined at section 30122.

Clearly, the electronics company violated the statutory prohibition at section 30122(b). It knowingly made inoperative the rear seat and rear safety restraint system installed in the GEO Tracker by the manufacturer. The speaker box was then placed in a "designated seating position" and obviously, failed to comply with the regulations establishing standards for automobile seats and safety restraint systems.

Thus, it would appear that there are two violations of the Act: the removal of the original safety devices and then replacing them with a piece of equipment that was likely to be used as a seat and obviously failed to comply with the regulations for the seat and the safety restraint system.

I would appreciate it if you would call me to discuss the facts of this case and my interpretation of the law applicable to those facts. I am specifically not requesting a written opinion from your agency. At this time, I am merely asking to speak with you about it.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Drawing and photo omitted.

ID: nht95-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bryan G. Nelson -- Director, Health & Transportation Services, Parents in Community Action Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN G. NELSON TO WALT MYERS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter asking for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends, but does not require, school buses to be yellow.

Your understanding is correct. NHTSA's recommendation that school buses be painted yellow is found in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed). Guideline 17 consists of recommendations for State pupil transport ation safety programs. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only if it has been adopted by your State or local officials.

We wish to note, however, that there are safety reasons behind Guideline 17's recommendation for the uniform school bus color. Motorists associate the yellow color with school buses, and quickly recognize that a yellow bus is transporting school childre n. The yellow color is a signal to motorists to be especially alert around the vehicles, particularly when the buses are loading and unloading children. For these reasons, NHTSA believes all school buses should be yellow.

We also want to highlight for your information that Guideline 17 is different from NHTSA's school bus safety standards, which by Federal law apply to all new school buses, regardless of State action. The school bus safety standards require new school bu ses to have safety systems such as energy-absorbing seats, school bus lamps, stop arms, and improved emergency exits and rearview mirrors. These requirements apply to all new school buses, no matter what the States have done to adopt them. The safety re cord of school buses has improved in the years since buses began to meet the school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.