ID: nht95-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karen Coffey, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM KAREN COFFEY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11154)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in th e event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that re quirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the d ealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Fe deral motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected b y State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

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

ID: nht95-4.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 1, 1995

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

TO: Edward Mansell -- Chief Engineer, Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/10/95 LETTER FROM Edward Mansell to Philip R. Recht (OCC 11305)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mansell:

This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1995, to Philip R.Recht, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You seek an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to some Food Grade Tank Traile rs (FGTTs).

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires conspicuity sheeting to be placed "across the full width of the trailer" and "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." You indicate that for many trailers the rear bumper is the closest practicable location (approximately 500 mm), but that, on some FGTTs, the load/unload ports are directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. The hot water to which the bumper is exposed degrades the conspicuity sheeting. "Since installation of sheeting subject to frequent hot water run off is not sheeting to be "applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150 mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area." You also state that "otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area."

We believe that this interpretation meets the intent of the standard. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a), the mounting height of the conspicuity material is based upon practicability, but the application "across the full width of the trailer" is absolute. W e interpret "across the full width" to mean that the sheeting must cover the entire width of the vehicle, though not necessarily on the same plane or continuously. Thus, mounting above the load/unload area would be acceptable as a practicable location. Generally, the agency defers to a manufacturer's determination of practicability and will not question it if it is not clearly erroneous. It is not the intent of the standard that manufacturers "redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water."

You also believe that, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, "conspicuity sheeting should be

P2

mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper." Although you did not enclose a drawing of this configuration, it appears acceptable. We assume that, when viewed from the rear, the sheeting has the appearance of extending across the full width of the vehicle, even if the section on the cabinet doors is not on the same plane as that on the bumpers. This, too, is acceptable as a manufacturer's determination of practicability.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 4, 1995

FROM: K.J. Sato -- President & CEO, Tekno - Info Corporation

TO: Kenneth O. Hardie -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Request of Clarification for FMVSS No. 108 Requirements, S. 5.1.2

ATTACHMT: 2/1/96 letter from Samvel J. Dubbin to K.J. Sato (A44; Std. 108)

TEXT: This is to request you to clarify the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and associated equipment, paragraph S5.1.2.

Federal Register, September 5, 1995 Vol. 60, No. 171, page 46064 - 46067, announced the final rule to amend S5.1.2, effective from March 1, 1996. We would like to have your comments to clarify the requirement of S5.1.2(b).

Question on S5.1.2(b):

1) When plastics materials tested per SAE J576 JUL 91, and passed every criteria including the haze (and loss of surface luster) less than 30% (e.g. 10%) but failed to one of the appearance requirements (e.g. delamination) per J576 JUL 91, paragraph 4.2. 4 which says". . . shall not show physical changes affecting performance such as color bleeding, delamination, crazing, or cracking.", we need clarification whether or not the plastics materials are considered in compliance with S5.1.2(b) and can be used for lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors). (We understand from S5.1.2(c) that the materials mentioned above cannot be used for reflex reflectors or lenses used in front of reflex reflectors since the materials failed to comply with the haze that exceeded 7%, and failed to comply with one of the the appearance requirements mentioned in S5.1.2(c)(("delamination")). But our question is asking if the materials can be used for lenses other than reflex reflectors or lenses used in front of, or incorporating, reflex reflectors). The reason for this question is that S5.1.2(b) does not mention those appearance requirements specifically but only mentions J576 JUL 91, although S5.1.2(c) specifically mentions those appearance requirements.

2) Since the final rule's S5.1.2(b) basically the same as the current S5.1.2(b), are we correct in assuming that your clarification of the above question 1) also applies to the current S5.1.2(b)?

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht95-4.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey S. Bakst -- Attorney at Law

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS Standard 124 "Accelerator Control Systems"/Mitsubishi Motorist Corporation Carburetor

ATTACHMT: 12/28/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Jeffrey S. Bakst (A44; Redbook 4; Std. 124; VSA 30118)

TEXT: First, I want to inform you we are dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988. The accident involved occurred in December, 1990. I would like to acquire the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrat ion's opinion on the following questions:

1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem?

If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser?

2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accele rator control in use, does the carburetor fall to comply with FMVSS 124?

I can represent to you that we took a brand new carburetor and proved that if the secondary throttle plate were to get stuck shut for whatever reason, the primary throttle linkage would bind on the secondary throttle linkage, causing the primary throt tle plate to get stuck in a wide open throttle position, which results in engine overspeed. In essence, the two sources of energy on this carburetor are not sufficient to return the throttle to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control. Mitsubishi's own test on a brand new carburetor proved that if there was a malfunction in the secondary throttle plate, that the two (2) sources of energy were insufficient to return the throttle to idle position.

As I explained, time is truly of the essence. Mr. Bode requested his letter to attach to his Appellate Brief. I now have to respond to his brief, and I must have your report by the end of this year, if I am going to be able to use it in the appeal.

If you need additional information, please let me know.

ID: nht95-4.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1995

FROM: Alex Tartakovsky -- Sales, Marketing Dept., Unidex Group, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Any safety regulations regarding snow chains for motor vehicles.

ATTACHMT: 1/29/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Alex Tartakovsky (A44; VSA 102)

TEXT: I would like to request from you in writing any information regarding safety standards and/or laws covering snow chain use for roads and/or for motor vehicles. If there are no such standards please advise me so in writing. Please fax me back the above i nformation.

Thank you!

If you have any questions, or if I may assist you in any way please do not hesitate to call me at 708-299-0300.

Best Regards,

ID: nht95-4.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

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

TO: Mr.Peter F. Marthy -- New York State Automobile Dealers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/19/95 letter from John Womack to David Seagren

TEXT: This is in response to your letter requesting the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to explain the proper procedure to be followed in completing an odometer disclosure for a vehicle whose odometer had been previo usly been replaced and which has a sticker affixed to the inside left door jamb stating the actual mileage at the time the odometer was replaced. Specifically, you ask whether the transferee may enter on the disclosure statement a figure that is the tota l of the mileage on the new odometer and the mileage shown on the door sticker, and, if so whether the transferor can then certify that figure is the actual mileage the vehicle has traveled.

The reason that it is permissible to certify on the odometer disclosure that the total of the figure on the door sticker and the figure on the current odometer reading represents the actual mileage is that the combination of the sticker and the second od ometer contains sufficient information from which the transferor can calculate with precision the total actual mileage on the vehicle. Under 49 U.S.C. @ 32704(a)(2), the door sticker must show the mileage at the time the odometer was replaced; and the t ransferor can ascertain the reading on the current odometer by visual examination. Of course, if the transferor has knowledge that either figure does not represent actual mileage, he or she may not certify that a total of the two figures is the actual m ileage.

We consider this situation to be comparable to that in which a transferor converts an odometer registering kilometers to an odometer that registers miles, because in both situations, the transferor is able to arrive at the correct number of miles the veh icle has actually traveled simply by applying a mathematical formula to the numbers showing on the odometer. In a recent interpretation letter, the agency stated that a dealer which had converted a vehicle's odometer from kilometers to miles, and knew t he kilometer reading before the conversion, could certify that the odometer reading in miles represented "actual mileage" because the dealer knew the number of kilometers before the change and could be accurately calculate the number of miles by multiply ing that figure by 0.62. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information.

In answer to the question of whether or not the transferor should have the odometer replaced before the transfer with an odometer set to reflect the total number of miles on the vehicle, NHTSA believes that in the circumstances you describe, the transfer or should replace the odometer with one that reflects the total miles the vehicle has travelled. Replacing the odometer with one that shows all the miles the vehicle has traveled on both odometers has the advantage of reducing the possibility that the t ransferee in this or subsequent transactions would be misled by the number of miles showing on the odometer, or confused by the difference between that figure and the total shown on the title. This approach does require removal of the door sticker to av oid further confusing a subsequent purchaser. However, it is not illegal to remove such a sticker when there is no intent to defraud. 49 U.S.C. @ 32704(b).

The alternative, which the agency believes is not desirable, would be to leave the present odometer in the car set at its present reding, and leave the sticker on the door jamb. The problem with this option is that the sticker does not provide as durabl e a record of mileage as the odometer. A sticker can fall off, fade or be removed, creating the potential for confusion when the odometer reading is compared with the information on the title. The same confusion is possible even if the sticker is prese nt, because it might easily be overlooked.

I hope the information in this letter is helpful. If you have further questions concerning interpretation of the Federal odometer law and regulations, you may contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, either at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-5263. Other questions concerning the odometer fraud or the Federal odometer disclosure program may be directed to Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of NHTSA's Odometer Fraud Staff, at (202) 366-4761.

(Letter from Peter Marthy to NHTSA is not available.)

ID: nht95-4.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

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

TO: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/29/95 letter from Edward J. Googins to John Womack (occ 11258)

TEXT: This responds to your question whether passenger seat belts must be installed on a 1982 school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 20,200 pounds. The answer is no, NHTSA's regulations do not call for the belt systems.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the subject of your letter, a 1982 International - Model # S1700 bus with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds, was manufactured as a school bus.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, establishes occupant protection requirements for school bus passenger seating and restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 did not in 1982, and does not now, specify that newly manufactured school buses with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds have passenger seat belt assemblies. Thus, under Standard No. 222, your 1982 school bus need not have seat belt assemblies for passengers.

However, please note that the States are free to require seat belts in large school buses used to transport students. Enclosed is a February 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Michael A. Martin of the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, addressing the relationship betw een Federal school bus safety standards and state law. Note that on page two, NHTSA explains that a State may require seat belt installation for school buses procured by the State, as long as Federal compartmentalization requirements are not compromised .

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

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

TO: Alison Vredenburgh -- Vice President Research and Development, Error Analysis, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/18/95 letter from Alison Vredenburgh to Kenneth Hardie

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, with respect to the Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (the "System") described in your letter. You understand "that this system may only be used during dayl ight hours and may not affect the headlight", and you ask if there are any other regulations of which you should be aware.

We understand that the System is still under development, and that the intent is to offer it both as original and aftermarket equipment. Two Systems will be tested, at a flash rate of 60 to 80 per minute, one at an intensity of 35,000 candlepower, and t he other at 50,000 candlepower. One System will have three bulbs, and another, four. Each System will be activated when the headlamp is on. We note that motorcycle headlamps are wired to be activated when the ignition is on because many States require that headlamps be operating at all times.

As you know, each motorcycle must be manufactured and certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 prescribes no requiremen ts for supplemental equipment such as the System. However, additional lighting equipment may not be installed by the manufacturer or dealer before sale if the supplemental equipment impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3).

You are therefore correct when you say that the System "may not affect the headlamp." One way in which the System could impair the effectiveness of the headlamp is if it continued to operate at a time when the headlamp is required to provide sufficient i llumination of the roadway (as you recognize in your comment that "the system may only be used during daylight hours"). You have not described the method by which the System will be deactivated. We believe that this should not be a manual operation, le ft to the discretion of the motorcycle operator. In establishing the specifications that allow optional installation of modulating headlamp systems for improving the conspicuity of motorcycles, this agency requires that they be equipped with a sensor th at will deactivate the modulation when a certain low ambient light level is reached. Also, the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. I enclose a copy of paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 108 which discusses these lig ht levels.

The System must also not impair the effectiveness of the motorcycle's front turn signals. That is to say, it must not mask the signal or detract from its detectability by oncoming drivers. Whether this might occur will depend upon the color and brightn ess of the System and its proximity to the turn signal lamp.

If a motorcycle manufacturer is satisfied that the installation of the System on its product would be permissible under S5.1.3, then it may certify that the motorcycle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not ques tion a determination of non-impairment unless it appears to be clearly erroneous.

Satisfaction of Federal new vehicle requirements means that the System is acceptable for sale in the aftermarket under Federal regulations. However, supplementary lighting equipment, whether original or aftermarket, that is not specifically covered by S tandard No. 108 remains subject to regulation by the States. We note that many States have vehicle equipment and use regulations regarding auxiliary amber flashing lamps, Many States also prohibit blue as a color for lamps, reserving it for police, fire , and emergency vehicles. We are unable to advise you on the specifics of State laws, and urge you to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

ID: nht95-4.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

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

TO: Ken Van Sciver -- Sciver Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Ken Van Sciver to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 11293)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing moto r vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompli ance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), @ 30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor veh icles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle r epair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30116 - 30121 which set fort h the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchaser s of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

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

ID: nht95-4.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

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

TO: Patrick Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/01/95 letter (est) from Patrick Holmes to whom it may concern (occ 11357)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is estab lished whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying informatio n to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Enclosures omitted.