ID: nht95-6.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Meurer -- President, Green Motorworks

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM WILLIAM MEURER TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Meurer:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995, responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process.

You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c).

49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency "decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events." Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j).

Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain "a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation." The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported.

The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project.

Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point; when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs.

Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must "at all times retain title to and possession of" vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and "shall not lease" them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project.

I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes "on terms [NHTSA] decides are necessary." Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers.

The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest.

If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-6.31

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 the 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 requirement.

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 vehicle 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 dealer, 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 Federal 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 by 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: nht95-6.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patrick M. Raher, Esq. -- Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Columbia Square

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/19/95 LETTER FROM PATRICK M. RAHER TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10904)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Raher:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the seat position specifications of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 214, Side Impact Protection. These specifications, which are part of the test conditions for the standards' dynamic crash tests, indicate how a vehicle's seats are positioned in those tests. You asked how the specifications apply in the case of power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat height. As discussed below, the seats would be positioned midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions (with the forwardmost and rearmost positions being determined irrespective of seat height), and at the lowest possible height at that midway position. This appears to correspond to Option 1 in your letter.

In your letter, you described a power seat design whose seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to the mechanism utilized in the power seat operation. In particular, the seat can move further forward in its highest position than in its lowest position, and further rearward in its lowest position than in its highest position. You also indicated that a lowering of the seat from a higher position has the effect of moving the seat backward.

The seat position specifications of Standards No. 208 (S8.1.2) and No. 214 (S6.3) read as follows:

Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used.

This provision sets forth two conditions concerning how an adjustable seat is positioned in a crash test. The first condition, for the longitudinal position of the seat, is for the seat to be in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions. The terms "forwardmost" and "rearmost" are not qualified by height, so the absolute forwardmost and rearmost positions would be used, irrespective of seat height at those positions.

The second condition, for the vertical position of a seat which is separately adjustable in a vertical direction, is for the seat to be in the lowest position. We interpret this to refer to the lowest vertical position that can be attained at the longitudinal position described above. Therefore, in positioning a seat for a crash test, we would not change the longitudinal position of the seat merely because the mechanism was designed so that lowering the seat from a higher position had the effect of moving the seat backward. Instead, we would find the lowest vertical position that could be attained at the specified longitudinal position.

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

ID: nht95-6.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Vans

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM YVONNE ANDERSON TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 11047)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1995, concerning a van which your company is modifying. The van is owned by a local school system. The school system has asked your company to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns, and install a wheelchair lift. The vehicle was certified as a "bus," but your modification would reduce the seating capacity so that the vehicle would become a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). You asked whether this vehicle must be certified following the modifications. The answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards before it can be sold or imported.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-6.34

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 direction 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 estimate". 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 allow 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 "salvage". 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 odometer disclosure forms complies with the Department's legal interpretation of statutes and regulations in this area.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-6.35

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 with 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: nht95-6.36

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 registration 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 approach.

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 other 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 contain 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: nht95-6.37

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 during 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 the 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 Circuit 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, the 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 truck/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 malfunction 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 when 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, trailer 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 procedure 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 requirements 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: nht95-6.38

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, 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 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 can 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 circuit 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 power 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 prohibit 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 trailer 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 stationary.

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, Notice 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 separate 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 fires. 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: nht95-6.39

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