ID: nht95-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq. -- Attorney for Liphardt & Associates

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 556)

TEXT: This petition for inconsequential defect or noncompliance is submitted under 49 CFR Part 558, on behalf of:

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Drive Ronkonkoma, NY

a New York State corporation.

[Illegible Lines]

The non-compliance relates to

49 CFR Part 592.5(f) Notification of change of facility information:

49 CFR Part 592.8(e) Hold period for inspection

49 CFR Part 592.6(f) Poor compliance photography

49 CFR Part 592.6(d) Label may not have correctly identified RI

BACKGROUND:

Liphardt & Associates has been a DOT Registered Importer since 1990, concentrating in the importation of noncomplying vehicles from Europe. However in 1994, due to sudden economic conditions, importation of vehicles from the Canadian market to the US ma rket became viable, and there was significant need for Registered Importers to assist in vehicle importation and certification. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) was also deluged with Canadian vehicle importation situations. Liphardt was ap proached by a Customs House Broker in upstate New York, and was requested to set up an additional facility for the processing (modification, documentation and holding) of [Illegible Line] this facility. It turns out that Liphardt's control over these ve hicles was lost, that the processing was handled by persons other than Liphardt authorized personnel and the inconsequential defect or noncompliance occurred. Liphardt notified OVSC of this situation in February, 1995 and conducted its own investigation . In March, 1995, Liphardt voluntarily suspended all Canadian importations, and met informally with NHTSA staff.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE

NHTSA has reviewed compliance packages submitted on these vehicles, and the vast majority have been deemed sufficient for release of compliance bond.

Canadian vehicles, for the most part, differ from US FMVSS only in the following areas:

1. Odometer may not be labeled KM;

2. Passive restraint systems for passenger cars;

Certification Labels must also be affixed to the vehicles in accordance with 49 [Illegible Word]

Many odometers are labeled KM by the original manufacturer. In any event, the odometer/speedometer is routinely changed to a miles based instrument, since the marketability of kilometer based vehicles is severely impaired. All passenger [Illegible Word ] Certification labels may have misnamed the Registered Importer. While this in unfortunate, the purpose of naming the RI on the certification label is to ensure that the responsible RI is known for subsequent defect/recalls. OVSC maintains a very accur ate computer system in which the VIN and the responsible RI are listed. Therefore, if a vehicle with the wrong name listed on the RI section of the certification label was involved in a situation where the actual RI needed to be involved, NHTSA could ea sily provide the correct RI name.

Clearly these defects and non-compliance are not significant and are inconsequential to vehicle safety. Liphardt has tried to work within the regulatory framework to advise OVSC of the situations and seeks this petition and exemption process to finalize this matter.

Liphardt has corrected the cause of the noncompliance and will continue to abide by the duties of a registered importer as defined in 49 CFR 592.

Thank you.

ID: nht95-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Zawlocki

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/25/95 LETTER FROM KENNETH ZAWLOCKI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC-10949)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Zawlocki:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your questions are addressed below.

You first ask whether the Penetration Test (S7.2) tests the outer shell of the helmet, the Impact, Attenuation Test (S7.1) tests inner protection materials, and the Retention System Test (S7.3) tests straps that hold the helmet on the head. Each of thes e tests measures the performance of a motorcycle helmet as a total system, i.e., the tests are conducted on a motorcycle helmet as a whole, rather than on helmet components. Therefore, the tests are not limited to measuring the performance of the compon ents you cite. By way of example, while the shell of the helmet may play a critical role in a helmet's resistance to penetration, the composition and thickness of the liner may also be important. Similarly, while certain components are more important th an others in meeting certain criteria, overall design and construction of the helmet will determine whether it meets the impact attenuation and retention requirements.

You next ask whether Standard No. 218 specifies the types or amounts of material to be used in manufacturing helmets. Standard No. 218 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. A manufacturer may use any types or amounts of materials t hat enable the manufacturer to fully comply with the standard.

While Standard No. 218 does not specify that certain materials must be used in manufacturing a helmet, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) experience in over 20 years of helmet testing indicates that helmets meeting Standard No. 218 have common characteristics. The first of these is a dense foam liner that is approximately one inch thick. Helmets with thinner liners or liners composed of a soft compressible foam are not likely to meet the impact attenuation or penetration requ irements of the Standard. The weight of the helmet, while not governed by any section of Standard No. 218, is also a good indicator of how it will perform in testing. Although it may be technically possible to build a lightweight helmet that satisfies the performance requirements of Standard No. 218, NHTSA is not aware of any motorcycle helmet weighing less than three pounds that has done so.

Finally, you ask whether Standard No. 218 precludes decorating a helmet with any material such as leather or cloth, or with items such as wigs, flowers, decals or hats.

The various helmet decorations you describe could affect a motorcycle helmet's compliance with a variety of Standard No. 218's performance requirements. One example is S5.5, Projections. The inside of the shell must be free of protruding rivets or other projections. The presence of any projections within the helmet indicates that it is not a complying helmet. Projecting snaps or other objects are permitted on the outside of the helmet only if they are required for essential accessories such as visors or face shields. Any projection on the outside of a helmet must not protrude more than five millimeters.

I note that under 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" a new motorcycle helmet that does not comply with Standa rd No. 218. Also, dealers and repair businesses may not modify new or used motorcycle helmets in a manner that results in the helmet no longer complying with the standard. Any of these parties must therefore ensure that any contemplated decorations wou ld not affect a helmet's compliance with Standard No. 218.

Federal law does not address modifications made by a motorcycle helmet owner to his or her own helmet. However, it is NHTSA's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. This is because even relatively simple modification s can reduce the safety protection provided by the helmet. S5.6.1(f)(3) of Standard No. 218 requires the following instruction to be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications . . ." I also note that State laws may address modifications made by motorcycle helmet owners to their own helmets.

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

ID: nht95-4.10

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' d ynamic 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 hei ght. 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 pos ition. 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 t han 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 forwardm ost 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 longit udinal 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 mo ving 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: nht95-4.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

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

TO: Mr. William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/16/95 letter from William Shapiro to John Womack (occ 11298)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1995, to John Womack, requesting that we confirm your interpretation of certain provisions in the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581. As described in your letter, Volvo is contemplating attaching a device to the bumper face bar of its vehicles that will be used for purposes other than mitigating the effects of a low speed collision. In a telephone conversation on November 22, 1995, Steven Kraitz of your Office informed Coleman Sachs of my staff that the device will be some form of radar equipment, and that Volvo has yet to decide whether it will be offered as optional or as standard equipment on its vehicles.

You are of the opinion that even though this device could be damaged or destroyed in a low speed collision, the vehicles on which it is installed will still be in compliance with the Bumper Standard because it is not one of the components or systems that are specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(1) through (6) as having to remain operational after Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. You further characterize this device as being "part of the bumper face bar" for the purposes of 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8). That section provides:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . . except where such damag e occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

We disagree with your opinion that the radar device that Volvo is considering for its vehicles is either an integral part of the bumper face bar, or a component that is needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Consequently, the device w ould not fall within the exception in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8) quoted above.

Conditions for Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equip ment." Therefore, if the radar device is to be offered as optional equipment, it must be removed from the test vehicle before Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. In this circumstance, the vehicle's compliance with the Bumper Standard would not be affected if the device were unable to withstand low speed collisions. If the device is to be offered as standard equipment, however, it must remain on the vehicle while Bumper Standard compliance tests are performed, and must withstand those test s free of damage to meet the protective criteria specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8).

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-4.11

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, a nd 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 foll owing 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 compl ying 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 veh icle 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 sa fety 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: nht95-4.12

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