Interpretation ID: 18897-1a.wkm
Phillip A. Proger, Esq.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
Metropolitan Square
1450 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-2088
Dear Mr. Proger:
Reference is made to your meeting with Messrs. Daniel, Myers, and Woods of this agency on October 1, 1998, and to your letter of October 8, 1998(1). You asked us to confirm your interpretation of the indicator lamp requirements of subparagraph S5.3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems, as amended by final rule of March 10, 1995, (60 FR 13216).
You stated that you believe the requirements do not preclude LVBS [Lucas Varity Light Vehicle Braking Systems] and its customers from providing for indicator lamp illumination for purposes not expressly stated in subparagraph S5.3.1. You also stated that you believe that should LVBS or its customers decide to provide for lamp illumination for purposes not expressly required in Standard No. 105, as amended, the lamp activation protocol set forth therein will not apply to these additional lamp illumination strategies.
We begin by noting that we cannot provide so broad an interpretation as you suggest. Moreover, your letter does not provide sufficient detail as to what LVBS may have in mind for us to provide a specific interpretation. It is our general understanding, however, that LVBS is primarily interested in providing for illumination of the separate antilock brake system (ABS) malfunction indicator lamp in circumstances not directly addressed by S5.3.1. The issues raised by that factual situation are addressed below.
The introductory paragraph of subsection S5.3 of Standard No. 105, as amended, requires each vehicle to which the standard applies to have a brake system indicator lamp or lamps that meet the requirements of S5.3.1 through S5.3.5. That provision further requires that vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more have a separate indicator lamp for ABS malfunctions.
Paragraph S5.3.1 of the standard requires that an indicator lamp must be activated when any of the conditions specified therein occur, one of which, at S5.3.1(c), requires the lamp to activate at the occurrence of:
A malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or control signals in an antilock brake system, or a total functional electrical failure in a variable proportioning brake system.
NHTSA originally proposed to require that the ABS malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) activate "in the event of any malfunction in the system" (see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, September 28, 1993, 58 FR 50738, 50749). Several commenters, including fleet operators and brake manufacturers, objected to that proposal, arguing that requiring the MIL to activate for "any" malfunction was impracticable, unreasonably costly, and overly broad. NHTSA, persuaded by the comments and other available information, modified the proposal and decided on the provision quoted above in the final rule of March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13216).
In explaining its rationale for that requirement, the agency stated:
Under the modified requirement [of S5.3.1(c)], only those malfunctions that are directly related to the antilock brake system must be indicated. Applying the indicator requirement to the "generation" of response and control signals serves to cover the components in the ABS that produce these signals. These components include wheel speed sensors which produce response signals for the control unit, and the control unit which produces control signals for input into the valves that modulate brake pressure. Applying the indicator requirement to the "transmission" of response and control signals serves to cover the components in the ABS through which the generated signals are transmitted. These components include wiring, connectors, belts used in mechanical systems, and all components through which a generated signal can be transmitted.
60 FR 13246 (emphasis added).
NHTSA explained at page 13245 that the requirement does not apply to malfunctions such as sticking solenoid valves, small air leaks in the solenoid valve, or mechanical binding of a valve.
The purpose of these provisions is to indicate to drivers and inspectors that a malfunction exists in the ABS and that repairs are needed. As we noted in our response to petitions for reconsideration, 60 FR at 63972 (December 13, 1995):
The agency explained [in the final rule of March 10, 1995] that this ABS malfunction lamp format, together with the requirement that the system stores malfunctions until the next key-on, is necessary to enable Federal and State inspectors to determine the operational status of an ABS without moving the vehicle.
Accordingly, these provisions, particularly the conditions that require activation of the MIL, are very specific.
It is our opinion that illumination of the ABS malfunction indicator lamp in circumstances not directly addressed by S5.3.1(c) is permissible only if the additional conditions are directly related to ABS malfunction. Stated another way, any other malfunction conditions programmed into the system must be similar in nature to those specified in S5.3.1(c). Moreover, the lamp activation protocol must be the same. If the conditions programmed into the system differed in nature from the ones specified in S5.3.1(c), or if the lamp activation protocol differed, the meaning of the ABS malfunction lamp would be obscured. Drivers and inspectors would no longer know what was meant by the illumination/non-illumination of the lamp.
If you wish for us to provide a more specific opinion or one addressing other indicator lamps, we would need more specific information as to what LVBS may have in mind, i. e., the specific conditions it would want to program into the system.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers or Mr. Woods at (202) 366-2992, or (202) 366-6206 respectively.
Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Ref:101#105
d.5/14/99
1. We note that you sent us three letters dated October 8, 1998, all referring to the October 1, 1998 meeting and all relating to the malfunction indicator lamp protocol of Standard No. 105. We are responding to the three letters separately.