ID: 77-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Commission on Federal Paperwork, Frank Horton - Chairman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 9, 1977, letter requesting a copy of the report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to the Senate Commerce Committee's inquiries concerning the recordkeeping requirements of the tire registration program. I too am interested in reducing the burden upon the public occasioned by unnecessary paperwork. In accordance with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA report.

Regarding your comments concerning the viability of a voluntary tire registration technique to replace the present registration program, you should note that the NHTSA has considered the possibility of a voluntary registration procedure similar to the warranty card procedure utilized by appliance manufacturers. Through informal inquiries of appliance manufacturers, the agency discovered that return of warranty cards averages about 50 percent in the case of expensive appliances and falls as low as 10 percent in the case of 10- to 35-dollar items. An entirely separate problem arises with voluntary registration of tires in that the purchaser cannot be expected to distinguish the serial number from other numbers that appear on each tire. More important, the identification number is placed on the side opposite the whitewall on many tires, and it is probable that the purchaser would fail to locate the correct number in the typical situation where the tires are mounted on his vehicle before he sees them.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

SINCERELY,

COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK

Honorable Brock Adams Secretary Department of Transportation

We greatly appreciate the Department of Transportation's past cooperation with the Commission on Federal Paperwork. It is our hope that in continuing to work together on specific paperwork problems we will be able to reduce significantly the burden borne by the public.

The Commission has received comments concerning the burdensome reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the mandatory new and retread tire registration program of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It has been brought to our attention that voluntary registration may be a viable alternative to the current reporting program which could reduce the burden on tire dealers and manufacturers.

We have learned that the Senate Commerce Committee has sent you a letter requesting data on the tire registration program including the number of new and retread tires recalled and the percentage of registrants who comply with the program. In order for the Commission to adequately review the reporting requirements we would like to receive a copy of the report you are preparing for the Committee.

We appreciate your continuing cooperation and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

With kindest personal regards,

Frank Horton Chairman

ID: 23277.ztv

Mr. John J. Sobotik
Assistant General Counsel
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Rm. 1158
P.O. Box 7910
Madison, WI 53707-7910

Re: State Motor Vehicle Safety Standards                      Stop Lamp Colors





Dear Mr. Sobotik:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 2001, asking whether legislation recently introduced in Wisconsin would violate Federal law. The legislation would be similar to that adopted in 1999 by Minnesota.

Specifically, Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 169.64, subdivision 4 was amended to add a new paragraph (c) which reads: "A motorcycle may display a blue light of up to one inch diameter as part of the motorcycle's rear brake light." Wisconsin 2001 Assembly Bill 102 would amend 347.14(2) of the statutes to include the sentence "The stop lamp for a motorcycle may emit, in addition to red or amber light, a blue light that is located in the center of the lamp and that comprises less than 10% of the surface of the lamp."

Your initial analysis is that Wisconsin could not adopt this legislation, but you are unsure of this conclusion because of uncertainty whether the U.S. Department of Transportation has challenged the Minnesota law. Accordingly, you have asked four questions:

If Wisconsin adopts a law permitting the use of blue color on all or part of a motorcycle stop lamp, is the state prescribing a standard that is not identical to the federal standard for motorcycle stop lamps?

The answer is yes. Table III of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) allows only red as a color for motorcycle stop lamps. A state standard permitting a stop lamp to emit either blue or amber light would not be identical to the Federal standard for motorcycle stop lamps, and hence would not be permitted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Assembly Bill 102 indicates that Wisconsin law may already permit amber as a color for motorcycle stop lamps.

Would permitting the use of blue color on all or part of a motorcycle stop lamp constitute the establishment of a standard higher than the otherwise applicable federal standard?

No. Permitting the use of blue color (or amber) would establish a state standard that is not identical to the Federal standard covering the same aspect of performance as the federal standard. Even if the use of blue (or amber) was regarded as establishing a higher standard of performance than the use of red, the exception in 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) that a state may enact a standard of higher performance than the otherwise applicable Federal standard is not an exception of general application but one that applies only to vehicles a state or one of its political subdivisions obtains for its own use.

If adopting a law permitting the use of a blue color on all or part of a motorcycle stop lamp is considered by NHTSA to be the establishment of a standard that is not identical to or higher than the federal standard, what actions could theoretically be taken by NHTSA in response to Wisconsin adopting such a law?

Because 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) allows a state to prescribe a state standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard, the Department of the Transportation could seek to enjoin Wisconsin from giving effect to a law permitting the use of a blue color on a motorcycle stop lamp, or from continuing in effect a law permitting the use of amber for a motorcycle stop lamp.

What repercussions could befall individuals or entities that buy or sell motorcycles bearing stop lamps that have been altered to have a blue center?

We understand that a lighting accessory is available that consists of a clear blue circle which can be inserted in the middle of a red lens through which a blue light is emitted when the tail or stop lamp is activated. A motorcycle dealer must ensure that a motorcycle continues to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time the motorcycle is sold to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Thus, a dealer selling a new motorcycle whose stop lamp has been altered to have a blue center would be considered under Federal law to be violating Standard No. 108. The dealer must also ensure that replacement lighting equipment that it sells is designed to conform to Standard No. 108. We are authorized to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, up to $15,000,000 for any related series of violations, such as would occur with sales of noncomplying vehicles or replacement equipment. However, sale of an accessory that alters lamp color is not prohibited, even if its installation in a stop lamp would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. There are no Federal restrictions that apply to the sale of a motorcycle subsequent to its first purchase, even if it were originally equipped with a noncomplying stop lamp.

As for modifications of vehicles and equipment originally manufactured to conform, after their first sale for purposes other than resale, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers (and manufacturers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses as well) from making inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the statute does not prohibit a motorcycle owner from such alterations. Thus, an owner would not violate Federal law either by installing a stop lamp altered to have a blue center, or by inserting a blue center in the original stop lamp. The validity of owner modifications affecting compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is determinable under state law. Under your hypothetical scenario, there would be no violation of a state law permitting a stop lamp with a blue center. However, as noted earlier, we would view the sale of such a stop lamp as a violation of Federal law.

In closing, let me note that this Office was not aware of the 1999 Minnesota amendment until you brought it to our attention.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/28/01

ID: 11615JEG

Mr. Larry Clarke
4514 Fetke L
Rhinelander, WI 54501

Dear Mr. Clarke:

Senator Kohl asked me to respond to your question asking whether there is a law that stipulates that cars with air bags must have the air bags put back in after an accident. As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

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 and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, AOccupant Crash Protection@ (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. ' 30122).

While the "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such as an air bag, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that was damaged in a crash. Therefore, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the State of Wisconsin to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney with respect to potential liability of an owner or repair facility for failure to replace an air bag after a crash.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc. If you or a repair facility need guidance as to which vehicle systems may require inspection or repair after a crash, we suggest that you contact the selling dealer, zone representative, and/or manufacturer of the vehicle in question.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Stephen P. Wood, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.

cc: The Honorable Herb Kohl ref:208

ID: nht88-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/88

FROM: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: BWAYNE VANCE -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/18/88 FROM ERICA Z JONES TO RAYMOND M MOMBOISSE; REDBOOK A32; 571.7 (A) SECTION 101(3)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vance:

We request a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT), exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM Genera l Corporation. We are requesting a waiver on behalf of the Border Patrol.

The Hummer is a four-wheel drive vehicle currently manufactured by AM General Corporation for the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol intends to use Hummers to fulfill our traditional and expanded law enforcement missions, especially in the area of drug interd iction. The Hummer's high performance level will give Border Patrol a distinct advantage both in high-speed cross-country pursuits of drug or alien smugglers, and in routine patrolling.

Border Patrol's fleet of about 3,000 vehicles includes nearly 1,500 four-wheel drive vehicles. The Border Patrol currently has about five Hummers, and hopes to purchase approximately 100 Hummers over the next two years.

There are three main reasons why we are requesting a waiver from DOT. The main reason is that we wish to enhance the Hummer with a central tire inflation system (CTI) which can only be done by AM General Corporation as an assembly line item. Secondary reasons are that the Hummer will only be used on public highways approximately 30% of the time, and that buying directly from AM General Corporation will save about $ 5,000 per vehicle. Each reason will be developed below.

The major reason for requesting a waiver is that we need to modify the Hummers to include a CTI. The CTI is a patented feature only available as an assembly line item from AM General Corporation.

The CTI works simply and effectively. The CTI allows the driver to individually and quickly adjust tire pressures while traveling. The ability to adjust quickly tire pressures enhances

control over tire traction and therefore increases vehicle stability. For example, the tire pressures could be adjusted from 10 to 16 psi for typical off-road use over rough terrain. The tire pressures can also be raised from 20 to 24 psi for dirt roads to indirectly increase vehicle speed. The tire pressures can be increased to 32 psi for highway use.

The CTI is critical to carry out our law enforcement missions, both in terms of the types of terrain and conditions covered, and the range of topography within each type of terrain and conditions. Many of the areas patrolled by Border Patrol are inacces sible by commercially-available four-wheel drive vehicles. However, the performance characteristics of the Hummer as modified to include the CTI enables the Hummer to travel over these varied terrains, conditions and topographies.

The Border Patrol routinely patrols eight thousand miles of extremely varied types of terrain and conditions on the United States borders with Mexico and Canada. The terrain and conditions range from deserts to rocks to deep snow to forests.

In addition, the topography and conditions within each type of terrain vary enormously. For example, a typical mountain terrain may have greatly varying topographies or conditions requiring the following unique vehicle characteristics:

1. the ability to ascend or decent a 60% grade, including stopping and restarting on the grade;

2. the ability to traverse a 40% side slope;

3. the ability to negotiate a twenty-two inch vertical step from a complete stop;

4. the ability to ford a thirty inch stream of fresh water or salt water; and

5. the ability to clear the ground by eighteen inches with an approach angle of 60 degrees and a departure angle of 45 degrees.

The high performance characteristics of a fully-equipped Hummer with a payload of 3,500 pounds easily accommodate these varied terrains, conditions, and topographies.

The Hummers will only be used on public highways approximately 30% of the time. The Hummers will generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas. Thus, the Hummers use on public highways will be relatively mi nimal.

The Border Patrol's existing Hummers were first purchased by the U.S. Army pursuant to a contract and are in conformity with the specifications. Since the U.S. Army is now selling these vehicles to the Border Patrol, the vehicles are now used military v ehicles. Per 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571. 7(a) and (1), these Hummers are not subject to the DOT FMVSS.

However, purchasing the Hummers directly from the manufacturer will reduce the total cost by about $ 5,000 per vehicle. Vehicles purchased from the U.S. Army are more expensive because the amortized development costs are spread through the contract term . If we purchase the 100 Hummers we hope to purchase, then buying directly from the manufacturer will save the Border Patrol a total of approximately $ 500,000.

Please contact Elizabeth M. Jarrell at (202) 633-1260 upon receipt of our requests. Thank you.

ID: nht95-4.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM LARRY W. STRAWHORN AND EARL EISNHART TO JOHN G. WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indic ator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a 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 the 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. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not gettin g electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out. You contended that such an activation pattern provides 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 b urnt out.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is sup plied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsi stent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 1324 6) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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

ID: nht95-7.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM LARRY W. STRAWHORN AND EARL EISNHART TO JOHN G. WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indicator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a 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 the 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. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the 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. You contended that such an activation pattern provides 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.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsistent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 13246) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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

ID: nht76-2.6

DATE: 03/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro - FIAT

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

You asked whether the standard permits marking or penetration of the protected zone to a depth greater than 1/4 inch, by windshield wipers during a barrier crash test. Please excuse our delay in answering your question.

Paragraph S5. of Standard No. 219 states that "no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template" (emphasis added.) Windshield wipers are "components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield." Therefore, Standard No. 219 does allow penetration of the protected zone by windshield wipers during the barrier crash test.

Please note that Standard No. 219 was amended, Docket 74-21, Notice 3, to substitute the term "daylight opening" for "windshield opening", and to add the new term to the requirements of paragraph S5. The amendments are effective September 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and September 1, 1977, for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information.

Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT - U.S.A. BRANCH

November 6, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

We are kindly requesting your official interpretation of the Paragraph S.5 of the Standard 219 - "Windshield Zone Intrusion":

". . .no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to S6, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S6."

The windshield wipers of a vehicle, that are normally in contact with the windshield under barrier crash condition could become detached from the windshield and spring back after impact penetrating the protected area for a depth of more than one-quarter inch or leave a light mark on the windshield surface.

In our opinion such penetration or marking is permitted by the Std. 219 and does not represent any safety hazard. We would appreciate your prompt reply with the official NHTSA interpretation on the matter.

Alberto Negro Director

ID: 11186

Mr. Larry W. Strawhorn
Vice President of Engineering
American Trucking Associations
2200 Mill Road
Alexandria, VA 22314-4677

Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indicator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a 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 the 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. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the 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. You contended that such an activation pattern provides 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.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsistent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 13246) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator

must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:`0/30/95

ID: nht95-6.57

DATE: October 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM LARRY W. STRAWHORN AND EARL EISNHART TO JOHN G. WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indicator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a 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 the 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. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the 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. You contended that such an activation pattern provides 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.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsistent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 13246) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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

ID: nht87-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dear This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to whether a new headlamp design is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In the new design, the upper aiming pad is integral with the lens but it recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood. Thus, the hood must be open for a mechanical aimer to be applied. You believe that this is not precluded by section 5.1 of SAE J580 in corporated by reference in Standard No. 109, which requires aiming to be effected "without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts."

Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the lens is not needed to provide illumination. The fact that the hood must be raised in order to aim the headlamps does not constitute a "removal" within the meaning of SAE J580. Therefore this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

In accordance of your letter of April 27, 1987, your request for confidentiality is granted to the extent that all information which might identify you or your employer will be deleted from the publicity available copies of this letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 13 March 87 Dear Ms Jones

RE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SAD J580, SECTION 5.1 AUG 79

REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY - HEADLAMP LENS AND AIMING PAD DESIGN

the of the passenger car seeks a legal interpretation of FMVSS No.108; referen ced SAE J580 Aug 79, Sealed beam headlight assembly and confidentiality of its new headlamp lens and aiming pad design. SAE 580, Section (5.1) states, "Headlamps shall be de signed so that they may be inspected and aimed by mechanical aimers as specified in SAE 602 c (December 1974) without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts."

is proposing a replaceable bulb type headlamp system with the upper aiming pad integral with the lens but recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood as shown in the attached drawing. It is, opinion that our lamp design is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 referenced SAE 580 Section 5.1. That is, if it is acceptable to raise the hood to adjust headlamp so should it be permissible to raise the hood to attach mechanical aimers.

For this reason requests a legal interpretation of SAE J580, Section 5.1 and request confidentiality of our headlamp design described and shown herein. Yours Sincerely Chief Engineer INSERT GRAPHIC