NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: 15928.drnOpenMr. Robert W. Hawkinson Dear Mr. Hawkinson: This responds to your August 28, 1997, request for an interpretation of organizations that are "schools" to which you must not sell buses that are not certified as school buses. As explained below, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider the YMCA or Salvation Army to be "schools," the buses you sell to these organizations need not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses. In your letter, you explain that the YMCA and Salvation Army are interested in purchasing 15-passenger Ford Econoline Club Wagons. You are unsure whether NHTSA would consider either organization to be a school. You note that the YMCA may offer classes in basket weaving or wood working to school age children. The Salvation Army uses 15-passenger vehicles to transport school age children to summer camp, which offers classes in archery and swimming. NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30125 defines "schoolbus" as "a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school." By regulation (49 CFR Part 571.3), NHTSA has defined "bus" and "school bus." A bus is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." A school bus is "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." In interpreting "school," NHTSA has always looked at the nature of the particular institution purchasing the vehicles. If the central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary, or secondary students, NHTSA has determined that the buses sold must meet the FMVSSs applicable to school buses. If the institution serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not meet the school bus standards. In an interpretation letter of November 20, 1978 to DeKalb Rental/Leasing, Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA determined that YMCAs are not schools. Similarly, because we consider the Salvation Army's function to be custodial rather than educational, we would not consider the Salvation Army summer camp to be a school. Since neither organization is a school, under Federal law the buses you sell to the YMCA or the Salvation Army summer camp need not be school buses. I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15938.ztvOpenTadashi Suzuki, Manager Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to two possible arrangements of a motorcycle tail and stop lamp, which has more than three lighted sections. Attachment 1 to your letter depicts the two rear lamp configurations. Attachments 2 and 3 are copies of correspondence in 1985 between Stanley and this Office asking similar questions about a combination rear motorcycle lamp with more than three lighted sections. Since Chief Counsel Berndt's letter to Stanley, dated March 1, 1985, SAE Standard J586 FEB84 has replaced SAE Standard J586c, August 1970, as Standard No. 108's specifications for stop lamps for motorcycles. However, there is no substantive change between the two standards that affect the 1985 interpretation. SAE Standard J585e, September 1977, remains the Federal specification for motorcycle taillamps. As before, both standards prescribe requirements for lamps with three lighted sections but are silent as to requirements for lighted sections greater than three. We have reviewed the paragraphs 3.1 and 4 of SAE Standard J585e, paragraphs 5.1.5.2 and 5.4.1 of SAE Standard J586, and S5.1.1.6 and S5.1.1.26(b) of Standard No. 108. These are the appropriate references cited in your letter that apply to this interpretations. In 1985, we informed you that Stanley's design for a lamp with four lighted sections "would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections." We affirm that that 1985 interpretation remains our interpretation in 1997. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15951-1.pjaOpenMr. Mike Laws Dear Mr. Laws: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the tilt bed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. The answer is no, therefore a guard is required. As shown in the drawings you enclosed with your letter, your trailers are essentially of a flatbed design, equipped with a bed that hydraulically tilts to a 13 degree angle so that construction equipment may be loaded. At the back of the bed is a long triangular full width "approach plate" that allows construction equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the bed. When the bed is lowered into the horizontal position, for transit, the approach plate is hydraulically lowered to droop down slightly, to a position in which the lower edge of the plate is 19 inches off the ground. You state that installing an underride guard would make this trailer useless and you ask if a guard is required. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles. Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to your approach plate, the agency concludes that it is not part of the chassis. First, the approach plate does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it approach ramp does not contribute to supporting cargo load. Further, the approach plate is not frame structure. It does not define the shape of the trailer. Instead, it hangs down from the rear end of the trailer, forming a protrusion from the outline of the trailer bed. The approach plate is not locked into another frame structural member in any manner. Neither the approach plate nor the steel plate arms attaching the approach plate to the sides of the trailer bed are of a similar size or strength to the other frame components. In consideration of these factors, we conclude that the approach plate is not part of the chassis, and the trailer is not a low chassis vehicle. We turn now to the question of whether your trailer is excluded as a special purpose vehicle. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."(1) Again, the approach plate is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, the approach plate would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded. There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.(2) Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment, and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Since your trailer does not meet the definition of an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the flatbed configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration. Another option to consider is whether your approach plate could "be" the guard. The approach plate already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the approach plate sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the approach plate itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps some of these solutions would work for you. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance. The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential. Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, 1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998). 2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough. |
1998 |
ID: 16-000385 -- 49 CFR Part 581 - Response to Alliance GlobalOpen
Mr. Robert Strassburger Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. 80 7th St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20001
Mr. Michael X. Cammisa Association of Global Automakers, Inc. 1050 K St., N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Mr. Strassburger and Mr. Cammisa:
This responds to your January 28, 2016 letter requesting an interpretation as to whether sensors mounted in a bumper for purposes of crash mitigation qualify for the exception to the no damage provision of 49 CFR Part 581 (the bumper standard). Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider these sensors to be components of the bumper system. These sensors would therefore be subject to the no damage provision of Part 581. If, as an interim measure, an automaker wishes to deploy an AEB system that does not comply with Part 581, it may seek an exemption from that standard under 49 CFR Part 555.
Background
On May 13, 2015, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced that in order to ensure that the Departments regulatory framework accelerates safety innovations, the Department would work to identify obstacles to safety innovations in its regulations to better understand where problems can be addressed internally and where we will need Congressional action.[1] Secretary Foxx and NHTSA Administrator Dr. Mark Rosekind both have invited stakeholders to help with this effort by submitting requests for interpretation, for exemptions, and petitions for rulemaking.
In response, you have submitted this letter on behalf of your organizations, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Association of Global Automakers (Global), expressing concern that NHTSAs bumper standard, codified at 49 CFR Part 581, could deter some auto manufacturers from more rapidly deploying a crash avoidance technology known as automatic electronic braking (AEB).[2] You noted NHTSAs announcement that, beginning with model year 2018, the agency would update its 5-Star Rating System to include AEB as a recommended safety technology, providing consumers with new information on technology with the potential to prevent rear-end crashes or reduce the impact speed of those crashes by automatically applying the brakes.[3] Your letter suggests that many currently available [AEB] systems rely on sensors and other related AEB equipment mounted on vehicle bumpers and that sensors so positioned may not satisfy the minimum requirements of Part 581 for standard equipment. Under Part 581, bumpers are subject to a pendulum test conducted at impact speeds of 1.5 and 2.5 mph, and a fixed barrier test conducted at an impact speed of 2.5 mph. You state that the bumper standard, and NHTSAs subsequent interpretations of it, are inhibiting the timely conversion of this important technology from optional equipment to standard equipment as well as inhibiting the rapid deployment of enhanced crash systems including those that may include pedestrian detection and facilitate greater levels of vehicle automation.
We are pleased to respond to your letter. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
The Bumper Standard
Part 581 was issued in response to the 1972 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, in which Congress required DOT (by delegation, NHTSA) to prescribe bumper standards for passenger motor vehicles in order to reduce economic loss resulting from damage to passenger motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle accidents.[4] NHTSA established the bumper standard at 49 CFR Part 581, which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger motor vehicles in low-speed front and rear collisions. As authorized by Congress,[5] Part 581 applies only to passenger motor vehicles and not to multipurpose passenger vehicles[6] or low-speed vehicles.[7]
As mentioned above, Part 581 contains two basic damageability tests for bumpers and bumper components: a pendulum test conducted at 1.5 and 2.5 mph, and a barrier test conducted at 2.5 mph. Under each of these tests, the vehicle must meet certain damage criteria specified in 581.5. Your letter focuses on the damage criteria listed in 581.5(c)(8), which states that, following the bumper tests,
[t]he 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 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.) 581.4 defines bumper face bar as any component of the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device.
As you discussed in your letter, NHTSA has issued interpretations regarding what equipment may be part of the bumper face bar. You expressed concern that those interpretations might indicate that bumper-mounted AEB sensors would not be part of the bumper face bar, and would therefore have to meet the damage criteria of 581.5(c). You also stated that the prior interpretations indicated NHTSAs intent to decide whether particular components are part of the bumper system on a case-by-case basis, and asked that NHTSA conclude that bumper-mounted AEB sensors are in fact, components of the bumper system because they help to perform a protective function with respect to frontal collisions, and should therefore not be subject to the damage criteria of 581.5(c)(8).
We agree that the question of whether particular components are part of the bumper system is properly decided on a case-by-case basis. The answer to that question will be determinative of whether bumper-mounted AEB sensors need to meet the damage criteria of the bumper standard that is, whether they must withstand the pendulum and barrier tests with no damage.
NHTSA has consistently interpreted the bumper face bar as including components that are integral parts of the bumper face bar, or are needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame, like shielding panels, tape strips, and certain types of grilles that, like the bumper, serve a load-bearing, protective purpose. [8] On the other hand, NHTSA has found that bumper-mounted radar sensors, directional signals, and fog lamps are exterior surfaces that are not part of the bumper face bar and therefore are subject to the damage criteria.[9] Here, NHTSA concludes that the bumper-mounted sensor devices that some automakers may seek to introduce as standard AEB equipment are not integral parts of the bumper face bar, or components and associated fasteners needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Rather, they are more clearly akin to the other sensors and lamps NHTSA has previously found to be subject to the damage requirements of Part 581. The fact that AEB (and bumper-mounted sensors that may be part of an AEB system) helps to mitigate damage in low-speed collisions does not make AEB sensors integral parts of the bumper face bar. They would therefore be exterior surfaces subject to 581.5(c)(8).
Even if NHTSA were to conclude that bumper-mounted AEB sensors were an integral part of the bumper face bar, 49 CFR 581.5(c)(5) further requires that [t]he vehicles propulsion, suspension, steering, and braking systems shall remain in adjustment and shall operate in the normal manner after conducting the pendulum and barrier tests. Your letter suggests that some bumper-mounted AEB sensors may require realignment to facilitate proper system operation following Part 581 testing. Given that AEB systems on a vehicle are part of that vehicles braking system, in the event damage to an AEB sensor during Part 581 compliance testing causes any of these systems not to operate in a normal manner, the vehicle would not comply with Part 581. If a vehicle manufacturer is unable to install an AEB system in a given passenger motor vehicle model that complies with Part 581, they may wish to petition NHTSA for a temporary exemption under 49 CFR Part 555. Such an exemption may be an effective interim approach for some manufacturers until they are able to develop AEB systems that comply with Part 581, or until that regulation is amended (through rulemaking) to address bumper-mounted standards differently. We remain confident that your members will be able to speed the introduction of AEB into the marketplace in ways that comply with applicable vehicle requirements, and that bumper-mounted AEB sensors able to meet the damage criteria of Part 581[10] will build consumer confidence in these new systems. We look forward to working with you further to speed the introduction of effective AEB systems throughout the fleet. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 7/13/16 Ref: Part 581
[1] See Transportation Sec. Foxx announces steps to accelerate road safety innovation, May 13, 2015, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-will-accelerate-v2v-efforts (last accessed Feb. 18, 2016). [2] For more information about how AEB works, see http://www.safercar.gov/AEB (last accessed Feb. 18, 2016). [3] See U.S. DOT to add automatic emergency braking to list of recommended advanced safety technologies in 5-Star Rating System, Nov. 2, 2015, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-recommends-aeb-11022015 (last accessed Feb. 18, 2016). [4] This section of the Act is now codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325. [5] 49 U.S.C. 32501 and 32502. [6] NHTSA defines multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) at 49 CFR 571.3. [7] NHTSA defines low-speed vehicle (LSV) at 49 CFR 571.3. [8] See 43 FR 20804 (May 15, 1978); 43 FR 40230 (September 11, 1978); letter to Kenneth M. Bush, American Suzuki Motor Corporation (March 9, 2004) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/581interpretation.html. [9] See 43 FR 40230 (September 11, 1978); letter to William Shapiro, Volvo Cars of North America (December 11, 1995) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/95/nht95-4.100.html). [10] Again, we note that Part 581 applies only to passenger motor vehicles and not to MPVs or LSVs. |
2016 |
ID: 16-000745 Twisted Restorations revisedOpen
Mr. Ian Robinson Twisted Automotive Limited Thirsk Industrial Park York Road Thirsk, North Yorkshire YO7 3TA
Dear Mr. Robinson:
This responds to your February 12, 2016 letter describing your interest in importing Land Rover Defender vehicles that are more than 25 years old into the United States (U.S.) and then restoring and modifying these vehicles in U.S. facilities before selling them. Your letter describes basic and beyond basic levels of modification and asks if the modifications are so substantial as to be considered a manufacture of new motor vehicles. You also ask about the Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015.
As explained in detail below, overall we find that both levels of modification would rise to the level of manufacturing, which makes whoever is making the modifications (we assume it would be Twisted Automotive Limited) a manufacturer as defined in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.[1]
General Authority
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.
Imported Vehicles At Least 25 Years Old Section 30112(b)(9) of the Safety Act, which you cite in your letter, allows importation of a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old without the need to conform the vehicle to the applicable FMVSSs, i.e., those in effect at the time of its manufacture. The 25-year period runs from the date of the vehicles manufacture.
You state in your letter that the Land Rovers you intend to import are 25 years old or older. According to your letter, the vehicles would be brought into the U.S. unmodified, and the modifications will be made in this country.
Discussion
The agency evaluated Twisteds proposed activities under two lines of thinking found in past interpretation letters. The first line arises in letters relating to whether NHTSA would consider certain modifications made overseas to a vehicle (more than 25 years old) simply to be restorations and not a vehicle manufacture, so that the vehicle may be imported under 30112(b)(9) without conforming to the FMVSSs. The second line relates to whether modifying a used vehicle by combining new and used parts constitutes a manufacture of a vehicle. Both complement each other in our analysis and lead to the same conclusion, which is that the work done to Twisteds vehicles is commensurate with the manufacture of a vehicle. Each line of thinking is analyzed below in greater detail.
Restoration
Your letter discusses two levels of modification of the Land Rover Defenders you plan on exporting to the United States. The level with the least modifications is what you describe as basic restoration and includes the following:
1. Remedial works undertaken to the chassis to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair. 2. Remedial works to the drive-train (axle, differential, wheels) or replacement with new where repair is not an option. 3. Original engine is removed and fully overhauled before being relocated back in original vehicle. 4. Original engine is removed and replaced with a modern engine of similar capacity (engine would meet the latest emission standards). 5. Suspension is repaired or where necessary replaced (but not upgraded) to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair commensurate with a quality restoration project. 6. Body panels new panels would need to be fitted where existing panels could not be repaired. 7. Body panels (new or original) would be re-aligned and all panels secured by stainless steel fittings rather than with non-stainless fittings as on the original vehicle. 8. Full external and interior repainting where you also ask about what colors you can repaint the Land Rover. 9. Restoration of lights, seats, seat upholstery, and all interior trim with the possibility of replacement of seat frames and cloth trim if beyond repair. 10. Possibility of converting right-hand drive vehicles to left-hand drive.
Chapter 301 does not define restoration, but NHTSA has interpretation letters on the subject. The agency interprets the term restoration, as applied to motor vehicles, as returning something to its former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition.[2]
Your question has been answered in past interpretations, and the same answer applies.[3] While Twisted refers to its modifications as restorations, the totality of the modifications that Twisted seeks to do, even at the basic level, is beyond what NHTSA considers as restoration and are in fact equivalent to manufacturing (assembling) a motor vehicle.
The basic restoration described in your letter includes modification beyond returning the motor vehicles to their former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition. The extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle, the substantial refurbishment of the chassis, and the reassembly with items of new equipment such as the engine, drive train and axles result in a new motor vehicle, i.e., one that could not be regarded as 25 years old or older. Converting right-hand drive vehicles to left-hand drive is also considered beyond restoration.
Accordingly, we conclude that the activities you list under both the basic and beyond basic levels exceed what we consider to be a restoration. Instead, Twisteds activities appear to constitute a manufacture of vehicles.
Combining New and Used Parts
Twisteds planned activities in the U.S. invoke NHTSAs past interpretations relating to the combination of used and new parts. In particular, Twisted states it may do remedial work on the chassis to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair and do the same to the drive-train or replace the components with new where repair is not an option.
The substitution of a new body on a used chassis does not result in a new motor vehicle assuming the vehicle continues to be titled and registered with its original model year (see Williams letter, supra).
However, a vehicle incorporating a new chassis is considered a new vehicle. Further, the agency has also stated that the substitution of new chassis parts for the original ones may reach a point where, in combination with newer parts on the body, the overall vehicle itself could be regarded as newly manufactured.
We believe that what you describe as remedial work to the chassis and related parts could in fact be sufficiently extensive that the components would no longer be considered used but would instead be considered newly manufactured. This means the vehicle you produce would be a new vehicle.
Relatedly, please note that NHTSA has issued FMVSSs for certain items of motor vehicle equipment (covered equipment). Thus, under the Safety Act, all items of covered equipment that Twisted uses must comply with the applicable FMVSSs. In addition, Twisted must ensure that its modified vehicles contain no safety-related defects.
In summary, the extent of Twisteds plans to modify or replace the chassis and drive train and combine new and used items of motor vehicle equipment lead us to conclude that Twisteds activities constitute manufacturing. Thus, the resulting vehicles would be new and Twisted would be a manufacturer within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under the Safety Act, the new vehicles must be certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of their manufacture.
FAST Act
Section 24405 of Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act [4] has a provision about low-volume manufacturers being able to manufacture a certain number of replica vehicles that do not fully comply with the applicable FMVSSs. It states that the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to implement the amendments made in this section.[5]
Your letter asks whether the low-volume manufacturer exemption applies to Twisteds business of modifying Land Rover Defender vehicles. We cannot answer this question now, prior to issuing the regulation. The agency will initiate rulemaking soon to implement 24405.
Agents Please note that all manufacturers headquartered outside of the U.S. must designate an agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions.[6] This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:
The designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. Please visit for more information on importation and certification: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FAQ%20Site/. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 7/8/16 Ref: 49 U.S.C. 30102
[1] Manufacturer means a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, see 49 U.S.C 30102(a)(5). [2] Letter to John Harland of HarLand Rover Restorations (Sept. 9, 1999), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20592.ztv.html; letter to Roger Williams (Feb. 22, 2001), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23894.ztv.html ; letter to Paul Jackson Rice of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC (Aug. 23, 2001), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23085.ztv.html. [3] Past interpretations written to HarLand Rover Restorations discuss in detail what is and is not considered restoration. The facts in Twisteds interpretation request are strikingly similar, with the only difference in that Twisted plans to do the modifications in the U.S., while HarLand performed the modifications in the United Kingdom prior to attempting to import the modified vehicles into the U.S. That difference is not consequential to our response here, since the issue is whether the modifications made here or abroad constitute a manufacture. [4] Pub. L. No. 114-94, 24405 (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf. [5] Pub. L. No. 114-94, 24405(c) (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf. [6] 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D. |
2016 |
ID: 16-002006 Cybersecurity Act of 2015Open
Mr. R. A. Whitfield Quality Control Systems Corporation 1034 Plum Creek Drive Crownsville, MD 21032-1322
Dear Mr. Whitfield:
This responds to your April 2, 2016 letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is precluded from taking enforcement action regarding a safety defect or noncompliance with a regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) when that defect or noncompliance is a cyber threat indicator provided to the Federal government under the Cybersecurity Act of 2015.
As you know, the agency published a request for comments on NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Emerging Automotive Technologies.[1] We noticed that you submitted identical questions as a comment to the abovementioned docket.[2] The issue you raise will be discussed in the agencys response to comments that is currently being prepared.
Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 6/1/16 Ref: Miscellaneous [1] Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0040 (Apr. 1, 2016), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/04/01/2016-07353/request-for-public-comments-on-nhtsa-enforcement-guidance-bulletin-2016-02-safety-related-defects. [2] Your comment is available at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2016-0040-0013. |
2016 |
ID: 16-002814 Chrysler_VIN_interp_clean_1OpenMr. Tim Czapp Dear Mr. Czapp, This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation as to whether you may locate the vehicle identification number (VIN) plate on a vehicles A-pillar. Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) believes motor vehicle manufacturers are able to locate VIN plates on the A-pillar and comply with the agencys VIN regulations. In your letter to NHTSA, you stated that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (Fiat Chrysler) is considering relocating the VIN plate from the vehicles dashboard to the interior portion of the vehicles A-pillar. In further correspondence with Ryan Hagen of my staff, you stated that the VIN plate would remain visible from the outside of the vehicle through the glazing, be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and be located on the inside of the passenger compartment. Further, you stated that the characters of the VIN would essentially be rotated 90 counterclockwise from a traditional VIN orientation and meet the height and character regulations. You also included an illustration of the new VIN location relative to present VIN locations. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations for new motor vehicles. NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agencys opinion based on the information provided in your letter. NHTSA requires vehicles to be marked with VINs to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. The agencys regulations at 49 CFR Part 565 set forth the general requirements for VINs. Of particular relevance to the present question, 49 CFR 565.13(e) states that [t]he VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle, other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label that is permanently affixed to such a part. Further, 49 CFR 565.13(f) states that passenger cars, multipurposes passenger vehicles, low speed vehicles, and trucks with a GVWR of 4536 kg or less must be located within the passenger compartment. Moroever, [i]t shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight conditions by an observer whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar Based on the details you have provided the agency, NHTSA believes your proposed VIN plate location would not prevent the plate from complying with 49 CFR Part 565. Despite being moved to a novel location (the A-pillar), a VIN plate located there could meet NHTSAs VIN regulations, assuming it complied with the remainder of the agencys VIN regulations (e.g. minimum character height, capital, sans characters, etc.). One additional notebecause VINs are often used by law enforcement officials, we recommend notifying the relevant Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and others who frequently use VINs of this VIN plate location change. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ryan Hagen of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel Dated: 9/21/16 Ref: Part 565 |
2016 |
ID: 16-004482-Weight Distribution Truck Camper Trailer-RoyOpen
Mr. Roy E. Pack 13828 W. Pinetree Dr. Sun City West, AZ 85375
Dear Mr. Pack: This responds to your letter asking about manufacturing a Weight Distribution Tag Axle for use with slide-in campers on pickup trucks (slide-in pickup campers). In your follow-up letter from January 2017, you state that you will refer to your product as a Weight Distribution Truck Camper Trailer (WDTCT). Throughout this letter, we will refer to your product as a WDTCT, or alternatively, a trailer. You describe the WDTCT as an attachment that serves as an extension of the truck frame. You explain that the WDTCT is designed to be used with slide-in pickup campers, with tires of its own, and is attached to the rear of the pickup truck. You state that the WDTCT removes some of the load from the rear axle of the pickup truck and redistributes it to the front axle and the WDTCT. In a telephone conversation on October 4, 2016 with Ms. Callie Roach of my staff, you clarified that you would like to know: (1) whether manufacturing your product for use with a pickup truck is permitted; and (2) what rules and regulations would apply to the manufacture of it. You also state that you intend that a manufacturing company other than yourself would produce the WDTCT. As explained below, our regulations do not prohibit the manufacture of your product for use with slide-in pickup campers. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has requirements that would apply, which will be generally discussed below. The following is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.
General Authority By way of background, the NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of a NHTSA compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects.
Applicable Standards and Requirements
After considering the information and photographs you provided, we conclude that your product is a type of motor vehicle called a trailer. The term trailer is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. Trailers are required to meet certain FMVSSs, such as those for lighting, tires, braking systems, brake hoses and brake fluids. Manufacturers, including trailer manufacturers, are also subject to informational requirements.[1]
We are not in the position to determine what specific FMVSSs would apply to your product and whether your product would comply with those standards. Under the Safety Act, the responsibility to assure compliance rests with the manufacturer of the product. However, we are able to discuss generally the portions of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs that appear particularly relevant to your product.[2] As a motor vehicle, your product must comply with all applicable FMVSSs, which may include, but are not limited to: FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, which addresses lighting and conspicuity; FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,0000 pounds) or less; FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars; and FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. Also, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, respectively. If the WDTCT is equipped with air brakes, the vehicle is required to comply with FMVSS No. 106 and with FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems. Assigning Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
In your letter, you mention the pickup trucks gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and indicate that you understand that the WDTCT would not in any manner change the GVWR or GAWRs of the pickup truck. Furthermore, you indicate that you understand that the WDTCT is required to have its own GVWR. Under 49 CFR 567.4 (g) (4), Certification, trailers are required to have the GVWR and gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle printed on its certification label. In your follow-up letter from November 2016, you state that the WDTCT would have GVWRs between 2,000 and 3,500 pounds. When assigning the weight ratings, the manufacturer must ensure that the trailers GVWR and GAWR represent the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the trailer may be safely operated. NHTSA considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for slide-in campers and issued 49 C.F.R. 575.103 which contains labeling requirements for slide-in campers and trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers. While this provision does not apply to your trailer, it contains requirements with regard to providing warning labels for use of slide-in campers, which could prove useful to your customers. While you are not required to do so, you may want to consider informing users that they should weigh each combination of slide-in camper, pickup truck, and WDTCT in order to determine if there is any overloading. In your letter, you mention weighing a particular slide-in camper, pickup truck, and WDTCT combination with the WDTCTs wheels off the scale to determine whether the pickup truck would be overloaded. However, that weighing configuration would only tell users whether the vehicles GVWR is exceeded. To ensure that there is no overloading, users must ensure that none of the axles are overloaded by weighing each axle separately. In 49 CFR 575.103(e)(2)(i)(E), NHTSA requires that manufacturers of pickup trucks capable of accommodating a slide-in camper provide a statement which specifies that each axle should be weighed separately. After each axle has been weighed, the combined weight should be added together to ensure that it does not exceed the vehicles GVWR. Furthermore, when your product is used with a slide-in camper, the WDTCT should also be weighed separately to ensure that its GVWR and GAWR are not exceeded when used with a particular slide-in camper. Defects and Recall Responsibilities Manufacturers of motor vehicles are subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a motor vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to take reasonable steps to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading. If your product creates an unreasonable risk that the user will overload the GVWR or GAWR of either the pickup truck or the WDTCT, NHTSA will likely consider the product to have a safety-related defect. A manufacturer's responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of its GVWR and GAWR, given the size and configuration of its vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. Other Issues
You should also be aware that State and local jurisdictions have the authority to set requirements that apply to the use of vehicles and may have regulations that apply to the manufacture and/or use of your WDTCT. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Roach at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel
Dated: 3/7/18 Ref: VSA 571.3 (definitions for trailer, GVWR, and GAWR) Part 575.103 Part 567 [1] Some of these are as follows. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to submit identification information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. A manufacturer must also permanently affix to each motor vehicle it manufactures for sale in the United States a label that, among other things, identifies the manufacturer and the vehicles date of manufacture, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. As a trailer, the WDTCT must have a vehicle identification number (VIN). The content requirements for the VIN are found at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Requirements. [2] For more information, you may consult NHTSAs New Manufacturers Handbook which includes a general discussion of NHTSA regulations that apply to manufacturers. Please note that the handbook was last updated in 2016 and may not contain the most updated provisions. You can find the handbook at https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/Manufacturer_Handbook_20161019.pdf. |
2018 |
ID: 16-005785 FAMA Interp [FINAL]Open
Jacqueline Glassman King & Spalding 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707
Dear Ms. Glassman:
This responds to your April 1, 2015 letter on behalf of the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association (FAMA) requesting guidance as to whether work equipment installed on a fire truck that is inoperative during travel, and only operative once the fire truck reaches a work site, is motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) and therefore subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions. As part of this request, you specifically ask NHTSA to confirm your view that, provided work equipment meets certain conditions and does not pose certain risks, it is not subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions.
Your position is not supported by the law and NHTSA does not confirm that position. As your letter states, a fire truck is a motor vehicle. As explained below, the term motor vehicle equipment unambiguously includes equipment installed in or on a motor vehicle regardless of whether it is related to the vehicles operation during travel or only used when the vehicle is stationary. All motor vehicle equipment is subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions.
Motor Vehicle Equipment under the Safety Act
The term motor vehicle equipment is defined in the Safety Act as:
(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or (C) any device or an article or apparel, including a motorcycle helmet and excluding medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner that-- (i) is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle; and (ii) is manufactured, sold, delivered, or offered to be sold for use on public streets, roads, and highways with the apparent purpose of safeguarding users of motor vehicles against risk of accident, injury, or death.
49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).[1]
There is no requirement that motor vehicle equipment be an inherent or fundamental part of a motor vehicles structure. Nor does the definition of motor vehicle equipment exclude equipment that does not relate to the vehicles operation during travel or that does not function while the vehicle is in motion. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). Moreover, such an exclusion would be inconsistent with the statutory definition of motor vehicle safety, which expressly includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
It is not uncommon for NHTSA to investigate and for manufacturers to recall vehicles or equipment for nonoperational safety defects. See, e.g., PE15-007 (investigating recreational vehicle entry steps that may unexpectedly fail in a manner that causes a loss of balance and increases the risk of personal injury); AQ15-002 (investigating timeliness and scope of reporting a defect in aerial boom arms and manufacturers compliance with other reporting requirements under the Safety Act and related regulations).[2]
Work Equipment for Which You Request Guidance
Your letter provides various examples of work equipment installed on a fire truck and seeks guidance on whether such work equipment that is inoperative during travel, and only operative once the fire truck reaches a work site, is subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions. It is. Under the plain language of the Safety Act, such equipment is motor vehicle equipment.
Work equipment installed on a fire truck at the time it was delivered to the first retail purchaser is a system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8)(A); accord 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(C) (providing that under the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions, original equipment is motor vehicle equipment . . . installed in or on a motor vehicle at the time of delivery to the first purchaser). Work equipment installed on a fire truck after it is delivered to the first retail purchaser is a similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8)(A); accord 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) (providing that under the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions, replacement equipment is motor vehicle equipment . . . that is not original equipment).
All motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act and associated regulations, including the recall obligations of notification and remedy. See 49 U.S.C. 3011830120. That includes the obligation to conduct recalls for defects related to nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8) (defining motor vehicle safety to include nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle); 3011830120 (recall notification and remedy requirements).
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Stephen Hench of my staff at (202) 366-2262.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 1/4/17 Ref: 49 U.S.C. 30102 |
2017 |
ID: 16-1289 (GM hazard innovative) -- 28 Apr 16 rsyOpenBrian Latouf, Executive Director Global Safety & Field Investigations, Regulations & Certification General Motors LLC, Mail Code: 480 210 2V 30001 Van Dyke Warren, MI 48093-2350 Dear Mr. Latouf, This responds to your letter dated March 18, 2016 requesting an interpretation with respect to the meaning of vehicle hazard warning signal operating unit in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, as applied to a new cruise control system General Motors (GM) is developing. You state that GM is developing a new adaptive cruise control system with lane following (which GM has referred to as Super Cruise) that controls steering, braking, and acceleration in certain freeway environments. When Super Cruise is in use, the driver must always remain attentive to the road, supervise Super Cruises performance, and be ready to steer and brake at all times. In some situations, Super Cruise will alert the driver to resume steeringfor example, when the system detects a limit or fault. If the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the wheel (if, for example, the driver is incapacitated or unresponsive), Super Cruise may determine that the safest thing to do is to bring the vehicle slowly to a stop in or near the roadway, and the vehicles brakes will hold the vehicle until overridden by the driver. You indicate that GM plans to develop Super Cruise so that, in this situation, once Super Cruise has brought the vehicle to a stop, the vehicles automated system will activate the vehicles hazard lights. You state that you believe that this automatic activation of the hazard lights complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for several reasons. You state that the systems activation of the hazard lights in this situation alerts other drivers that the vehicle is stopped and ensures overall traffic safety. Your letter cites and discusses several past agency interpretations, and asserts that automatic activation of the hazard lights in the situation GM describes is similar to at least one situation in which NHTSA has previously interpreted the standard to permit automatic activation of the hazard lightsimmediately following a crash event. You state that you believe that there would be no ambiguity about the meaning of the hazard lights in this situation, and it would be the safe thing to do. You ask NHTSA to confirm that activation of the hazard lights by the vehicles automated system in the unresponsive/incapacitated driver situation described above complies with FMVSS No. 108. As we explain below, we interpret FMVSS No. 108 to allow the type of automatic hazard activation described in GMs letter.
FMVSS No. 108 requires that all vehicles to which the standard applies, except trailers and motorcycles, be equipped with, among other things, a vehicular hazard warning operating unit and a vehicular hazard warning signal flasher.[1] A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is a driver controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.[2] A vehicular hazard warning signal flasher is a device which, as long as it is turned on, causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash.[3] These requirements for hazard lights have been in the standard, largely unchanged, since it was first enacted in 1967.[4] The purpose of the hazard warning is to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic.[5] As an initial matter, although not explicitly stated in GMs letter, we assume for purposes of this interpretation that the vehicle GM describes has a manually-activated hazard warning control that satisfies the requirements in S6.6.2 and S4 for a driver controlled hazard warning operating unit, and also satisfies the requirements in FMVSS No. 101 for a hazard warning signal control and telltale. Nothing in GMs letter indicates otherwise. Moreover, this is consistent with the vehicle having, as GM describes, a Level 2 automated system.[6] Past agency interpretations of automatic activation of hazard lights have reached different conclusions about their permissibility. FMVSS No. 108 defines the hazard warning operating unit as a driver controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard. Some past agency interpretations have construed this language to preclude automatic operation of the hazard warning lights, on the basis that automatic activation would not be driver controlled.[7] However, since those interpretations were issued, NHTSA has clarified that automatic activation is permissible in certain circumstances. In a 2002 interpretation letter issued to Bartlett Industries, Inc., NHTSA explained that the hazard lights may be automatically actuated following a vehicle crash: [A] series of . . . letters reflect our opinion that hazard warning system lamps must be activated and deactivated by the driver. This conclusion was based upon the definition of hazard warning systems by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as driver actuated. The one exception to driver actuation that our recent letters reflect is automatic activation of the hazard warning system in the aftermath of a vehicle crash. As we informed Mr. Steele, we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point.[8] GM states that in the event that a human driver fails to respond to Super Cruises request that the human retake control of the vehicle, and Super Cruise consequently determines that the safest thing to do is to bring the vehicle slowly to a stop in or near the roadway, Super Cruise-equipped vehicles will activate the vehicles hazard lights automatically once the vehicle is stopped. We agree with GM that the situation it describes is similar to the situation in which the Steele (and Bartlett) letters that interpreted FMVSS No. 108 to permit automatic actuation of the hazard lights. Although GMs system does not activate the hazard warning signal after a crash has occurred, it does activate the hazard lights when the vehicle has already stopped. This is the prototypical situation in which the hazard lights are intended to be used, and it is one of the situations that other motorists have come to expect when they see the hazard signal. There would appear to be no ambiguity about the signals meaning in this situation, and we believe that it is unlikely that the use of the hazard lights would confuse other motorists.[9] Therefore, the automatic activation of the hazard lights in the circumstances described by GM would be permissible.[10] Any other automatic activation of hazard warning lights would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. NHTSA may also consider amending the relevant provisions of FMVSS No. 108 at some point in the future in order to clarify situations when hazard lights may activate automatically. We note that GM indicates that when the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the vehicle the system will bring the vehicle to a stop in or near the roadway. A vehicle system that stops a vehicle directly in a roadway might depending on the circumstances be considered to contain a safety-related defecti.e., it may present an unreasonable risk of an accident occurring or of death and injury in an accident.[11] Federal law requires the recall of a vehicle that contains a safety-related defect.[12] We urge GM to fully consider the likely operation of the system it is contemplating and ensure that it will not present such a risk. If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel Dated: 11/18/16 Ref: Standard No. 108
[1] S6.6.2. [2] S4. [3] S4. [4] See 32 FR 2408, 2411-2412 (Feb. 3, 1967). Before 2012, the hazard warning requirements were largely incorporated by reference to standards promulgated by SAE (formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers), specifically, SAE J910, Jan. 1966 (hazard warning signal operating unit), and SAE J945, Feb. 1966 (hazard warning signal flasher). In a 2007 final rule NHTSA reorganized FMVSS No. 108 by streamlining the regulatory text and clarifying the standards requirements. 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). The final rule, among other things, reduced reliance on third-party documents incorporated by reference by incorporating those requirements directly into the regulatory text. This final rule, which incorporated the hazard warning requirements directly into the regulatory text, became effective on December 1, 2012. 76 FR 48009 (Aug. 8, 2011). [5] 61 FR at 2,865 (Jan. 29, 1996) (quoting Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, to Larry Egley (Aug. 8, 1989)) (stopped vehicle); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Sen. Richard Lugar (May 9, 2000) (vehicle stopped or proceeding at slower rate), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21478.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). See also SAE J910, Jan. 1966 (A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to the approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.). [6] NHTSA defines Level 2 automation consistent with the SAE J3016 levels of automation, as the driving mode-specific execution by one or more driver assistance systems of both steering and acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task. See NHTSAs September 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/AV (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016), and http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016). [7] Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Mark Steele, Steele Enterprises (Dec. 6, 1999) (This means that the hazard warning signal unit must be activated by the driver and not automatically.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20856.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Eric Reed (Feb. 29, 2000) (An automatic activation of the hazard warning unit would not be driver controlled and is therefore not permitted.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/reed.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to Ted Gaston, Muncie Indiana Transit System (Apr. 25, 2005) (We have previously interpreted driver controlled to mean that the hazard warning signal system must be activated and deactivated by the driver and not by automatic means . . . .), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF002470.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). [8] Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Timothy Bartlett, Bartlett Industries, Inc. (Jan. 28, 2002) (Bartlett letter) (citations omitted), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23695.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016) (quoting Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Steele Enterprises (Feb. 25, 2000) (Steele letter), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21171.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016)). As noted above, see supra n.4, the referenced SAE document is now incorporated into the text of FMVSS No. 108. [9] Automatic activation of hazard lights may also be permissible under the theory that the automatic-activation function represents supplemental lighting in addition to the driver- (manually-)controlled hazard lights. Supplemental lighting is not permitted to impair the effectiveness of required lighting; see S6.2.1. In recent years, NHTSA has generally concluded that the use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose would impair the effectiveness of the required lighting because it would compromise and reduce its safety and effectiveness. See, e.g., Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch (Aug. 5, 1999), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20180.ztv.html (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016). Regardless of whether automatic activation of hazard lights was construed as supplemental lighting, NHTSA would still look to whether the automatic activation of the hazard lights was consistent with the purpose of hazards and whether it would create ambiguity or risk confusing other motorists. [10] Since the mid-1990s, several interpretations have addressed situations in which automatic activation of hazard lights would not be permissible because the message that the hazard lights would convey in those instances would not be consistent with the purpose of hazards, i.e., to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic. See, e.g., Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to David Coburn, Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Aug. 6, 1999) (We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of indicating sudden accelerator release, a signal that bears no relationship to a hazard warning signal and one which could create confusion were the hazard warning signal used for an unrelated purpose.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/19886.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Mark Steele, Steele Enterprises (Oct. 7, 1999) (FMVSS No. 108 does not permit the hazard lights to signal the activation of the anti-lock brake system because that could result in confusing signals), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20662.ztv.htm (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). NHTSA would continue to consider automatic activation of hazard lights in such situations to be inconsistent with FMVSS No. 108. [11] 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30118. [12] 49 U.S.C. 30118. |
2016 |