ID: aiam2327

Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your telephone request of June 17, 1976, fo confirmation that S 575.101 of Part 575, *Consumer Information*, was recently revised to specify vehicle stopping distance information based on stops that may include wheel lockup under the conditions allowed by Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. You note that the text of S 575.101(c)(5), and the accompanying illustration in Figure 1 of the section, describe the information provided as performance achieved 'without locking the wheels.'; Your interpretation of the requirements of S 575.101 is correct. I amending Part 575 to permit the use of stopping distance data collected in tests for Standard No. 105-75, the agency made all changes it believed necessary to provide for the use of stopping distance information gathered in connection with Standard No. 105-75 (41 FR 1066, January 6, 1976). The reference to 'without locking the wheels' should have been deleted from the text of S 575.101(c)(5) and Figure 1. A correcting amendment will be issued shortly.; The correction of an omission from the text of the first paragraph of 575.101(c) will also be made at that time. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the concluding option (as published in the *Federal Register*) should read 'under the procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section and the conditions specified in paragraph (e) of this section.'; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam5548

"Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994 requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning 'options' which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirements of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York. The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2. Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part: The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows. The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency exit door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under 103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 217 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law. Emergency Exit Release (S5.3) The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, since the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits might have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide. Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5) Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit.' For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3). Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated that it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. Mitchell, IN 47446 Enclosure";

ID: aiam2777

Dear Mr. Friedlander: This responds to your February 23, 1978, letter asking whether a tub can be installed in a tubeless tire without any adverse effects upon safe operation of that tire. In our January 6, 1978, letter to Mr. Philip Taft of your Association, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicated that a retreader could not change a tire originally labeled 'tubeless' to a tire labeled 'tube type,' because such an alteration would violate the labeling requirements of Standard No. 117, '*Retreaded Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.*' The NHTSA did not state, as you indicate in your letter, that tubes could not be installed in retreaded tubeless tires.; You ask whether the use if tubes in tubeless tires creates any safet problems. The agency is unaware of safety problems resulting from the use of tubes in tubeless tires. The NHTSA has determined, however, that tubes should not be placed in damaged tubeless tires in lieu of permanent repairs to those tires. This determination applies to those instances where tubes were used in tubeless tires after failure of the tire. In such cases, the tire casing could have been fractured or some other damage to the tire could have been sustained that would cause excessive wear of a tube inserted in the tire. Excessive wear of a tube could cause further tire failure. Therefore, tubes should not be inserted as a permanent repair of a damaged tubeless tire. Nothing in this finding, however, is intended to indicate that tubes in undamaged tubeless tires create safety problems. At this time the agency has no data to support your theory that the use of tubes in undamaged tubeless tires poses a safety problem.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: aiam1858

Dear Mr. Delen: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1975, asking whethe the pendulum test device sensors described in section S5.3.7 of the March 12, 1975, notice proposing to amend the Federal bumper standard must be installed for compliance testing if you can prove that no part of the test device, other than the impact ridge, will contact the vehicle.; Under the assumption of your letter, the force and pressure measurin sensors would not need to be installed on planes A and B of the pendulum test device during your compliance testing. A manufacturer is only obligated to exercise due care in assuring himself that his product is capable of meeting the performance requirements of applicable standards when tested in the manner prescribed. If a vehicle is constructed so that it does not touch planes A and B, there is no need to measure the force and pressure on those surfaces.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3865

Dear Mr. Pomer: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, as it relates to one of the Premier helmet models. You enclosed a photograph of the helmet which shows that the helmet has a visor in the front. You state that the visor is an integral part of the polycarbonate helmet shell and ask if this helmet complies with the standard.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (as amended) (the Act). Certification that an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a motorcycle helmet, complies with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the obligation of the manufacturer under section 114 of the Act. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not state in advance whether a helmet complies with the standard. The agency's determination of compliance occurs only in the context of an enforcement action.; This office has reviewed the photograph of the Premier helmet regardin the visor and notes that paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'The brow opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch above all points in the basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3).' The intent of this provision is to give the helmet user an unobstructed view. Therefore, if the lowest point, or the tip, of the visor is at least one inch above the basic plane, as shown in Figure 2 of the standard, the helmet should meet the requirements of this provision.; A copy of 49 CFR Part 556, *Exemption for Inconsequential Defect o Noncompliance, is enclosed for your information, if you decide to petition the NHTSA regarding the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 30112 30113 - Goodman

Mr. Timothy H. Goodman
Thomas Hine LLP
1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Goodman:

This responds to your October 8, 2021 letter concerning two provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C.§§ 30101 et seq.) as applied to several automated vehicles your client produces. The vehicles are currently undergoing testing on public roads for testing or evaluation under the non-application provision in 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).1 After the testing, your client plans to seek a general exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30113 (regulations codified at 49 CFR part 555) for the sale or commercial deployment of identical vehicles.2 You ask: if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) were to grant the part 555 exemption petition for the identical vehicles, could the grant include the vehicles now undergoing testing on public roads? You believe the answer should be yes.
 
As explained below, NHTSA agrees with much of your analysis regarding the logic in including the nonconforming FAST Act vehicles3 in the part 555 exemption since the vehicles in the two groups would be identical. However, there is tension between 30112(b)(10) and 30113 that must be reconciled, and a provision in part 555 that is contrary to this outcome.4 The part 555 provision could be changed, but changes to the regulations are best accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking. So, while NHTSA agrees with the logic of your interpretation request, we believe that seeking a change via rulemaking would resolve the ambiguity in the applicable laws more definitively and would provide an opportunity for public comment on the issue.

Background
 
The Safety Act directs, in general, that a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS), unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard.5 However, the prohibition is subject to exceptions and exemptions,6 two of which are relevant to your letter.

First, § 30112(b)(10), established in December 2015 as part of the FAST Act, states that the general prohibition in 30112 that a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import, nonconforming vehicles does not apply to the “introduction of a motor vehicle in interstate commerce solely for purposes of testing or evaluation by a [qualifying] manufacturer that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation.”7 This provision allows those qualifying manufacturers to operate, on public roads, nonconforming domestically produced vehicles for testing or evaluation. (The manufacturer you describe in your letter is a qualifying manufacturer under § 30112(b)(10).)

Second, § 30113 authorizes NHTSA to exempt motor vehicles from an FMVSS under defined circumstances, thereby temporarily allowing manufacturers to produce nonconforming vehicles for sale or other commercial deployment. Vehicles may only be exempted under § 30113 under one of four enumerated bases, including a basis that the vehicle for which the exemption is sought offers an overall safety level at least equal to that of a nonexempt vehicle. (49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv), 49 CFR 555.6(d).)

Discussion

The tension between 30112(b)(10) and 30113 arises because the former has language limiting the sale of vehicles introduced in interstate commerce for testing or evaluation after completion of such testing or evaluation, while the latter allows manufacturers a means to sell noncomplying vehicles that are at least as safe as non-exempted vehicles. However, we believe the provisions can be reconciled, as Congress enacted the FAST Act non-application clause after the general exemption provision of 30113 and presumably designed the two provisions to work in concert.
We believe Congress did not envision prohibiting manufacturers from selling or deploying vehicles previously tested or evaluated under 30112(b)(10) if those vehicles are identical to vehicles permitted for sale by 30113; if Congress intended such a surprising outcome under 30112(b)(10), it would have made its intentions clear. Accordingly, we interpret the clause “that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation” as emphasizing Congress’s intent not to permit a later sale or offer for sale of the FAST Act vehicle if it is not at least as safe as a compliant vehicle. Thus, if NHTSA determines that vehicles identical to the 30112(b)(10) vehicles are at least as safe as non-exempt vehicles, it is logical that Congress intended that the 30112(b)(10) vehicles be permitted to be sold or deployed under 30113.
 
There is, however, more to reconciliating the two, as NHTSA’s regulation implementing 30113 bears on the situation at hand. 49 CFR 555.7(f) states: “[u]nless a later effective date is specified in the notice of the grant, a temporary exemption is effective upon publication of the notice in the Federal Register and exempts vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date.” NHTSA explained in the preamble to the final rule that established §555.7(f) that the amendment was “intended to clarify the agency’s policy that exemptions should not have retroactive effect which could serve to excuse manufacture of nonconforming vehicles in violation of […] the Safety Act.”8 We generally agree with your argument that your client’s testing and evaluation vehicles were not nonconforming vehicles in violation of the Safety Act because of the exception in 30112(b)(10) and so 555.7(f)’s focus on nonpermitted actions may not be germane. (Indeed, this is the basis for our position that part 555 could be reconciled with the Fast Act exception.) However, the plain language of part 555 is unambiguous as written; thus, our ability to interpret away from that plain meaning is limited. We believe addressing this matter in rulemaking is appropriate and would provide an opportunity to clarify part 555 as the regulation evolves to include vehicles previously manufactured.
 
To summarize, based on the language of part 555, NHTSA maintains its general position that part 555 is written to provide exemptions for vehicles that have yet to be manufactured. However, in the situation you describe, it would appear logical to allow the former FAST Act vehicles existing at the time NHTSA grants the part 555 petition to be included in the part 555 exemption. In order to remove any ambiguity, we believe that 49 CFR 555.7(f) should be amended, something NHTSA would consider upon receipt of a petition. Persons interested in submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend part 555 should follow the procedures for such submissions in 49 CFR part 552. It is worth stressing, however, that NHTSA’s conclusion in this letter is not a guarantee of a particular response to a petition for rulemaking. Any decision to grant or deny petitions for rulemaking is made in the context of a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with statutory criteria, including opportunity for notice and comment.     

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
 
Sincerely,
 
 Digitally signed by ANN
ANN ELIZABETH ELIZABETH CARLSON

CARLSON
 
Date: 2022.05.19 14:59:50
-04'00'
 
Ann Carlson Chief Counsel
 
Dated: 5/19/22
Ref: 30112 and 30113

1 The non-application provision at 49 U.S.C. § 30112(b)(10) was added in 2015 to the Safety Act by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
2 The basis of the part 555 petition is the exempted vehicles would have an equivalent overall level of safety to a non-exempted vehicle. The exempted vehicles would operate as a single captive fleet; they would not be sold to ordinary consumers.
3 “FAST Act vehicles” refers to vehicles that are tested or evaluated subject to the exception in 30112(b)(10).
4 49 CFR §555.7(f).
5 Section 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
6 Sections 30112(a) and (b).
7 Paragraph 30112(b)(10) specifies that the non-applicability only extends to a manufacturer that, prior to the enactment of the FAST Act (December 4, 2015), has (a) manufactured and distributed motor vehicles into the U.S. that are certified to comply with all applicable FMVSS; (b) submitted to the Secretary appropriate manufacturer
identification information under 49 CFR part 566, “Manufacturer Identification;” and (c) if applicable, identified an agent for service of process in accordance with 49 CFR part 551, “Procedural Rules.”
8 39 FR 37988, October 25, 1974.

ID: 571.205-Plexiglass Barriers Clarification-Klos

Mr. Thomas Klos 
AROW Global Corp. 
924 N. Parkview Circle Mosinee, WI 54455
 
Dear Mr. Klos:
 
This responds to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about a letter of interpretation NHTSA issued to Mr. Mike Collingwood of the Illinois DOT on August 11, 2020. The letter concerned the installation of plexiglass barriers installed to the right of the driver in school buses to help minimize the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email.
 
Background
 
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 (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects.
 
On August 11, 2020, NHTSA responded to Mr. Collingwood’s request regarding the installation of “plexiglass barriers” installed to the right of, and behind, the driver’s seating position on school buses.1 In the letter, NHTSA concluded that the barriers were items of motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing material.” FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard” (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996).
 
In the August 2020 letter, NHTSA stated that the barriers located to the right of the driver would be “interior partitions” located in an area requisite for driving visibility. As interior partitions located in an area requisite for driving visibility, the barriers would be required to be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B.
 
In your letter, you ask about Table A1 in the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 standard, which provides a list of glazing types that may be used for “[g]lazing to the immediate right and left of the driver” for buses. You state that, because of this category, you historically have not used glazing with AS4 or AS4A designations (hereafter referred to as Item 4 and 4A glazing) on barriers installed to the right of the driver. You ask for guidance to ensure you are using the correct glazing types for interior barriers located to the immediate right and left of the driver.
 
Items 4 and 4A glazing may be used on barriers (partitions) installed to the right of the driver. Table A1 is located in the appendix to ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, and the appendix, as stated in its heading, is not a part of the ANSI standard, but is included for information purposes only.2 Accordingly, when there is any disparity between the language in Table A1 and the standard, the information within the standard prevails.
 
Subsection 4.2 of the ANSI standard specifies that Item 4 and Item 4A glazing may be used in “interior partitions” and does not specifically address the category of “glazing to the immediate right and left of the driver.” Because NHTSA considered the plexiglass barriers referenced in the August 11, 2020 letter to be interior partitions, and because the standard does not exclude the use of Items 4 and 4A glazing in glazing located to the immediate right of the driver, NHTSA concluded that Items 4 and 4A glazing may be used in the partitions.
 
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
 
Sincerely,
 
                       Digitally signed by ANN
ANN ELIZABETH ELIZABETH CARLSON
  Date: 2022.05.31
  13:07:01 -04'00'
CARLSON
 
Ann Carlson 
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22
Ref: FMVSS No. 205
 
1 Letter to Mr. Mike Collingwood, (August 11, 2020) available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.205%20Plexiglass%20Barriers%20(002).htm. 
2 The ANSI standard states: “(This Appendix is not a part of American National Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways, Z26.1-1996, but is included for information purposes only.)”

ID: NCC-210420-001 - Retention Requirement 304

Mr. Ric Willard
Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc. 
6800 Geddes Road
Superior Township, MI 48198 

Dear Mr. Willard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection, would apply to low-mass, small-energy, high voltage electric vehicle (EV) components that store small amounts of electricity, such as small individual capacitors.1 Specifically, you ask whether these components are “electric energy storage/conversion devices” that are subject to S5.2, Electric energy storage/conversion device retention.
 
As explained below, our answer is no. Given that the purpose of S5.2 is to protect vehicle occupants from injury by heavy projectiles in a crash, we have determined that low-mass, low- energy, high voltage electronic subcomponents do not fall under the FMVSS No. 305 definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device,” and thus are not subject to S5.2(a).
 
Regulatory requirements
 
FMVSS No. 305 specifies requirements for, among other things, the “retention of electric energy storage/conversion devices during and after a crash” (S1). The primary requirement in FMVSS No. 305 relating to component retention is in S5.2(a), which states that, when tested in accordance with S6 of the standard, electrical energy storage/conversion devices “shall remain attached to the vehicle by at least one component anchorage, bracket, or any structure that transfers loads from the device to the vehicle structure,” and that electrical energy storage/conversion devices located outside the occupant compartment “shall not enter the occupant compartment.”
 
The standard defines the term “electric energy storage/conversion device” as “a high voltage source that stores or converts energy for vehicle propulsion. This includes, but is not limited to, a high voltage battery or battery pack, fuel cell stack, rechargeable energy storage device, and capacitor module” (S4).
 
Background
 
NHTSA first established the S5.2 retention requirement as part of a September 27, 2000 final rule that established FMVSS No. 305. 65 FR 57980. The original intent of S5.2 “was to ensure that the battery modules [i.e., energy storage/conversion devices] would not become unattached and become flying projectiles in a crash or subsequent rollover,” causing further damage outside the vehicle. In a later rulemaking, NHTSA added a second purpose to S5.2, which is “to reduce deaths and injuries during and after a crash that occur from the intrusion of electric energy storage/conversion devices into the occupant compartment.” 76 FR at 45442. NHTSA’s concern that an “electric energy storage/conversion device” could intrude into the occupant compartment stems from the fact that high voltage batteries that typically serve as an EV’s primary electric energy storage/conversion device are usually very massive, and therefore would have sufficient momentum to cause serious injuries if not secured in place in a collision.2
 
NHTSA discussed the applicability of the S5.2 retention requirement in its response to petitions for reconsideration of a June 14, 2010 final rule from Honda and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM). These petitions requested (among other things) that NHTSA clarify what vehicle components fall under the definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device,” and are thus subject to S5.2. As part of NHTSA’s response to these petitions, the agency explained that the S5.2 retention requirement was not intended to apply to low-mass components:
 
We also agree with Honda and the AIAM that the language of the June 14, 2010 final rule could be interpreted as unintentionally requiring low mass components, such as ducts and vents, to remain attached to the electric energy storage/conversion systems. As previously discussed, today's final rule adds a new definition for “electric energy storage/conversion device,” which includes a high voltage battery or battery pack, capacitor modules, fuel cell stacks, and rechargeable energy storage devices used for vehicle propulsion, but does not include low mass components, such as ducts, vents, and wiring harnesses.
 
76 FR at 45442. NHTSA has not elaborated on the applicability of the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition since its response to the Honda and AIAM petitions.
 
Discussion
 
NHTSA has determined that small, low-mass and low-energy electronic subcomponents, such as individual capacitors, do not fall under the definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device,” and thus are not required to remain attached to the vehicle in a crash per FMVSS No. 305, S5.2.

As noted above, the term “electric energy storage/conversion device,” is defined, in part, through a non-exhaustive list of examples. One of the primary characteristics the devices included in this list have in common is that they are constructed from multiple subcomponents to enable them to potentially store a large amount of energy.3 For this reason, the devices in this list tend to be heavy, meaning they pose an unreasonable safety risk due to their momentum if they were to break free from the vehicle. While low-mass electronic subcomponents like individual capacitors could potentially store electrical energy, they are of sufficiently low-energy that they would not pose an unreasonable risk of electric shock in a crash, nor do they contain enough mass to pose an unreasonable risk of impact injury in a crash. Given this key difference between the low-mass items you describe and the components listed in the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition, NHTSA does not believe low-mass and low-energy electronic subcomponents were intended to be covered by the definition. Thus, the components are not subject to S5.2.
 
NHTSA’s conclusion that the low-mass and low-energy electronic components you describe are not covered by the definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device” is consistent with the agency’s response to the AIAM and Honda petitions. Although NHTSA did not specifically identify low-mass, low-energy, high voltage electronic subcomponents as excluded from the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition in its response to the petitions, such subcomponents are more similar to the non-electronic components listed in the petition response than they are to the devices listed in the definition. Like the non-electronic components listed in the petition response, a low-mass, low-energy, high voltage electronic subcomponent would be unlikely to pose a risk of electric shock or risk of impact injury to vehicle occupants in a crash. The fact that a low-mass and low-energy subcomponent is conductively connected to a device that does fall under the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition does not mean the subcomponent itself falls under the definition.
Although NHTSA does not believe that small electronic components are subject to S5.2, retention methods that unreasonably allow entry of these electronic components into the passenger compartment in a crash could pose an unreasonable risk to safety. Efforts should be taken to prevent these components from entering the passenger compartment in a crash.
 
If you have further questions, you may refer them to Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.
 
Sincerely,                                                                                                                                                               

Ann Carlson 
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22
Ref: FMVSS No. 305

 1 It is NHTSA’s understanding that these components would be small electrical subcomponents such as capacitors that are attached directly to a circuit board, and have a mass of 300 grams (0.7 pounds) at most.

2 This is well illustrated by the vehicle described in your interpretation request. According to the figures provided, the primary energy storage/conversion device (the high-voltage battery) has a mass of 473 kilograms (1,043 pounds). By contrast, all other high voltage components on the vehicle combined have a mass of 133.4 kilograms (294 pounds), and the heaviest individual component (the motor) has a mass of 64.5 kilograms (142 pounds).

 3 For example, a “capacitor module,” which is one of the illustrative examples listed in the definition of “Electric energy storage/conversion device,” is a device that is comprised of arrays of several capacitors.

ID: 2022-9-15 Letter to CBP on Legality of Odometer Mileage Blocking Devices

September 15, 2022
BY EMAIL
 
Mr. Alan Aprea
Director
Electronics Center of Excellence & Expertise
U.S. Customs and Border Protection JFK Airport Building 77 
Suite 200 
New York City, NY 11430
 
Dear Mr. Aprea:
 
I understand that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is working to identify and stop the importation of devices that are used in motor vehicles to prevent or partially prevent the vehicle’s odometer from accumulating mileage. Such devices may be used to slow or stop the accumulation of mileage shown on the odometer of leased vehicles, or to otherwise engage in odometer fraud.
 
To assist with your work, I am enclosing an interpretation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on this issue. As you are aware, NHTSA enforces the provisions of Chapter 327 of title 49 of the United States Code, which has the purposes of “prohibit[ing] tampering with motor [vehicle] odometers” and “provid[ing] safeguards to protect purchasers in the sale of motor vehicles with altered or reset odometers,” 49 U.S.C. § 32701(b). Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA explained in its interpretation:
 
It is unlawful for a person to “advertise for sale, sell, use, install, or have installed, a device that makes an odometer of a motor vehicle register a mileage different from the mileage the vehicle was driven, as registered by the odometer within the designed tolerance of the manufacturer of the odometer.” 49 U.S.C. § 32703(1). A person also may not “disconnect, reset, alter, or have disconnected, reset, or altered, an odometer of a motor vehicle intending to change the mileage registered by the odometer.” Id. § 32703(2). In addition, it is illegal for a person, “with intent to defraud, [to] operate a motor vehicle on a street, road, or highway if the person knows that the odometer of the vehicle is disconnected or not operating.” Id. § 32703(3).
 
The marketing for sale, sale, or use of an electronic device that slows or stops a motor vehicle’s odometer from registering mileage driven violates 49 U.S.C. § 32703. NHTSA is aware of no legitimate use for such a device.
 
January 12, 2021 interpretation (footnote omitted).
 
We appreciate CBP’s efforts to detect and prevent the importation of these devices that cannot lawfully be sold, used, or installed in the United States. Such devices, which may result in a consumer being unaware of a vehicle’s actual mileage, may pose serious safety consequences, in addition to economic and commercial harm. If you need further assistance, please contact Dan Rabinovitz at 202-366-8534 or via email at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov.
 
Sincerely,

John Donaldson 
Deputy Chief Counsel
 
Enclosure
 
Dated: 9/15/22
Ref: 49 U.S.C Sec. 32703

ID: 571.209--Attachment hardware--Freedman--17-0328

Mr. David Klopp, Director

Quality, Testing & Compliance

Freedman Seating Company

4545 W. Augusta Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60651

Dear Mr. Klopp:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning the attachment hardware requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies.  You ask whether it is acceptable to use attachment hardware smaller than that specified in the standard if the seating system complies with the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.  As we explain below, under FMVSS No. 209 it is acceptable to provide attachment hardware other than the 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A attachment bolts specified in the standard if it meets 209’s S4.3(c) strength requirements [FD(1] when tested under the demonstration procedures of FMVSS No. 209’s S5.2(c).[JP2]   The agency will not use the FMVSS No. 210 demonstration procedures in place of those of S5.2(c).

Background

FMVSS No. 209 specifies a variety of requirements for seat belt assemblies, including S4.3(c), which specifies strength requirements for attachment hardware that must be met when tested to a procedure in S5.2(c).  [FD(3] Section S4.1(f) generally requires, among other things, that a seat belt assembly include all hardware necessary for installation in a motor vehicle.  However, S4.1(f) goes on to exempt certain seat belt assemblies from this requirement:

[S4.1](f) Attachment hardware.  *  *  *  However, seat belt assemblies designed for installation in motor vehicles equipped with seat belt assembly anchorages that do not require anchorage nuts, plates, or washers, need not have such hardware, but shall have 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent metric hardware.[1]

Your question concerns the meaning of the phrase “equivalent metric hardware.”  You ask whether it is acceptable to use smaller (3/8” or M10 diameter) attachment hardware if the seating system (seat belts anchored to the seat structure) complies with the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210. 

Discussion

After examining the history of S4.1(f) regarding the phrase in question, we conclude that “equivalent” is referring to the alternate bolts’ meeting the strength requirements of S4.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209.  When the initial FMVSS No. 209 was promulgated in 1967 it incorporated by reference existing seat belt requirements codified at 15 CFR § 9.[2]  Section 9 required 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A fasteners; there was no provision for equivalent hardware.  The “equivalency” language was added later to FMVSS No. 209:

S3. Requirements.  Seat belt assemblies shall meet the requirements of [15 CFR §9] using the attachment hardware specified in paragraph (f) of 15 CFR 9.3 or approved equivalent hardware.”[3] 

NHTSA explained in the preamble to the final rule adding the equivalency language that the agency had “determined that other fasteners that meet or exceed the strength requirements of paragraph (c) of 15 CFR 9.5 may be suitable for use.  Therefore Standard No. 209 is being amended to provide for the use of an approved equivalent of equal or superior performance as an alternative to the fasteners specified.”[4]  The strength requirements in 15 CFR § 9.5(c) for attachment hardware were later re-codified at S4.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209.[5]  In sum, this history shows that the equivalency language was intended to allow the use of hardware other than 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A attachment bolts as long as the hardware meets or exceeds the strength requirements specified in S4.3(c).[6] 

These S4.3(c) strength requirements remain the same today.  They specify that attachment hardware must withstand specified forces when subjected to the test procedures in S5.2(c) of FMVSS No. 209.  This test involves applying a load to the bolt through attachment hardware from the seat belt assembly, or through a special fixture which simulates the loading applied by the attachment hardware. 

Note that S4.1(f) and S4.3 do not contemplate an FMVSS No. 210 strength test to assess the equivalency of alternate hardware.  Thus, to answer your question, NHTSA will not assess compliance with S4.3(c)’s strength requirements using the FMVSS No. 210 demonstration procedures.

“Equivalent Metric Hardware”

We recognize that the agency’s intent to state in FMVSS No. 209 that a manufacturer may provide equivalent hardware was somewhat obscured by a subsequent amendment.  The “equivalent hardware” language remained until 1998, when the standard was amended as part of a rulemaking that converted English system measurements in selected FMVSSs to the metric system.[7]  Section S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209 was amended by changing the phrase “equivalent hardware” to “equivalent metric hardware.”[8]  It was not the intent of the 1998 metric conversion rulemaking to make a substantive change to FMVSS No. 209.[9]  Instead, the intent was that “equivalent hardware” was still the rule.  Therefore, the agency interprets the S4.1(f) requirements to permit, as they have since 1967, fasteners other than 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A that meet or exceed the strength requirements in S4.3(c) when tested according to S5.2(c). 

If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/12/19

FMVSS No. 209

[1] (Emphasis and footnote added.)

[2] 32 FR 2408 (Feb. 3, 1967).

[3] 32 FR 3390-91 (Mar. 1, 1967) (emphasis and footnote added).

[4] Id. (emphasis added).

[5] 34 FR 115, 117 (Jan. 4, 1969) (recodification).  Also, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 209 to remove the word “approved” from “approved equivalent hardware.” 

[6] See also NHTSA’s letter to Takata Kojyo Co, Ltd. (Apr. 9, 1973) (stating that “[u]nder the provisions of S4.1(f), ‘equivalent hardware’ is permissible in lieu of the 7/16" bolts.  In such a case, the tests required under S4.3(c), as prescribed under S5.2(c), would be performed on the entire equivalent hardware, rather than or the individual components (bolts).”).

[7] 62 FR 19253 (Apr. 21, 1997).

[8] 63 FR 28922, 28936 (May 27, 1998) (final rule).  See also letter from Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, to J.W. Lawrence, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation (May 8, 1992) (stating that equivalent metric hardware is permitted).

[9] 63 FR 28922 (“The [metric] conversions are not intended to make any changes in the stringency of the affected FMVSS”).