NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam3301OpenMr. George Beggs, Mechanical Plastics Corp., Castleton Street, Pleasantville, NY 10570; Mr. George Beggs Mechanical Plastics Corp. Castleton Street Pleasantville NY 10570; Dear Mr. Beggs: This responds to your April 28, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibility as a manufacturer if you modify a Volkswagen by the addition of a recreational device (Hatchpack). The modification that you propose appears to be substantial in that it might involve a significant alteration of the vehicle rear and roof structures.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to give yo some general background information. First, the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. It is the responsibility of a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable requirements of all of our safety standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. For example, when your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the Hatchpack device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment.; From the general discussion in your letter, you appear to wan information on safety standards for which you would be responsible. Further, you state that Volkswagen has indicated its concern about the compliance of its vehicle with the crashworthiness safety standards if it is modified as you propose. As we stated above, as an equipment manufacturer, you would not be responsible for the compliance of any safety standard since we have no equipment standards applicable to the device that you manufacture. However, the installer of the device on a new vehicle would be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to comply with all affected safety standards. The installer will probably need your help in making its certification. Therefore, we suggest that you closely confer with Volkswagen to learn which safety standards they feel might be violated by the addition of your equipment. With this information, you can conduct testing or undertake engineering analyses of your device as mounted on the vehicle to see whether Volkswagen's fears have merit. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as modified will continue to comply with the safety standards, then you can pass this information along to the installer of the equipment who could then certify the vehicle in compliance.; The following are the responses to your specific questions. 1. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed and sold on new automobiles by licensed new car dealers?; As I stated above, the addition of this equipment to a new vehicl means that the installer of the equipment must attach an alterer's label to the vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Therefore, the installer would be responsible for any safety standard that might be affected by the installation.; 2. Under what sections of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an independent accessory installer onto a new automobile which is then sold as a new vehicle by a licensed new car dealer?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 1.; 3. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an automobile manufacturer as a factory option for new vehicles which are then to be sold by licensed new car dealers?; If the automobile manufacturer installs the device, that manufacture simply certifies the vehicle in compliance with all safety standards as it must do with any vehicle it produces.; 4. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall i it is to be installed by an automobile owner/user?; There are no safety standards or other regulations applicable t modifications made to vehicles by their owners if the modifications are entirely made by the vehicles' owners. If a business such as a garage were to make the modification, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. However, since the vehicle would be used, such a business would not be required to attach a certification label.; 5. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the parties responsible for certifying to the N.H.T.S.A. that the product is in compliance with the required standards?; No person is required to certify to the NHTSA that a vehicle or produc complies with the requirements. In certain instances, a certification label must be attached to the vehicle. We have indicated in our response to each of the preceding questions when labels must be attached and by whom.; 6. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the liable parties in the event of injury or death as a result if (sic) improper installation?; If the improper installation results in a noncompliance with a safet standard or with a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would hold the installer primarily responsible. If, however, we were to discover that the equipment itself were the cause of the defect or noncompliance, the equipment manufacturer would be responsible to the agency. With respect to private liability that might result from a defect or noncompliance, you should consult with your own attorneys for an answer to this question.; 7. Based on the general information supplied with this letter would th installation of this unit by other than a motor vehicle manufacturer require an 'alterers' label or certification?; As we indicated earlier, the answer to this question is yes if th installation is made on a new motor vehicle that has been previously certified by its manufacturer.; 8. Under which, if any, of the cases described in questions No. 1, No 2, No. 3, and No. 4 would there be an N.H.T.S.A. requirement for a fuel system integrity crash test?; The NHTSA does not require that any manufacturer perform a crash tes if it can prove that the vehicle would comply with the requirements by some other means, such as design analysis. It is impossible for us to tell from your drawings whether your device would likely impact the fuel system. Volkswagen can probably be helpful in providing information in this area. If some impact on the fuel system is likely, testing or analysis would be required in each of the first three instances raised in your questions. No testing is ever required for the modification of used vehicles by their owners.; 9. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from Mechanica Plastics Corp. for the Hatchpack product?; The NHTSA requires no advance forms of certification or assurances fro manufacturers that their products comply with safety standards. Our enforcement scheme is one of self- certification where the agency might subsequently purchase and test a vehicle for compliance with the standards.; 10. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from th installing party as described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 9.; We hope that this clarifies your responsibilities and duties wit respect to the device that you propose to manufacture. Again, we strongly encourage you to consult with Volkswagen engineers who can be the most helpful in telling you of the standards that you are likely to impact with your device. If you have any further questions, please contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3302OpenMr. George Beggs, Mechanical Plastics Corp., Castleton Street, Pleasantville, NY 10570; Mr. George Beggs Mechanical Plastics Corp. Castleton Street Pleasantville NY 10570; Dear Mr. Beggs: This responds to your April 28, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibility as a manufacturer if you modify a Volkswagen by the addition of a recreational device (Hatchpack). The modification that you propose appears to be substantial in that it might involve a significant alteration of the vehicle rear and roof structures.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to give yo some general background information. First, the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. It is the responsibility of a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable requirements of all of our safety standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. For example, when your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the Hatchpack device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment.; From the general discussion in your letter, you appear to wan information on safety standards for which you would be responsible. Further, you state that Volkswagen has indicated its concern about the compliance of its vehicle with the crashworthiness safety standards if it is modified as you propose. As we stated above, as an equipment manufacturer, you would not be responsible for the compliance of any safety standard since we have no equipment standards applicable to the device that you manufacture. However, the installer of the device on a new vehicle would be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to comply with all affected safety standards. The installer will probably need your help in making its certification. Therefore, we suggest that you closely confer with Volkswagen to learn which safety standards they feel might be violated by the addition of your equipment. With this information, you can conduct testing or undertake engineering analyses of your device as mounted on the vehicle to see whether Volkswagen's fears have merit. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as modified will continue to comply with the safety standards, then you can pass this information along to the installer of the equipment who could then certify the vehicle in compliance.; The following are the responses to your specific questions. 1. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed and sold on new automobiles by licensed new car dealers?; As I stated above, the addition of this equipment to a new vehicl means that the installer of the equipment must attach an alterer's label to the vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Therefore, the installer would be responsible for any safety standard that might be affected by the installation.; 2. Under what sections of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an independent accessory installer onto a new automobile which is then sold as a new vehicle by a licensed new car dealer?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 1.; 3. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an automobile manufacturer as a factory option for new vehicles which are then to be sold by licensed new car dealers?; If the automobile manufacturer installs the device, that manufacture simply certifies the vehicle in compliance with all safety standards as it must do with any vehicle it produces.; 4. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall i it is to be installed by an automobile owner/user?; There are no safety standards or other regulations applicable t modifications made to vehicles by their owners if the modifications are entirely made by the vehicles' owners. If a business such as a garage were to make the modification, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. However, since the vehicle would be used, such a business would not be required to attach a certification label.; 5. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the parties responsible for certifying to the N.H.T.S.A. that the product is in compliance with the required standards?; No person is required to certify to the NHTSA that a vehicle or produc complies with the requirements. In certain instances, a certification label must be attached to the vehicle. We have indicated in our response to each of the preceding questions when labels must be attached and by whom.; 6. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the liable parties in the event of injury or death as a result if (sic) improper installation?; If the improper installation results in a noncompliance with a safet standard or with a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would hold the installer primarily responsible. If, however, we were to discover that the equipment itself were the cause of the defect or noncompliance, the equipment manufacturer would be responsible to the agency. With respect to private liability that might result from a defect or noncompliance, you should consult with your own attorneys for an answer to this question.; 7. Based on the general information supplied with this letter would th installation of this unit by other than a motor vehicle manufacturer require an 'alterers' label or certification?; As we indicated earlier, the answer to this question is yes if th installation is made on a new motor vehicle that has been previously certified by its manufacturer.; 8. Under which, if any, of the cases described in questions No. 1, No 2, No. 3, and No. 4 would there be an N.H.T.S.A. requirement for a fuel system integrity crash test?; The NHTSA does not require that any manufacturer perform a crash tes if it can prove that the vehicle would comply with the requirements by some other means, such as design analysis. It is impossible for us to tell from your drawings whether your device would likely impact the fuel system. Volkswagen can probably be helpful in providing information in this area. If some impact on the fuel system is likely, testing or analysis would be required in each of the first three instances raised in your questions. No testing is ever required for the modification of used vehicles by their owners.; 9. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from Mechanica Plastics Corp. for the Hatchpack product?; The NHTSA requires no advance forms of certification or assurances fro manufacturers that their products comply with safety standards. Our enforcement scheme is one of self- certification where the agency might subsequently purchase and test a vehicle for compliance with the standards.; 10. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from th installing party as described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 9.; We hope that this clarifies your responsibilities and duties wit respect to the device that you propose to manufacture. Again, we strongly encourage you to consult with Volkswagen engineers who can be the most helpful in telling you of the standards that you are likely to impact with your device. If you have any further questions, please contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5242OpenMr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale, CA 91201; Mr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale CA 91201; "Dear Mr. Ferrari: This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993 concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag. Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag, (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident, (3) State law may address these issues, and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. 1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life? 2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped? The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold. After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act which provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the air bags. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles. I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person. 4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped? 5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag? The 'render inoperative' provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. 7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure? We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects 'supplemental' to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn, and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer. 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"; |
|
ID: aiam5241OpenMr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale, CA 91201; Mr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale CA 91201; "Dear Mr. Ferrari: This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993 concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag. Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag, (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident, (3) State law may address these issues, and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. 1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life? 2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped? The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold. After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act which provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the air bags. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles. I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person. 4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped? 5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag? The 'render inoperative' provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. 7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure? We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects 'supplemental' to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn, and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer. 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"; |
|
ID: aiam5169OpenMr. Lawrence Hufstedler Mr. Raymond Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD. 5508 Cahuenga Boulevard North Hollywood, CA 91601; Mr. Lawrence Hufstedler Mr. Raymond Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises LTD. 5508 Cahuenga Boulevard North Hollywood CA 91601; "Dear Messrs. Hufstedler and Kesler: This responds to your lette inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as 'passenger vehicles' weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror. If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of- view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror. Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A). In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0003OpenStephen E. Selander, Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; Stephen E. Selander Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; "Dear Mr. Selander: This responds to your February 17, 1992 request fo interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays and No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, as those standards would apply to an electric vehicle (GMEV) that General Motors (GM) is preparing to sell in the future. You requested the agency's concurrence with, or guidance regarding, nine proposed interpretations. Your questions are addressed below. Before discussing the substantive issues that you raised, I note that you requested confidential treatment for portions of certain materials that you provided relating to the brake system planned for the electric vehicle. These materials were previously submitted to NHTSA, and the agency granted confidentiality for portions of the materials in letters dated July 18, 1991 and August 12, 1991. In a letter accompanying your request for interpretation, GM released from its request for confidential treatment portions of the materials for which confidentiality had previously been granted. NHTSA's earlier grants of confidentiality remain in effect for the remaining portions for which GM continues to seek confidential treatment. Accordingly, this letter does not cite any of the confidential information. I also note that, in one of the attachments to your letter, you suggested several amendments to Standard No. 105 that you believe would facilitate the introduction of electric vehicles. As you know, NHTSA recently issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit comments to help the agency determine what existing standards may need modification to meet the needs associated with the introduction of electric vehicles and what new standards may have to be written specifically for electric vehicles. See 56 FR 67038, December 27, 1991. We will consider your recommendations concerning Standard No. 105 as we evaluate the comments on the ANPRM. The scope of this letter is limited to addressing how the current requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 105 would apply to your planned vehicle. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays GM Proposed Interpretation 1: Permit electrically powered vehicles to use symbols that are appropriate for indicating electric power reserve. You asked two questions regarding how Standard No. 101 would apply to the GM electric vehicle. The first question concerned the identification for a gauge that would monitor battery charge as a percent of full charge. This gauge would serve as the functional equivalent of a fuel gauge in traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. You stated, however that it would be inappropriate and potentially misleading to use Standard No. 101's fuel symbol (a picture of a gasoline pump) for a gauge indicating electric power reserve. You stated that you planned to identify the gauge with the ISO battery symbol (a picture of a battery), which you indicated is substantially similar to that found in Standard No. 101 for electrical charge. You requested NHTSA's concurrence that electric vehicles are permitted to use symbols that are appropriate for identifying electric power reserve and not the Standard No. 101 fuel symbol. Standard No. 101 requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See S5(a). Thus, the primary issue raised by your question is whether a gauge indicating electric power reserve is among the displays listed in the standard, and if so, what identification requirements apply. As you noted in your letter, one of the displays listed in Standard No. 101 is a fuel gauge. See S5.1 and Table 2. The dictionary defines 'fuel' as combustible matter used to maintain fire, as coal, wood, oil, etc. See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Electrical power provided by a battery does not come within the meaning of 'fuel.' Therefore, a gauge indicating electric power reserve for an electric vehicle is not a fuel gauge. Another display listed in Standard No. 101 is an electrical charge gauge. This term refers to gauges that indicate whether, and the extent to which, a vehicle's battery is charging. Therefore, a gauge indicating electric power reserve for an electric vehicle is not an electric charge gauge within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Since a gauge indicating electric power reserve is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, its identification is at the option of the manufacturer. GM Proposed Interpretation 2: Allow the 'Service Soon' telltale to indicate loss of powertrain oil pressure for the GMEV. Your second question concerned whether low oil pressure may be indicated by activation of a 'Service Soon' telltale instead of one identified by Standard No. 101's oil pressure symbol (a picture of an oil can) or the word 'oil.' You stated that a 'Service Soon' telltale would be more appropriate for an electric vehicle, since it (unlike ICE vehicles) can continue to be driven without oil pressure. One of the displays listed in Standard No. 101 is an oil pressure telltale. While the seriousness of low oil pressure may be different for electric vehicles than ICE vehicles, the condition for activation of an oil pressure telltale (low oil pressure) would be the same. It is our opinion that Standard No. 101's identification requirements would apply to an oil pressure telltale for an electric vehicle. If a manufacturer is concerned that the oil pressure symbol or the word 'oil' might be misleading to drivers familiar with ICE vehicles, the manufacturer is free to provide additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. See S5.2.3. It is not clear, however, that the telltale you plan would be considered a low oil pressure telltale within the meaning of Standard No. 101. You state that, as currently planned, the electric vehicle will be equipped with a 'Service Soon' telltale which will light in the event of a malfunction that could eventually cause damage to the vehicle powertrain, but does not require immediate attention. It thus appears that the telltale might monitor several possible vehicle conditions, one of which is low oil pressure. Standard No. 101 does not require that any of the displays listed in the standard be provided or that two or more displays, if provided, be provided separately. NHTSA has previously concluded that a multipurpose telltale which monitors two functions, oil pressure and coolant temperature, may be identified by the word 'Engine.' See December 29, 1978 letter to Ford Motor Company. The basis for this interpretation was that while Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for oil pressure and coolant temperature telltales, it does not specify any requirements for a single telltale which covers both conditions. For the same reason, if GM provided a single telltale monitoring several vehicle conditions, one of which was low oil pressure, the standard's requirements for an oil pressure telltale would not apply and the identification for that telltale would be at the discretion of the manufacturer. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems You asked seven questions regarding how Standard No. 105 would apply to the GM electric vehicle. You provided the following general description of the brake system planned for the vehicle: The brake system consists of front hydraulic disc (service) brakes, rear electric drum (service and parking) brakes, four-wheel ABS, and regenerative braking. Brake pedal forces and travel are comparable to conventional power assisted hydraulic brake systems, and are independent of the state-of-charge of the vehicle's battery pack. The design features a manual hydraulic 'push through' to apply the front brakes in the event of any electrical failure. Standard No. 105 applies to passenger cars and various other vehicle types with 'hydraulic service brake systems.' See S3. Since the service brakes of the GM electric vehicle would be partly hydraulic brakes and partly electric brakes, a preliminary issue is whether the standard would apply to the vehicle. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the standard would apply to the vehicle. The term 'hydraulic brake system' is defined in S4 as 'a system that uses hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmitting force from a service brake control to the service brake, and that may incorporate a brake power assist unit, or a brake power unit.' The term 'service brake' is defined at Part 571.3 as 'the primary mechanism designed to stop a motor vehicle.' The planned braking system would use hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmitting force from the service brake control to the front brake portion of the service brake. It is our interpretation that this is sufficient, under the definition of 'hydraulic brake system,' for the braking system to be considered a 'hydraulic brake system,' even though hydraulic fluid is not used for the rear brake portion of the service brake. Therefore, Standard No. 105 would apply to the vehicle. GM Proposed Interpretation 3: The GMEV parking brake is mechanically retained in accordance with the requirements of S5.2. Your first question on Standard No. 105 concerned S5.2's requirement that vehicles be manufactured 'with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement.' You stated that the parking brake on the GMEV would be applied and released by electrical means, but would be retained by a mechanical latching device. You requested NHTSA's concurrence that the planned parking brake would satisfy the requirement for mechanically retained engagement. We agree that S5.2 permits the parking brake to be applied and released by electrical or other non-mechanical means, so long as engagement is held by solely mechanical means. Your next several questions concern Standard No. 105's brake failure requirements. As noted by your letter, these requirements are set forth in S5.1.2 (partial failure), S5.1.3 (inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit), and S5.5 (failure in antilock or variable proportioning brake system), and the test procedures for these requirements are set forth in S7.9 and S7.10. GM Proposed Interpretation 4: The subject brake system is a 'split service brake system' consisting of four subsystems--one at each wheel. Standard No. 105 specifies different partial failure requirements depending on whether a vehicle is manufactured with a split service brake system. The term 'split service brake system' is defined in S4 as 'a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage- type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem.' We agree that your planned vehicle can be viewed as having four subsystems, one at each wheel. In only two of the subsystems, however, can leakage-type failures occur (the two hydraulic subsystems). Thus, in determining whether the vehicle has a split service brake system within the meaning of Standard No. 105, the key is whether a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in either of those two subsystems (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) impairs the operation of any other subsystem (i.e., the other hydraulic subsystem or either of the two other subsystems). After reviewing the information provided with your letter, we have no reason to doubt that your planned system qualifies as a split service brake system. GM Proposed Interpretation 5: The four service brake subsystems may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.2 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.1 through S7.9.3 by disabling each subsystem in a way that does not affect the other three subsystems. Standard No. 105's requirements for partial failure are set forth in S5.1.2. For vehicles with a split service brake system, 5.1.2.1 provides that, in the event of a rupture or leakage type of failure in a single subsystem, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems, the remaining portion(s) of the service brake system shall continue to operate and shall be capable of stopping a vehicle from 60 mph within specified stopping distances. You suggested that certification of the requirements of S5.1.2.1, consistent with the procedure of S7.9.1 through S7.9.3, should be established by disabling each of the four subsystems in turn. You also stated that, for purposes of compliance testing, the subsystems would be disabled in such a way that the functioning of only one subsystem would be affected. It is our opinion that, in testing under S5.1.2.1, only the two hydraulic subsystems of your planned brake system would be disabled, as S5.1.2.1 only addresses rupture/leakage types of failures. It does not address any type of failure of a subsystem for which a rupture or leakage type failure cannot occur. We would not consider a break in an electrical system to be a 'rupture' within the meaning of Standard No. 105. We are uncertain as to the meaning of your statement that, for purposes of compliance testing, the subsystems would be disabled in such a way that the functioning of only one subsystem would be affected. This could be read as meaning that the agency must induce a rupture or leakage type failure in a place that doesn't affect other subsystems. However, under S7.9.1, any one rupture or leakage type of failure is introduced, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems. If any such leakage type failure impaired another subsystem, the brake system would not, of course, be considered a split service brake system within the meaning of Standard No. 105. GM Proposed Interpretation 6: The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.3 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.10 by functionally disabling the BCU. Such a procedure will completely disable the brake power assist, and since the electric motors within the hydraulic unit and the rear brake drums are separately disabled during S5.1.2 testing, there is no need to separately consider these electric motors when certifying to the requirements of S5.1.3. Standard No. 105's requirements for inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit are set forth in S5.1.3. You stated that your planned brake system would not utilize conventional power assist, but brake power assist would be provided by the combination of the BCU and four electric motors. You stated that this design does not lend itself to an obvious way of distinguishing brake power assist from other service brake subsystem components, and suggested that the brake system be certified to the requirements of S5.1.3 by disabling the BCU (which would disable all four electric motors and completely eliminate functional brake power assist) and then satisfying the provisions of either S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.2, or S5.1.3.4. You also sought the agency's concurrence that there is no need to otherwise take the four electric motors into account when certifying to the requirements of S5.1.3. S4 of Standard No. 105 defines the term 'brake power assist unit' as a device installed in a hydraulic brake system that reduces the operator effort to actuate the system, and that if inoperative does not prevent the operator from braking the vehicle by a continued application of muscular force on the service brake control. Under the options of S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.2, and S5.1.3.4, stopping distance requirements must be met with one brake power assist unit inoperative. We believe that each electric motor comes within the definition of 'brake power assist unit.' In addition, given the integrated nature of the BCU and the four electric motors, we believe that the combination of the BCU/four electric motors also comes within the definition of 'brake power assist unit.' It is therefore our opinion that the requirements of S5.1.3 must be met both when the BCU is disabled (which would disable all four electric motors and completely eliminate functional brake power assist) and also when each of the four electric motors is disabled individually. We note that, under our interpretation of S5.1.2 discussed above, not all of the four electric motors are separately disabled during S5.1.2 testing. GM Proposed Interpretation 7: The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.5 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.4 by functionally disabling the BCU. Since such a procedure will completely disable ABS and the variable proportioning function, no other testing is required in connection with S5.5. Standard No.105's requirements for failed antilock and variable proportioning brake systems are set forth in S5.5. You stated that the BCU is the functional power source for the GMEV's ABS, and that the BCU also regulates the proportion of front to rear braking. You sought the agency's concurrence that disabling the BCU is the appropriate means of complying with S5.5, and is consistent with the procedure of S7.9.4. S5.5 provides that a vehicle shall meet certain stopping distance requirements in the event of failure (structural or functional) in an antilock or variable proportioning brake system. S7.9.4 provides the following test procedure: With vehicle at GVWR, disconnect functional power source, or otherwise render antilock system inoperative. Disconnect variable proportioning brake system. Make four stops, each from 60 mph. If more than one antilock or variable proportioning brake subsystem is provided, disconnect or render one subsystem inoperative and run as above. Restore system to normal at completion of this test. Repeat for each subsystem provided. We concur that your planned brake system should be tested to the requirements of S5.5 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.4 by functionally disabling the BCU, and that no other testing is required. Under S7.9.4, the antilock system is to be rendered inoperative and the variable proportioning system is to be disconnected. Both of these procedures are accomplished by functionally disabling the BCU. Further, it is our opinion that the planned brake system would not have antilock or variable proportioning subsystems, since antilock at all four wheels and variable proportioning are all controlled by the BCU. GM Proposed Interpretation 8: Assuming the conditions established in proposed S6.2, regenerative braking is permitted to function normally when conducting the test procedures of S7. In particular, the phrase 'service brakes shall be capable of stopping' (found in S5.1.4 and S5.1.5, for example) is not to be construed as prohibiting the normal operation for regenerative braking. In addressing how the current requirements of Standard No. 105 would apply to your vehicle, we cannot assume the conditions you recommend establishing in a new S6.2. The agency would need to add those conditions to the standard in rulemaking. I will therefore address how regenerative braking would be treated under the current requirements. As discussed in your letter, regenerative braking assists in decelerating the vehicle by converting the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle into stored electrical energy within the vehicle's battery pack. Regenerative braking on the planned GM electric vehicle will supplement, under certain conditions, the friction braking provided by the service brakes. You stated that regenerative braking will only be available when the vehicle is 'in gear.' Since the large majority of Standard No. 105 tests are conducted with the vehicle in 'neutral,' regenerative braking will have no influence on the outcome of those tests. You indicated that since some Standard No. 105 tests, notably fade and recovery and the water test, are conducted with the the vehicle 'in gear,' regenerative braking could occur during these tests. You stated that you believe that regenerative braking should generally be allowed to function normally during Standard No. 105 testing. You argued that the regenerative braking which may occur during 'in gear' Standard No. 105 tests is little different from the engine braking which occurs in conventional ICE vehicles. We agree that regenerative braking should function normally during Standard No. 105 testing, just as engine braking occurs normally during Standard No. 105's 'in gear' tests. Another issue that you raised in connection with regenerative braking is the state of battery charge during testing, which can affect the amount of regenerative braking. You proposed (for your recommended new S6.2) that tests be initiated with a full charge of the vehicle's battery pack, so that the amount of regenerative braking that would occur during the tests would be minimized to the least amount that could occur in real world driving, i.e., the tests would be conducted under 'worst case' conditions. While Standard No. 105 specifies many test conditions, it does not specify state-of-battery charge. In an interpretation letter to Mazda dated October 2, 1990, we provided general guidance concerning how NHTSA interprets a standard where it does not specify a particular test condition. First, we stated that, in the absence of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. We also indicated, however, that before reaching such a conclusion, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. It is our opinion that the braking requirements of Standard No. 105 must be met regardless of the state of battery charge. The purpose of Standard No. 105 is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. Since an electric vehicle will be driven with the battery at various states of charge, safe braking performance can only be ensured if the standard's requirements can be met in all such conditions. This would generally be consistent with GM's suggestion that compliance testing be conducted under 'worst case' conditions. GM Proposed Interpretation 9: In addition to the explicit conditions for activation of the brake telltale set forth in S5.3 of the standard, permit illumination of the service brake telltale when an impending or latent brake system malfunction is detected during electrical diagnosis. As noted by your letter, S5.3.1 of Standard No. 105 requires a brake telltale to illuminate when there is a gross loss of hydraulic pressure (or, alternatively, a drop in fluid level), a total functional electrical failure in the antilock or variable proportioning brake system, and when the parking brake is applied. You stated that a brake telltale on the planned GMEV would illuminate under these prescribed conditions. You indicated, however, that a diagnostic capability will also exist to detect other faults in the brake system, and requested the agency's concurrence that S5.3.1 permits illumination of the brake telltale when other faults are detected which increase the likelihood of a substantial degradation in brake system performance. While Standard No. 105 requires that a brake telltale be provided which activates under certain specified conditions, it does not expressly state whether the required telltale may also be activated under other conditions. It is our opinion that the telltale may also activate under other conditions so long as such activation does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required telltale or otherwise defeat its purpose. I note that this test is similar to one the agency has long used in addressing the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on certain products in the context of our safety standards. See, for example, NHTSA's December 20, 1991 interpretation letter to GM concerning Standard No. 209. The purpose of the brake telltale is to warn the driver of one of two conditions: (1) the parking brake is applied (and hence should be released before driving), or (2) the brake system has a significant fault which should be corrected. Since the additional conditions for activation which GM contemplates would represent significant brake system faults which should be corrected, it is our opinion that activation of the brake telltale under such conditions would not in any way defeat the purpose of the brake telltale. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4346OpenMs. Deborah Rutan, Director of Marketing/Research, The Rutabaga Co., Inc., P. O. Box 413, 605 Robson Street, Winona Lake, IN 46590; Ms. Deborah Rutan Director of Marketing/Research The Rutabaga Co. Inc. P. O. Box 413 605 Robson Street Winona Lake IN 46590; Dear Ms. Rutan: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213, copy enclosed). Specifically, you sought our 'comments and recommendations' on a child harness/vest that your company has developed. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; As you noted in your letter, your product is a 'child restraint system within the meaning of section S4 of Standard No. 213. this means that it is subject to all applicable requirements of the standard. From the pictures and descriptions of your harness/vest included with your letter, it appears that the harness/vest would have to be modified to comply with four particular requirements in Standard No. 213.; The first requirements with which you harness/vest does not appear t comply is set forth in section S5.4.3.4(b) of Standard No. 213. That section provides that each child harness shall 'provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt.' The pictures of your harness/vest show that it does *not* include a crotch belt to restrain the child's lower torso. You will have to modify the design of the harness/vest to include a crotch belt in order for your harness/vest to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.; The second requirement with which your harness/vest may not comply i the flammability resistance requirement incorporated in section S5.7 of Standard No. 213. That section provides, 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. As you will see, that standard requires that subject materials be resistant to flammability. You stated in your letter that the 'vest fabric is a strong, yet lightweight, polyester jersey knit.' It is not clear from this description if you knew your company has to certify that this vest fabric complies with the flammability resistance requirements specified in Standard No. 213.; The third and fourth requirements with which your harness/vest does no appear to comply are the labeling requirements in S5.5 of Standard No. 213 and the installation instructions in S5.6 of Standard No. 213. Both these requirements specify that certain information must be provided with each child restraint system. In the case of the labeling information, you are required to permanently label your harness/vest with the information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (1). Further, S5.5.3 requires that the information specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) shall be located on the child restraint system so that it is visible when the system is properly installed in a vehicle. In the case of the installations instructions, S5.6.6 requires that the harness/vest have a location on it for storing your installation instructions. This could be satisfied by adding a pouch to the vest for storing these instructions.; In addition to these requirements, you would have to determine that th harness/vest complies with all the performance requirements set forth in S5 of Standard No. 213. Once you have made such a determination, you are required to certify that each harness/vest you manufacture satisfies all applicable requirements of Standard No. 213. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint, or any tests at all. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et Seq.*), we only require that a manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling a new child restraint system test the system in accordance with the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. Once you determine that your harness/vest complies with all requirements of Standard No. 213, you would certify that compliance by placing a certification label on the harness/vest, as specified in section S5.5 of the standard.; You should also be aware of the fact that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture your harness/vest for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements or sections 151- 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products that either do not comply with an applicable safety standard or have defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your harness/vest did not comply with a requirements of Standard No. 213 or that it had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the noncompliance or defects and either:; >>>1. repair the harness/vest so that the noncompliance or defect wa removed, or<<<; >>>2. replace the harness/vest with an identical or reasonabl equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, your company as th manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge the owners of the harness/vests anything for the remedy if those harness/vest were purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.; If your decide to manufacture these harness/vests for sale, you shoul also be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* (copy enclosed). This regulation requires a manufacturer of child restraint systems to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the child restraints it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured.; Finally, I would like to make clear that this discussion of ou requirements is not an agency 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or items of equipment, such as your harness/vests, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to the new product. It is up to the individual manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of its product.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5235OpenMr. William C. Longo Chief Executive Officer Ram Off Road Accessories P.O. Box 63915 Los Angeles, CA 90063; Mr. William C. Longo Chief Executive Officer Ram Off Road Accessories P.O. Box 63915 Los Angeles CA 90063; "Dear Mr. Longo: This responds to your letter concerning possibl liability involved with marketing a product you manufacture, particularly with respect to installation of the product on vehicles equipped with Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), also known as air bags. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. In a June 16, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, Troy Wood explained that the products are aftermarket decorative sheet metal accessories that attached to the exterior of vehicles. Your company also makes replacement bumpers for vehicles. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, this letter will discuss Federal laws which might be affected by the addition of your products on vehicles equipped with air bags. Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles, therefore, if your products are installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with your product installed. However, as explained in the phone conversation with Ms. Versailles of my staff, we understand your products are intended as items of after-market equipment. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing your product on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. For example, the installer would have to be careful not to activate a sensor while attaching your product, causing the air bag to deploy. Please note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. 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 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4960OpenMr. Steve Ross Future Visions, Ltd. 28 Cherry Lane Syosset, New York 11791; Mr. Steve Ross Future Visions Ltd. 28 Cherry Lane Syosset New York 11791; "Dear Mr. Ross: This responds to your letter that requested informatio about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a product you wish to market. This product is an antitheft device for trucks and passenger automobiles equipped with power-assisted steering. In your letter, you stated that your device is designed to prevent the theft of a vehicle by blocking the flow of hydraulic fluid in hydraulic steering systems, so that the vehicle cannot be steered. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my office, you explained that your device is to be installed on vehicles in the aftermarket, and will not be installed as original equipment on new vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our laws and their applicability to your device. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is misleading and incorrect to state, as does page 2 of the 'Summary from Originating Country' enclosed with your letter, that this device has been 'approved by the USA.' Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of their products conforms with all applicable safety standards. In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that block the flow of hydraulic fluid in hydraulic steering systems. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a device that blocks the flow of hydraulic fluid in steering systems complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components or who modify vehicles so that the stated weight ratings are no longer valid. Such persons are considered 'alterers' of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed on a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be treated as 'readily attachable' if it requires the installation of separate lines to carry hydraulic fluid between itself and the power steering unit. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards with this device installed. After the first sale to the public, persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2). That section provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, you should examine the proposed installation instructions for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the product so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5331OpenMr. Thomas Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter to NHTSA's Office o Vehicle Safety Compliance requesting an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements in Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. This letter confirms your understanding that a reflectorized stop signal arm that fully complies with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 complies with S5.3, regardless of whether a stop signal arm is equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2. As you are aware, S5.3 Conspicuity states 'The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both.' Section S5.3.1 sets forth requirements addressing reflectorization, and S5.3.2, which references S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2.2 specifies a stop signal arm's flash rate. You explained that some of the stop signal arms that you install fully comply with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1. However, these stop signal arms are also equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2 because they do not comply with the flash rate requirements in S6.2.2. As we noted above, compliance with the conspicuity requirements in S5.3 can be established by complying with either the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 or the flashing light requirements in S5.3.2. (emphasis added) Since the stop signal arms in question comply with the reflectorization requirements, they comply with the conspicuity requirements and need not comply with the flashing light requirements. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.