ID: aiam3790

Dear Mr. DiMaggio: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to th Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, *Retreaded Pneumatic Tires*, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; The noncompliance consists of omission of the 'DOT' certificatio symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.; It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions o the DOT symbol as failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.; Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter t our attention.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

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: aiam4689

Dear Mr. Humphrey: This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990 with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4043

Dear Mr. Hagie: This responds to your April 11, 1986, letter to this office requestin an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, *Brake Hoses*. We regret the delay in our response; You asked whether brake hoses that comply with all requirements o Standard No. 106 except the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 may be used in locations not subject to movement during vehicle operation. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.; As you know, Standard No. 106 defines 'brake hose' as 'a flexibl conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.' Manufacturers of brake hoses must certify that their hoses comply with all applicable requirements of the standard. From your letter, it appears that while you agree that the equipment you manufacture are brake hoses, you believe that they should not be subject to whip resistance test because your hoses would not be used between articulating parts.; We do not agree that the whip test does not apply to brake hoses use between non- articulating parts. No provision has been made in the standard or in the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 to exclude hoses manufactured for use between non-moving parts. In contrast, the standard has set separate requirements under certain tests for brake hoses used between articulating parts when it is appropriate to distinguish between articulating and non-articulating applications (see, for example, the tensile strength test of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies).; Further, we believe that there is a safety need to test brake hose intended for non-articulating applications for fatigue resistance, since they are also subject to vibration, bending and articulating stress while the motor vehicle is being operated or repaired.; If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1382

Dear Mr. Way: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1974, asking abou the category into which a Divco truck would fall and the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 121 (Air Brake Systems) and 105a (Hydraulic Brake Systems) to them. The vehicles you have described are 'trucks' for purposes of the safety standards. The applicability of the braking standards is simple: trucks equipped with air brakes must conform to Standard 121, and those equipped with hydraulic brakes must conform to Standard 105a.; I enclose a sheet telling you how to obtain copies of the motor vehicl safety standards and regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1381

Dear Mr. Way:#This is in response to your letter of January 14,1974 asking about the category into which a Divco truck would fall and the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 121 (Air Brake Systems) and 105a (Hydraulic Brake Systems) to them.#The vehicles you have described are 'trucks' for purposes of the safety standards. The applicability of the braking standards is simple: trucks equipped with air brakes must conform to Standard 121, and those equipped with hydraulic brakes must conform to Standard 105a.#I enclose a sheet telling you how to obtain copies of the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1124

Dear Mr. Sternberg: By petition of April 30, 1973, White Motor Corporation requested th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to postpone the effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, with respect to vehicles having front axles with GAWR's of more than 12,000 pounds, rear axles with GAWR's of more than 23,000 pounds, or tandem rear axles with total GAWR's of more than 44,000 pounds.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the April 30 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs;

ID: aiam2417

Dear Mr. Harada: I am writing to confirm your October 15, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Part 575.104).; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, (i) the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has not yet established new effective dates for the UTQGS regulation, (ii) when the new effective dates are established, they will be announced in the Federal Register, and (iii) the interval between the announcement of the effective dates and the dates themselves will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare for compliance with the regulation.; For your convenience, an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' is enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2770

Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your January 23, 1978, letter asking whether Safet Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, would be applicable to tempered glass mounted on the outside panel of a vehicle B-pillar' for ornamental purposes.; The answer to your question is no. Since there would be no danger tha vehicle occupants would contact the ornamental glass, it would not have to comply with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. This interpretation assumes, of course, that the glass is used only on the outside panel of a solid B-pillar'. Standard No. 205 would be applicable, for example, if the glass were used in a cut-out section of a B-pillar', such that there was an interface of the glass with the vehicle occupant compartment.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2416

Dear Mr. Harada: I am writing to confirm your October 15, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Part 575.104).; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, (i) the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has not yet established new effective dates for the UTQGS regulation, (ii) when the new effective dates are established, they will be announced in the Federal Register, and (iii) the interval between the announcement of the effective dates and the dates themselves will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare for compliance with the regulation.; For your convenience, an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' is enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel