ID: 86-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Flanagan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas J. Flanagan, Esq. Wiggin & Dana 195 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508

Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin, of our Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You described a situation in which a client, Saab-Scania of America, imports cars subject to the theft prevention standard and uses them directly as company cars or leases them to employees for their personal use. After such use, the company sells the cars to dealers as used cars. On occasion, these vehicles may have an original equipment major part covered by the theft prevention standard that is so badly damaged during such use that the part must be replaced before the vehicle is delivered to a dealer or distributor. When this occurs, you asked whether the repair would be required to be made with a part marked with the full VIN or whether the repair could be made with a properly marked replacement part. We conclude that when a manufacturer uses a car as a company car in the manner you describe, it may make any necessary repairs to damaged major parts by installing parts marked as replacement parts. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 2(7) of the Cost Savings Act (15 D.S.C. 1901(7)) defines a manufacturer as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added). It is clear under this statutory definition that your client is a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the theft prevention standard, since it is importing motor vehicles for resale.

Section 606(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)(1)) requires vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard "at the time of delivery of such vehicle". The preamble to the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard discussed this agency's conclusion that the "delivery" as used in this part of section 606(c)(1) means the delivery from the manufacturer to a dealer or distributor, and that the delivery occurs when the goods are delivered by the seller to a carrier. 50 FPR 43166, at 131B6-43187, October 24, 1985. In the next sentence, section 606(c)(1) specifies that the certification shall accompany the vehicle until delivery to the first purchaser. NHTSA believes that this statutory requirement means that each vehicle in the lines selected as high theft lines and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be delivered to the first purchaser with all covered major parts marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard. However, NHTSA does not interpret this statutory provision as requiring that every first purchaser be delivered a vehicle with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. Instead, the agency believes this means that the first purchaser may receive a vehicle with the undamaged covered original equipment major parts marked with the VIN, and with those covered major parts installed by a dealer or distributor to replace damaged original equipment parts marked as replacement parts.

In accordance with this interpretation, NHTSA does not believe that a manufacturer delivers a car to itself, when the car is sold to the public as a new car. However, you have noted a circumstance in which cars are bona fide used as company cars and are sold to the public as used cars, not new cars. Congress knew that used cars frequently have some replacement parts substituted for the original equipment parts. However, Title VI contains no requirement that used cars have all covered major parts marked with the VIN. In fact, Title VI presumes that when an original equipment major part is so badly damaged that it must be replaced, it will be replaced with a replacement part marked in conformity with Part 541. This reflects a legislative judgment that such replacement does not increase the opportunity for car thieves to steal the car without fear of being apprehended, or otherwise frustrate the purposes of Title VI, even though the car no longer has all major parts marked with the VIN.

On the other hand, a severe burden would be imposed on all manufacturers if they were required to deliver all bona fide company cars to distributors or dealers with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. If this were required and the company car were involved in an accident that required a covered major part to be replaced, the manufacturer would have a choice of either asking the factory to produce a replacement part with the VIN marked on the part and waiting to repair the vehicle until the part marked with the VIN arrived, or ending the vehicle's use as a company car and shipping the unrepaired vehicle to a dealer or distributor with the damaged major part marked with the VIN still on the vehicle. Nothing in the legislative history of Title VI explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended such harsh treatment of company cars under the theft prevention standard.

Balancing the absence of negative policy consequences under Title VI if manufacturers are allowed to repair company cars with properly marked parts against the significant burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers if damaged major parts on company cars had to be replaced with parts marked with the full VIN, NHTSA concludes that Title VI of the Cost Savings Act permits cars damaged while in bona fide use as company cars and sold to the public as used cars, to be repaired by the manufacturer using properly marked replacement parts. This conclusion is based on NHTSA's interpretation that bona fide use of the car as a company car by the manufacturer is, for all practical and policy purposes, tantamount to a delivery of the vehicle under section 606(c)(1). The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when a company car is later sold to the public as a used car, the consumer purchasing the company car Hill get a car with the same theft markings as any other used car.

NHTSA would like to note that this interpretation applies only to Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, and not to any other statutes administered by this agency. Those statutes may have different underlying policy considerations, which might mandate a different conclusion for cars used as company cars. Further, the agency wishes to emphasize that this interpretation applies only to bona fide company cars that are sold to the public as used cars, and not to most of the cars manufactured by the manufacturer.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions about our theft prevention standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 3, 1986

Mr. Brian McLaughlin Office of Market Incentives NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Theft Prevention Regulations

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

As you suggested during our phone conversation on March 31, 1986, I am writing to request a more formal response to the question I asked during that conversation.

As you will recall, our client, Saab-Scania of America, Inc., uses some of the vehicles that it imports before selling these cars to dealers as used cars. The company either uses these cars directly or leases them to employees.

The question I asked was whether vehicles so employed by an importer that needed repairs before delivery to a dealer as a used car could be repaired with "R" marked parts or whether such vehicles must be repaired with parts market with the full VIN number.

My reading of the statute is that, under these circumstances, the importer itself becomes the "first purchaser" of tie vehicle thereby allowing the importer to repair the vehicle with "R" marked parts.

Please call if you require any more information to reply.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Flanagan

TJF:j1

ID: nht75-1.17

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Inspection

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 29, 1975, letter to Mr. Vincent Esposito of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you indicate your desire that a "second independent means of stopping be made mandatory" on newly-manufactured motor vehicles.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective January 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and it establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles (copy enclosed). The test procedures for parking brake testing specify that the service brake control be released in testing the parking brake system. This has the practical effect of requiring a separate parking brake similar to that specified by the Iowa law you cited in your letter.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 121, (49 CFR 571.121) became effective January 1, 1975, for air-braked trailers and March 1, 1975, for air-braked trucks and buses (copy enclosed). It establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles. Section S5.6.4 of the standard states that "The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 and Standard No. 121 include requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. If States were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a Federal safety standard manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard No. 105-75 in the case of passenger cars, since the aspect of performance that would be affected is covered by the Federal standard. The same is true for motorcycles, covered by Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems, and trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, covered by Standard No. 121.

With regard to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles that are equipped with hydraulic brake systems, the NHTSA is in the process of developing a hydraulic brake standard. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance for consideration in developing the standard in this area.

SINCERELY,

May 29, 1975

Vincent J. Estosito, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Research and Development U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A letter from Mr. George W. Crise of Danville, Ohio that was sent to Mr. Robert F. Tyson, Director of Office of Planning and Programming, Des Moines, Iowa has been referred to this office.

It called our attention that the 1975 cars and trucks are being built without a second means of stopping feature as required by the laws of Ohio and other states.

I have enclosed a copy of the Iowa statutes pertaining to brake requirements and brake performance which clearly indicates that the Iowa law specifies two seperate means of applying the brakes. Each of which means shall be affective to apply the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two seperate means of applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that failure of one part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

I was not aware that the 1975 model cars and trucks were not equipped with the means to comply with the Iowa statute.

It is our desire that a second independent means of stopping be made mandatory on new motor vehicles.

Lowell E. Schellhase Supervisor Motor Vehicle Inspection

BRAKES

(Illegible Words) Brake requirements.

Every motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, when operated upon highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Words) of and to stop and hold such vehicle, including two separate (Illegible Word) the brakes, each of which means shall be effective (Illegible Word) the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two separate means applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so (Illegible Word) that failure of any one part of the operating mechanism shall (Illegible Word) the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

Every motorcycle, and bicycle with motor attached, when operated a highway shall be equipped with at least one brake, which may be (Illegible Word) by hand or foot.

Every trailer or semitrailer of a gross weight of three thousand (Illegible Word) or more, and every trailer coach or travel trailer of a gross (Illegible Word) of three thousand pounds or more intended for use for human (Illegible Word) shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Word) and to stop and hold such vehicle, and so designed as to be (Illegible Word) by the driver of the towing motor vehicle from its cab, or with (Illegible Word) brakes, and weight equalizing hitch with a sway control type approved by the commissioner of public safety. Every (Illegible (Illegible Words) travel trailer, or trailer coach of a gross weight of three thousands or more shall be equipped with a separate, auxiliary means (Illegible Word) the brakes on the semitrailer, travel trailer, or trailer from the cab of the towing vehicle. This Act shall apply to all and used travel trailers sold at July 1, 1971 and on all registered (Illegible Word) trailers after December 1, 1973. Trailers or semitrailers with (Illegible Word) or truck tractor need only comply with the brake requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every new motor (Illegible Word) trailer, or semitrailer hereafter sold in this state and operated the highways shall be equipped with service brakes upon all wheels every such vehicle with the following exceptions:

Any motorcycle. Any trailer or semitrailer of less than three thousand pounds gross (Illegible Word) need not be equipped with brakes.

Trucks and truck tractors having three or more axles need not brakes on the front wheels, except that such vehicles equipped two or more front axles shall be equipped with brakes on at least of such axles; provided that the service brakes of such vehicle (Illegible Word) with the performance requirements of section 321.431.

Only such brakes on the vehicle or vehicles being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation need be operative as may be necessary be necessary to insure compliance by the combination of vehicles with the performance requirements of section 321.431. The term "driveaway-towaway" operation as used in this subsection means any operation in which any motor vehicle or motor vehicles, new or used, constitute the commodity being transported, when one set or more of wheels of any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles are on the roadway during the course of transportation, whether or not any such motor vehicle furnishes the motive power.

Referred to in sections 321.181, 321.196, 321.210, 321.464, subsection 1

321.431 Performance ability

1. The service brakes upon any motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles, when upon dry asphalt or concrete pavement surface free from loose material where the grade does not exceed one percent, when traveling twenty miles an hour shall be adequate:

a. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight of less than five thousand pounds within a distance of thirty feet.

b. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight in excess of five thousand pounds within a distance of forty-five feet.

2. Under the above conditions the hand brake shall be adequate to hold such vehicle or vehicles stationary on any grade upon which operated.

3. Under the above conditions the service brakes upon a motor vehicle equipped with two-wheel brakes only, and when permitted hereunder shall be adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of forty-five feet and the hand brake adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of fifty-five feet.

4. All braking distances specified in this section shall apply to all vehicles mentioned, whether such vehicles are not loaded or are loaded to the maximum capacity permitted under this chapter.

5. All brakes shall be maintained in good working order and shall be so adjusted as to operate as equally as practicable with respect to the wheels on opposite sides of the vehicle.

(Illegible Words)

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

321.432 Horns and warning devices. Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a horn in good working order and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than two hundred feet, but no horn or other warning device shall emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle. The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

ID: 3275yy

Mr. Edward M. Klisz
Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch
Department of the Army
United States Army Tank-Automotive Command
Warren, MI 48397-5000

Dear Mr. Klisz:

This responds to your letter regarding foreign-made tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a "DOT" certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with "DOT", requested this office to "determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to [our] records." You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." [See 102(2)].

The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114...

In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and all new tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance. Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with "DOT", that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a "DOT" symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat, damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new.

Further, the absence of a "DOT" symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not necessarily mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a "DOT" symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not certify that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire.

You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process; the manufacturer's designated agent is not responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States.

Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the "DOT" marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to "verify the accuracy" of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's self-certification that the tire complies with applicable standards; the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards.

NHTSA would only have information about the "accuracy" of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref: Std 119, Part 574 d:1/17/92

ID: nht92-9.48

DATE: January 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward M. Klisz -- Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/30/91 from Edward M. Klisz to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter regarding foreign-made tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a "DOT" certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with "DOT", requested this office to "determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to (our) records." You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." (See S102(2)).

The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109), and all new

tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined to not comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance.

Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with "DOT", that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a "DOT" symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat,

damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new.

Further, the absence of a "DOT" symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not NECESSARILY mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a "DOT" symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not CERTIFY that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire.

You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process; the manufacturer's designated agent is NOT responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States.

Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the "DOT" marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to "verify the accuracy" of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's SELF-CERTIFICATION that the tire complies with applicable standards; the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards.

NHTSA would only have information about the "accuracy" of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht80-2.49

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mechanical Plastics Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1980, letter asking several questions 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 you 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 want 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 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 vehicle 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 question 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 manufacturer 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 if it is to be installed by an automobile owner/user?

There are no safety standards or other regulations applicable to modifications made to vehicle 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 #1, #2, #3, and #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 product complies with the requirements. In certain instances, a certification lable 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 #1, #2, #3, and #4, who are the liable parties in the event of injury or death as a result if improper installation?

If the improper installation results in a noncompliance with a safety 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. Pased on the general information supplied with this letter would the 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 the 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 #1, #2, #3, and #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 test 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 Mechanical Plastics Corp. for the Hatchpack product?

The NHTSA requires no advance forms of certification of assurances from 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 the installing party as described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4?

The answer to this question is the same as the answer to question number 9.

We hope that this clarifies your responsibilities and duties with 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 to 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.

ID: 1984-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: F.H. Tubbert -- Vice President, Operations, Ottawa Truck Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. F. H. Tubbert Vice PReside, Operations Ottawa Truck Corporation 415 E. Dundee St. Ottawa, KS 66047

This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CPR 371.120). Specifically, you stated that your company has entered an agreement with a French manufacturer to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States. You further stated that while you have been upgrading the vehicle to comply with applicable safety standards, you have found a problem with Standard No. 120 as it applies to the tires on this vehicle. The vehicle is equipped with industrial class tires intended to provide "high flotation over various terraine". Standard No. 120 does not prohibit these multi-purpose vehicles from being equipped with industrial class tires.

Section 3 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the requirements of that standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, and some other vehicle types not relevant here. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined in 371.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." You have apparently tentatively determined that the vehicle you plan to market would be classified as a type of motor vehicle subject to Standard No. 120. Section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 reads as follows:

Except as specified in 3.1.3 each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 19, and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires, in accordance with 4.4 of Standard No. 109 or 3.1 of Standard No. 119, as applicable. (Emphasis added)

Apparently the difficulty you perceive with this requirement is that the tires with which the vehicle is equipped are not certified as complying with Standards No. 109 or 119, nor are the rims listed as suitable for use with the tires, pursuant to the relevant sections of those standards.

However, the requirement in Standard No. 120 applies only to vehicles which are equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. The language in section 3.1.1 of Standard No. 120 was intended to exclude these vehicles which the manufacturer decides to equip with tires other than "tires for highway service." See 42 FR 7140, at 1741; February 7, l977.

Your letter stated that the vehicle you plan to market will be equipped with "an industrial class tire which provides high flotation over various terraine". This agency does not consider industrial class tires to be tires for highway service and therefore vehicles equipped with such tires need not satisfy section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120. For your information, a check by our Rulemaking division of the listings of industrial class tires shown in the American, Japanese, and European tire standardization organizations found no listing of the tire size which you stated would be original equipment on this vehicle (16.3/75 R 20TL). You may wish to contact the vehicle manufacturer to be sure that this size is correct, and to be sure that it is promptly categorized as an industrial class tire.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

July 23, l984 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC

Dear Sirs: Ottawa Truck Corporation has entered into an agreement with Brimont, S.A., a french company, to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States.

In our efforts to upgrade the vehicle to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we find a problem with Standards ll9 and 120, Tires and Rims. These Standards apply primarily to on-highway vehicles.

Our vehicle is an all terrain vehicle designed to be fitted with a variety of attachments to perform work off-highway and to operate occasionally on-highway between job sites. For this reason the vehicle is equipped with an industrial class tire (16.5/75R 20TL) which provides high flotation over various terrains. We request an interpretation of the application of these standards to our vehicle, whose primary use is off-highway. Sincerely, Ottawa Truck Corporation F. W. Tubbert Vice President, Operations FHT:jt

ID: 6992

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 for 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 ref:101#105 d:4/29/02

ID: nht92-7.23

DATE: April 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen E. Selander -- Legal Staff, GM

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/92 from Stephen E. Selander to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your February 17, 1992 request for 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 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 INTERPRETATIONS 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 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. Yon 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 provide 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.

ID: 1985-04.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/85

FROM: JIM BURNETT -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TO: T. C. GILCHREST -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

TITLE: SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS, H-85-30, ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108 (A) 2 (A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST

TEXT: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C.

ISSUED: November 5, 1985

Forwarded to:

Mr. T. C. Gilchrest

President

National Safety Council

444 N. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, Illinois 60611

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION(S) H-85-30

Motor vehicles are equipped with lights for seeing, but also for being seen. During hours of darkness, it is illegal in every State to operate a vehicle with the lights unilluminated. During the daytime, lights also can help to make vehicles more readily visible. Daytime illumination can enable other motorists, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, to perceive hazards earlier, take evasive action sooner, and thus possibly avoid a collision.

When ambient illumination is low, in conditions such as dawn, dusk, rain, and overcast, conspicuity may be significantly improved by the use of lights. They also can be valuable when there is little contrast between the color of a vehicle and that of its background, i.e., a light car against snow, or a green car against foliage. Small cars are harder to see at a distance than large ones, and so, as average vehicle size decreases, it, becomes increasingly important to enhance vehicle conspicuity.

It has been demonstrated that improved conspicuity can help prevent a variety of accidents. Among these are head-on collisions and sideswipes with the vehicles traveling in opposite directions, as well as collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. In 1983 there were 156,144 injuries and 10,531 deaths in such accidents. n1

n1 Analysis of data from Department of Transportation's National Accident Sampling System and Fatal Accident Reporting System.

Vehicle conspicuity is one of the factors in highway accidents involving older motorists and pedestrians. As a person ages, he or she needs more light than before to see properly. According to one expert optometrist, those illumination requirements double for each 13 years of a person's age. n2 He recommends that cars be driven with lights on

during the day to improve safety for this growing portion of the population. Today 22 percent of U.S. drivers are age 55 or over, but by the year 2000 that proportion is expected to grow to 28 percent, and to 39 percent by 2050. n3 In 1984, 35.7 percent of the U.S. pedestrians killed by motor vehicles during the hours of daylight, dusk, and dawn were age 55 or older. n4

n2 Merrill J. Allen, "Older Drivers and Pedestrians: Vehicle/Highway Design and Driver Testing," Workshop on the Highway Mobility and Safety of Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., June 11-12, 1985.

n3 Forward by James L. Malfetti, Editor, "Needs and Problems of Older Drivers: Survey Results and Recommendations -- Proceedings of the Older Driver Colloquium, Orlando, Florida," AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, February 4-7, 1985.

n4 Analysis of data from Fatal Accident Reporting System.

There already have been numerous instances of vehicles operated with daytime running lights. n5 For the last 25 years, Greyhound bus drivers have been Instructed to use headlights both day and night. In the early 1960s, a campaign entitled "Drive Lighted and Live" urged Texas drivers to use their headlights during major holidays. In 1972, the Private Truck Council called for round-the-clock headlight use by its member fleets. In the same year, AT&T's Long Lines Division began a two-year program for its fleet to use headlights at all times.

n5 "Daytime running lights" are any vehicle lights illuminated during the day to make that vehicle more readily visible.

In Finland, motorists driving outside urban areas are required by law to have lights on at all times. A law in Sweden requiring daytime use of lights applies to motorists using all public roads. The requirement can be met in both countries with low-beam headlights or with special running lights described in the regulations. And in countries such as Norway, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, light use is required at times when visibility is low. Most States in the U.S. have similar requirements, but the level of compliance is not known.

Questions of concern to authorities promoting the use of daytime running lights, as well as those contemplating such action, include: Are the lights effective in reducing accident losses? If so, to what degree? And which type of light is best?

Numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and each has produced the same answer to the first question: Running lights definitely are a means to help reduce the toll in lives and property from highway accidents. However, there is no consensus as to which type of light is best suited to the task, and data are not yet available to predict the degree to which lights will reduce accidents in a given region.

In Finland, the use of daytime lights was studied over a six-year period: two years before there was any government involvement concerning daytime running lights (July 1968 through June 1970), two years in which their use was recommended (July 1970 through June 1972), and then two years in which it was required (July 1972 through June 1974). In the first period, before government action, at least 40 percent, and perhaps as many as 75 percent of the country's motorists already were using daytime running lights. When the practice was a recommended one, the rate was 84 percent, and when light use became mandatory in rural areas during winter, the percentage rose to 97. n6

n6 Kjell Andersson, Goran Nilsson and Markku Salusjarvi, "The Effect of Recommended and Compulsory Use of Vehicle Lighting on Road Accidents in Finland," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Report No. 102, 1976.

Researchers found that the increased percentage of use resulting from the new law prompted a measurable decline in a broad range of accidents. The winter daylight accidents in which more than a single vehicle was involved (including collisions with pedestrians, animals, and other vehicles) dropped as much as 21 percent from the first test period to the third, according to several accounts of the results in Finland. n7 A 28-percent reduction was reported in collisions involving vehicles traveling toward each other. n8 These crash reductions were achieved despite increasing traffic volume during the six-year period. With the law initially applying only in winter, the reductions appeared only during those months and not during summer months.

n7 Ibid. Also, Charles H. Kachn, "A Cost/Benefit Study of a Potential Automotive Safety Program on Daylight Running Lights," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1981; and Michael Perel, "Daytime Running Lights: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Research," NHTSA, June 1980.

n8 Andersson et al., op. cit., cited in Kaehn, op. cit.

In Sweden, the daytime running light legislation raised the use level from about 50 percent to more than 95 percent. The estimates of resulting crash reductions vary from 6 to 13 percent, for accidents involving more than a single vehicle. n9

n9 Jkell Andersson and Goran Nilsson, "The Effects on Accidents of Compulsory Use of Running Lights during Daylight in Sweden," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, S-581 01, Linkoping, Sweden (no date). Also, crash reductions of 5 to 15 percent were reported by Karc Rumar, "Daylight Running Lights in Sweden -- Pre-Studies and Experiences," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper Series, 810191, presented at SAE International Congress and Exposition, February 23-27, 1981.

In both Finland and Sweden, the safety benefits were particularly significant for nonmotorists. Daylight winter accidents involving pedestrians declined 24 percent in the Finnish study. n10 In Sweden, the decline was 17 percent, and accidents in which motor vehicles struck "cycles or mopeds" dropped 21 percent. n11

n10 Kaehn, op. cit., and Perel, op. cit.

n11 Andersson and Nilsson, op. cit. Crash reductions of 27 percent for pedestrians and 25 percent for cyclists were reported in built-up areas in Sweden during summer by David B. Richardson, "Daytime Running Lights -- A Concept Whose Time Has Come," Institute of Traffic Engineers Journal, October 1984.

These studies, both conducted in the 1970s, were particularly valuable because they dealt with entire populations. Since Sweden and Finland are the only countries in which daytime running light use is nearly 100 percent, all types of vehicles and all types of drives in each country were represented. Other studies have been limited to specific fleets, and the results of using such limited test samples may not be extrapolated reliably to the full population.

But the very reasons that prompted these Nordic countries to lead the way in daytime running light use also limit the applicability of their research to the United States. The light conditions are very different. During the long winter in high northern latitudes, ambient light is low throughout most of the day, with lengthy periods of twilight. And with the sun frequently low in the sky, glare is common. These are the kinds of conditions in which daytime running lights are thought to be most effective, but such conditions are not found with comparable frequency throughout the United States.

There are differences as well in climate and road conditions. However, there have been studies in this country that suggest that daytime running lights would be effective, to some extent, in cutting the toll from highway accidents.

One of the earliest studies was conducted by the New York Port Authority. n12 About 200 vehicles operated by the Port Authority were modified so the parking lights and taillights were illuminated automatically when the ignition switch was turned on. The vehicles, some painted black and others yellow, were predominantly sedans and station wagons, with some light trucks and a few heavy trucks. For a year, beginning in July 1967, accidents involving these vehicles were monitored, along with those of a control group of about 400 unmodified vehicles.

n12 Edmund J. Cantilli, "Daylight 'Running Lights' Reduce Accidents," Traffic Engineering, February 1969.

Overall, the group of modified vehicles was involved in 18 percent fewer accidents than those without the change. In addition, the modified group had accidents that were less severe. A "severity index" was calculated, based on a graduated scale of damage and injury, and the modified vehicles scored 66 percent better than the control group. When passenger vehicles only were considered, the modification lowered the accident rate 23 percent, and the severity index improved 41 percent.

Experiments were conducted with other fleets. The daytime running lights program at AT&T's Long Lines Division produced a 32 percent reduction in that fleet's accident rate. n13 Greyhound Lines reported a 12 percent drop. n14 When a group of Checker cabs drove with lights on during the day, and a group of Yellow cabs did not, the Checker cabs had 7.2 percent fewer collisions, according to a 1979 report. n15 A 1965 survey of 181 U.S. companies with lights-on policies found accident reductions up to 38 percent. n16

n13 Editorial, "What Happened to All the Lights?" Diesel Equipment Superintendent Journal, November 1973.

n14 Dennis A. Attwood, "The Potential of Daytime Running Lights as a Vehicle Collision Countermeasure," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper 810190 (1981).

n15 Merrill J. Allen, "The Current Status of Automobile Running Lights," Journal of American Optometry Association, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1979, cited in Attwood, op. cit., and Kaehn, op. cit.

n16 Merrill J. Allen, "Running Light Questionnaire," American Journal of Optometry, Vol. 42, No. 3, March 1965, cited in Attwood, op. cit.

In 1974, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) conducted tests in Arizona to determine the effect of daytime running lights on the distance at which drivers were able to detect oncoming vehicles. Without lights, the average detection distance was 2,074 feet; with lights, the average distance increased to 4,720 feet. n17

n17 R. W. Oyler, Executive Engineer, General Motors (personal communication to Kare Rumar, March 28, 1977).

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently completed a study using more than 2,000 cars, vans, and light trucks operated by three corporate fleets. Half the vehicles were equipped with increased-intensity parking lights that were turned on

automatically with the ignition switch; no changes were made in the other half. The modified vehicles experienced 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than did the unmodified ones. n18

n18 Howard Stein, "Fleet Experience with Daytime Running Lights in the United States," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 1985.

The running light studies so far have varied widely in results and test procedures. Their sample sizes often have been to small to provide statistical confidence in the specific results of each individual study. However, all the studies that have been reviewed suggest that the use of running lights during the day will indeed result in a decrease in accidents. The issue now is to determine the level of crash reductions and how this would vary by accident type.

A study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1981 produced inconclusive results about the relative benefits and costs of daytime running lights. To help clarify the issue, NHTSA is sponsoring a field study involving approximately 10,000 vehicles throughout the United States. As in the IIHS study, some of the vehicles will be modified so that lights come on automatically with the ignition; others will serve as a control group. The modified vehicles probably will have lamp intensities of various levels. Accident data will be collected on the vehicles for at least a year, starting in late 1985. There also will be an attempt to compare maintenance and repair costs.

NHTSA is unlikely to consider regulatory efforts until this large-scale fleet study is completed. It is expected to give the clearest picture so far of the likely decreases in accidents, deaths, and injuries from a daytime running lights program.

If a Federal standard were issued to require that vehicles be equipped with ignition-activated daytime running lights, it would have to specify whether low beams, high beams, parking lights, or turn signal lamps should be used, or whether a special running light should be added. If a light were to be added, the size, shape, location, lamp color, and lighting would have to be established. The standard also would have to specify the required light intensity. The NHTSA study should help provide a basis for determining these specifications.

It will take many years before the NHTSA study is evaluated, an acceptable Federal standard is developed, and running lights are incorporated into the U.S. fleet in substantial numbers. Those are years in which a measure already recognized as a means to improve safety would continue to be largely unused on U.S. highways.

Canada is facing a similar problem. As in the U.S., the Canadian government has been studying the crash-reduction potential of daytime running lights. In 1984, the Canadian Minister of Transport said that widespread use of daytime running lights could save 200 lives a year, which is about 5 percent of the total highway deaths each year in Canada. In addition, he said highway injuries could be cut by 2,500 and property losses by $ 200 million. n19

n19 Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Transport, Press Release, Transport Canada, May 31, 1984.

An official notice has been drafted describing a proposed regulation that would require ignition-activated daytime running lights on new automobiles. The choice of the type and intensity of the light to be used would be left to the manufacturers, as long as the lights met certain specifications. n20 n20 Winson Ng, Transport Canada (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 5, 1985).

Staff of Transport Canada say the earliest such a regulation could be in effect would be for model year 1988 and 1989. After that, it would be 8 to 10 years before the nation's fleet would be converted substantially to the automatic daytime running light system. Because of this likely delay, programs have been undertaken in at least two Canadian provinces that encourage motorists immediately to start driving during the day with their lights on.

Saskatchewan Government Insurance, which provides mandatory insurance to all motorists in that province, has mounted a major public education campaign. Called "Lights On For Life," this program employs a variety of means to encourage motorists to drive with low-beam headlights on. In print and broadcast media, there are public service announcements, as well as paid advertising. Four vans tour the province, promoting the message. Signs at border crossing say, "In Saskatchewan we drive with our lights on." n21

n21 Suzzane Hart, Program Director, "Lights On For Life," Saskatchewan Government Insurance (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 8, 1985).

The Premier of Saskatchewan has ordered that all vehicles of the provincial government be driven with their lights on during the day, and family members of government workers are encouraged to do the same in their private vehicles. Corporate fleets have followed suit. The message is being promoted as well by trucking associations, car rental companies, tourist information agencies and many other groups and companies. As a result, with the program in operation only about a year, daytime light use has increased in the province from 8.2 to 24.7 percent. n22

n22 Ibid.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) required drivers of its own fleet of 300 vehicles to use low-beam headlights during the day, and strongly recommended that staff members and their families follow the same practice in their private vehicles. ICBC subsequently urged the operators of 140,000 fleet vehicles insured by the corporation to use lights in the daytime. The insurance company plans to monitor the damage claims filed by fleets using daytime running lights, and to use the expected crash-reduction results to convince more fleets, as well as the general public, to take up the practice. n23

n23 "ICBC Backs Use of Daytime Headlights," Press Release, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, June 4, 1984; and "Support Growing for Daytime Driving Lights," ICBC People, no date.

CKIQ, a radio station in Kelowna, British Columbia, has taken the lead in a campaign to promote daytime use of running lights in the province, and the station reports endorsements and participation by groups such as B. C. Telephone, B. C. Transit Co., and

the Canadian Armed Forces. n24 Canadian military vehicles are required to be driven with lights on not just in British Columbia, but in many operations throughout the country. n25

n24 Dave Daniels and Yvonne Svensson, "Headlights for Life," Public Education Fact Sheet, CKIQ Radio, Kelowna, British Columbia, no date.

n25 Hart, op. cit.

The organizers of all these efforts stress that the programs are short-term, designed to enable the Canadian public to start realizing the benefits of daytime running lights immediately -- while work continues toward adoption of a Federal standard.

The National Transportation Safety Board believes that a similar approach could be undertaken in the United States. As in Canada, this would be an interim step in anticipation of a Federal standard. Motorists would be urged to keep their low-beam headlights on when driving during the day.

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the National Safety Council:

Develop and conduct a program to encourage motorists to drive with their low-beam headlights on during the day. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-85-30)

BURNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman; and BURSLEY, Member, concurred in this recommendation.

ID: nht93-7.12

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joey Ferrari -- Director Technical Sales, Grant Products

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Joey Ferrari to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8568)

TEXT:

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.