Dear Mr. Love:
On April 25, 1996, I issued an interpretation to Porsche Cars
North America, Inc. (Porsche), concerning the readiness
indicator requirement in S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant
Crash Protection. In that letter, I interpreted that National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standard to mean
that a readiness indicator was not required for either
voluntarily-installed inflatable restraints (air bags), i.e.,
those installed in addition to required safety systems, or for
air bags installed for compliance with a standard other than
Standard No. 208. The interpretation also stated:
[I]f you voluntarily provide a readiness indicator,
and decide to combine it with the required readiness
indicator, the information provided by the former must
not confuse or obscure the information provided by the
latter about the required air bag. The indicator must
distinguish between the different air bag systems,
such as by having dissimilar signals for the different
systems.
We have received substantial feedback from you and other motor
vehicle manufacturers disagreeing with the conclusion
prohibiting a combined indicator that gives nondistinguishing
messages. We also received a written request from the
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM),
dated June 25, 1996, asking that we reconsider the
interpretation.
Upon reconsideration, this letter replaces and supersedes my
interpretation of April 25, 1996 to Porsche. In addition, as
part of the reconsideration process, we have reconsidered that
portion of a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes
that an indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the
S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided.
That portion of the November 27, 1991 interpretation is also
superseded by this letter.
Porsche asked whether the S4.5.2 indicator requirement applies (1) to a voluntarily-installed inflatable restraint (not needed to comply with Standard No. 208), or (2) to an inflatable restraint installed to meet the requirements of another standard (such as Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection). You stated that Porsche believed that in both of these situations the manufacturer could install:
As explained below, we agree. Moreover, we also conclude that a
voluntarily-provided indicator for pretensioners may be combined
with the required Standard No. 208 indicator without providing a
distinguishable message.
S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 states:
An occupant protection system that deploys in the
event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a
readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its
own readiness and shall be clearly visible from the
driver's designated seating position.
We believe that this provision, in the overall context of
Standard No. 208, could be interpreted in more than one way. In
particular, the requirement could be interpreted as applying to
all occupant protection systems that deploy in the event of a
crash, or just to those provided to comply with Standard No.
208.
On the one hand, one might conclude that an indicator is
required for all air bags because the language of S4.5.2 does
not limit its application to systems provided to comply with
Standard No. 208, and because Standard No. 208 has historically
addressed occupant protection broadly, i.e., its requirements
are not limited to frontal protection.
Conversely, one could reach the opposite result, i.e., that an
indicator is required only for air bags used to comply with
Standard No. 208, because the standard's dynamic test
requirements have, over time and as a practical matter, become
limited to frontal protection. After all, an indicator's
purpose is to ensure that an air bag or other crash deployed
system will provide benefits for the life of the vehicle by
warning the driver when repairs are needed. So it would be
logical to conclude from the overall context of Standard No. 208
that the indicator requirements are there to ensure that the air
bags provided to comply with the standard will provide benefits
for the life of the vehicle. Viewed from that context, the
indicator requirements do not address air bags installed for
other purposes.
Under the first interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is
required for all air bags, a single indicator could clearly be
used for all air bags, without providing distinguishing
messages, because nothing in Standard No. 208 suggests that
separate indicators or messages are required.
The second interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is required
only for air bags used to comply with Standard No. 208 raises
the issue whether a single indicator without distinguishing
messages could be used for required and non-required air bags.
As suggested in my April 25 letter, it is arguable that the
requirement in S4.5.2 would not be satisfied by an indicator
providing non-distinguishable messages which may relate either
to air bags required by Standard No. 208 or to other systems.
After considering the language of Standard No. 208 and its
purposes, we conclude that it is appropriate to interpret
Standard No. 208, S4.5.2, not to require an indicator for air
bags other than those required to comply with that standard.
While the agency is stopping short of interpreting the standard
as requiring an indicator for such voluntarily-installed air
bags, however, we nonetheless encourage such indicators.
Consistent with that encouragement, and considering the
ambiguity of S4.5.2, we believe it is appropriate to interpret
the standard as permitting a single indicator, without
distinguishing messages, for all air bags.
The reason for this conclusion is that the message of the
readiness indicator is that a component of an air bag system (or
other occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a
crash) needs the attention of an automotive expert such as a
dealer. Regardless of which system is causing the indicator to
signal the existence of a malfunction, we believe that when
vehicle owners see the indicator provide a warning, they will
understand that there is a problem with an air bag (or other
occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a
crash) and will take the vehicle to a dealer or repair business.
Since the dealer or repair business can inform the owner which
system is malfunctioning, it does not matter that the indicator
does not make that distinction. This result is, as noted above,
consistent with the view that S4.5.2 applies to non-required air
bags.
As indicated above, NHTSA has also reconsidered that portion of
a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes that an
indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2
indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. The
rationale for that interpretation had some similarities to the
April 25, 1996 interpretation to Porsche about air bags other
than those used to comply with Standard No. 208. First, NHTSA
concluded that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for
pretensioners. Second, the agency concluded that a voluntarily
provided indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with
the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is
provided.
In concluding that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for
pretensioners, the agency considered whether pretensioners are
"an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a
crash." The agency noted that even though pretensioners are
designed to activate in the event of a crash, they will not
"deploy" the belts if the belts have not been manually fastened.
NHTSA stated that it does not view the pretensioners as
"deploying" the belts but instead providing a final, albeit
important, adjustment to belts which have already been deployed.
Just as there is some ambiguity with respect to whether S4.5.2
covers air bags other than those used to comply with Standard
No. 208, there is ambiguity with respect to whether it covers
pretensioners. The word "deploy" is defined in the dictionary
and in common usage as "to arrange, place, or move strategically
or appropriately." While it is certainly true that
pretensioners will not "deploy" unfastened safety belts,
pretensioners can be seen as "deploying" fastened safety belts
in the event of a crash, i.e., moving them into position to
provide better occupant protection.
NHTSA believes that this ambiguity should be resolved in the
same manner as for air bags other than those used to comply with
Standard No. 208. That is, the agency will not interpret the
standard as requiring an indicator for pretensioners, but
nonetheless encourages such indicators. As part of that
encouragement, and given the ambiguity of S4.5.2, we interpret
the standard as permitting a single indicator, without
distinguishing messages, for all air bags and pretensioners.
I note that we are not interpreting S4.5.2 as permitting
indicators for devices other than deploying occupant crash
protection systems to be combined with the required indicator
without distinguishing messages. I also note that, should the
agency in the future receive information demonstrating that
indicators for multiple air bag systems without distinguishing
messages are creating confusion for drivers, we may revisit this
subject in rulemaking. Finally, because this interpretation
reflects consideration of the unique history of Standard No.
208, I caution against using it for precedent concerning how the
agency might interpret other standards.
If you have any other questions or need some additional
information, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this
address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr.
President
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1001 19th St. North
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209
ref:208#214
d:7/30/96