NHTSA Administrator Says Compliance With Standards At Time of Production Not Enough
In an interview with Automotive News (registration required), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration director David Strickland said that if automakers want to keep their cars and trucks from getting recalled, those cars must not just meet standards in effect at the time vehicles are produced, but that the car companies must also make sure they stay as safe, statistically, as competitors’ products that use different designs.
Though he didn’t explicitly say so, his remarks could be read as saying that the agency will aggressively pursue recalls even though the involved vehicles met all standards in effect when they were built. Companies apparently will not be able to avoid recalls by saying that their cars and trucks met all applicable standards when sold new. Strickland’s comments were made against the backdrop of the voluntary inspection and retrofitting of trailer hitches on some Jeep models to reduce the risk of punctures to the rear mounted gas tanks in the event of rear collisions
“It really is based on the notion of unreasonable risk. And that is an evolving notion,” Strickland told the AN. He said that NHTSA is obligated to reassess risks “if state of the art moves all the peers in one direction, and it appears that there is another part of the fleet that has not made those same moves or improvements.” If car makers want to avoid recalls, they’ll have to remain “within the zone of reasonable risk”.
When Chrysler was first ordered to recall 2.7 million Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty SUVs, the company claimed that the agency was changing the rules. The dispute raised the issue as to what exactly is a “standard” if that standard is fluid and subject to retroactive change. “NHTSA seems to be holding Chrysler Group to a new standard for fuel tank integrity that does not exist now and did not exist when the Jeep vehicles were manufactured,” the company at first said after the recall was announced, though as mentioned the company and NHTSA came to an agreement about Chrysler doing the inspections and retrofits voluntarily.
Though Strickland said that the use of fluid standards isn’t the result of any new interpretation of the laws the agency enforces, he also said that using the “reasonable risk” standard was a tactical solution to “upgrading” standards when the slow pace of changing the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards legislatively doesn’t move fast enough in the agency’s opinion.
“It’s very hard to change or upgrade a federal motor vehicle safety standard,” he said. “Sometimes it can be decades. Sometimes it can be 20 or 30 years.” Using a standard that changes retroactively based on the concept of reasonable risk, the NHTSA director added, allows the agency to “to backstop the inability to reach back and upgrade standards – because of cost and time and all sorts of other factors.”
More by TTAC Staff
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Daniel People are just going to believe what they *want* to believe to fit their narrative. Yes, those who drive more than 200 miles on a regular basis shouldn't get an EV as their main vehicle for now, but for around town and commuting they work great. Go with a lease for now to try one out, trickle charge at home and use the PlugShare app to find public chargers, many of which are free. And that's for those well-off, for those lower middle class, there are tons of rebates for the car AND having level 2 charger installed at home. I am a full-on auto enthusiast for over 35 years since an early teen and I have already been through the death of affordable sporty cars and the manual transmission. So I made sure to test drive them first, was very happy with the power, surprisingly good handling, and the paddle shifters for regen levels are nearly identical to me using the paddle shifters to engine brake in my last ICE car. I'll always love the great ICE vehicles too, but I'm actually saving money driving an even faster EV than my last car with free charging and relatively low electric rates in my area.
- HotRod The Tunnel Turn at the "Tricky Triangle" (Pocono Raceway). I got to push a Nascar-style Dodge Intrepid harder than I ever imagined. I was miserable with shingles at the time, making the experience that much more memorable. But for a handful of laps I didn't feel anything but pure adrenaline.
- Redapple2 That is one busy face. Ford: Too much.
- SCE to AUX The video in the link is pretty damning, but the fix should be a simple mechanical repair. A code patch won't do it.
- SCE to AUX I get it, and yet I don't. Time has put a lot of distance between the 1964.5 and the 2025, and Ford has already sullied the Mustang name by putting it on a vehicle completely unrelated to this one.I guess 1965 somebodys will see fit to pay Ford and its local dealer a hefty premium to 'celebrate' the Mustang name.Are the 30th Anniversary Mustangs worth a nickel today? Better yet, how about the 10th Anniversary Mustangs?
Comments
Join the conversation
Did I just read that right? It can take 20-30 years on some items to change/modify? I can understand some items maybe taking up to 5 years, but 20-30?! By the time a decision is made on the item that item will likely be obsolete! Perhaps they should just outsource that function to the SAE.
So, when does the banning of gasoline begin? After all, it's a very unstable substance and most people who struggle to rub two synapses together will likely blow themselves up at the local 76 station.