NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4292OpenThe Honorable Jim Bates, United States House of Representatives, 430 Davidson Street, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 92010; The Honorable Jim Bates United States House of Representatives 430 Davidson Street Suite A Chula Vista CA 92010; Dear Mr. Bates: This responds to your letter on behalf of a constituent, Tatar Osman Mr. Osman was interested in learning how to get an 'approval' for a child seat. According to advertising literature you enclosed with your letter, this child seat complies with the European ECE Regulations.; In enforcing its safety standards, this agency does not follow th European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver an item of the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer *itself* must certify that each of its items of motor vehicle equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle standards. In the case of child seats, every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213) (copy enclosed). This standard sets forth both performance and labeling requirements that must be satisfied by the child restraint system.; Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer' certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint system or any tests at all. Pursuant to the Vehicle Safety Act, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its child restraint systems in the United States for the first time tests those systems according to the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. Once the manufacturer has determined that its child restraint system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by placing a certification label on the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.; There are two additional regulations you should bring to the attentio of your constituent in the event he plans to import these child restraints into the United States. Copies of both these regulations are enclosed for your information. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This regulation requires a manufacturer (including importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufacturers (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States).; The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Sectio 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. It is not necessary for an importer located within this country to designate its own agent as well. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent by the manufacturer must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin upon the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,<<<; >>>2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer,<<<; >>>3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's child restraint systems that do not bear its name,<<<; >>>4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,<<<; >>>5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and<<<; >>>6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< Such a designation must be received by this agency before any of th manufacturer's child restraint system are imported into this country.; Should you need further information on this subject, or a clarificatio of any of the information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3557OpenJoseph R. Karner, Project Engineer, M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation, 3000 Town Center, Southfield, MI 48075; Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Karner: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it woul be permissible to attach a label to a door stating 'To Open Door in Emergency Pull Down'. You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.; The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum numbe of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.; As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. Fo example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4338OpenMr. Jim Moss, President, Auto Mark Corp., 3901 Atkinson Drive, Suite 220, Louisville, KY 40218; Mr. Jim Moss President Auto Mark Corp. 3901 Atkinson Drive Suite 220 Louisville KY 40218; Dear Mr. Moss: This responds to your letter to Ms. Barbara Kurtz of our Office o Market Incentives. In your letter, you posed several questions about a stencil your company would like to offer to direct importers for marking their vehicle parts in compliance with 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to briefly explain the parts marking requirements of Part 541 as they apply to direct importers.; Direct importers are required to *inscribe* an identifying number o the specified parts for each passenger car subject to Part 541 that they import, S541.5(a). The identifying number inscribed on the parts must be the original vehicle identification number assigned to the car by its original manufacturer in the country where the car was assembled or produced, S541.5(b)(3). The identifying number inscribed on the parts must satisfy the size and style requirements specified for vehicle certification labels, S541.5(c). Finally, the identifying number inscribed on the parts must comply with the three requirements of S541.5(d)((2). These requirements are:; >>>1. Removal or alteration of any portion of the number must visibl alter the appearance of the section of the vehicle part on which the identification is marked,; 2. The number must be placed on each part in a location that is visibl without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle, and; 3. The number must be placed entirely within the target area specifie by the original manufacturer for that part.<<<; There are no other requirements for marking direct importers' vehicles Once the direct importer determines that its vehicle complies with these requirements, it certifies that compliance by affixing a label to the vehicle, as specified in 49 CFR S567.4(k). This certification must be affixed to the vehicle *before* it is imported into the United States.; To respond to your specific question, you stated that you advise direc importers to leave your stencil on each part after etching it. You then posed three questions:; >>>1. Must the initials DOT appear on the stencil?<<< ANSWER: No. Part 541 does *not* require that the DOT symbol appear as part of or in conjunction with inscribed markings on parts.; >>>2. May we leave our name (logo) printed on the stencil?<<< ANSWER: Yes. Using the same principles we have applied in the case o labeling requirements in our safety standard, manufacturers may label information in addition to that which is required by the theft prevention standard, *provided* that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. The purpose of requiring the vehicle identification number to be inscribed on specified parts is to allow law enforcement officials to quickly and conclusively establish whether a vehicle or major part is stolen. We do not believe it is possible that law enforcement officials will be distracted from examining the markings inscribed on the parts by the presence of a stencil with your company name on it. Therefore, you are free to leave you company name on the stencil.; >>>3. Do you have any suggestions or objections to offer?<<< ANSWER: Our only concern is that direct imports comply with th requirements of Part 541. Assuming that your stencil is a means for direct importers to comply with those requirements, we have no additional advice to offer.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3107OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Suite No. 1012, 1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Suite No. 1012 1028 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the proper 'designated seating capacity' for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two 'designated seating positions.'; The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides, i part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.; Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat desig having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.; Your 'Figure 2' illustrates an unpadded depression at the cente position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.; The seat design illustrated in 'Figure 3' of your letter includes 'partition pipe' at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the 'pipe' that is used and whether it is removable. If the 'pipe' were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the 'pipe' might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the 'partition pipe' that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.; In 'Figure 4,' there is a padded 'swelling' in the center sea position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the 'swelling,' it appears that the 'swelling' slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the 'swelling' is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the 'swelling' is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discourage use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the 'swelling' slants down to the seat back to create a 'saddle effect,' young children might be encouraged to use this center position.; To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that 'Figure 2' in your lette illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of 'designated seating position.' It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your 'Figure 4,' for example, you could easily design the 'swelling' to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1993OpenMr. Daniel W. Lang, Suite 600, 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210; Mr. Daniel W. Lang Suite 600 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills CA 90210; Dear Mr. Lang: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1975, in which yo inquire as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder to your client, Star Vision, as a manufacturer and installer of see-through fiberglass replacement tops.; Section 108(a) (2) (A) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that the installation of the top by Star Vision must not take a vehicle out of compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 or any other applicable safety standard. You should note that the requirements of section 108(a) (2) (A) apply to modifications of vehicles following their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. It appears from the literature accompanying your letter that the tops are not installed on vehicles prior to their first sale. If they are, then Star Vision is subject to the notification, remedy, certification, and record-keeping requirements of section 108(a) (1).; There is no specific requirement for testing the replacement tops i order to determine compliance with Standard No. 216. However, since the Act prohibits knowingly rendering inoperative any vehicle or part of a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, Star Vision is under an obligation to test its product if it has reason to believe that installation of the tops will substantially degrade the performance of the vehicle roofs. If the company has no reason to believe that installation will affect the safety characteristics of the vehicle, it is not obligated to conduct compliance tests.; The replacement tops appear to be subject to Safety Standard No. 205 *Glazing Materials* (49 CFR 571.205). As a result, Star Vision must certify the tops in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403).; If the tops do not comply with Standards Nos. 205 or 216 or any othe applicable safety standard, or if they contain a malfunction or defect related to motor vehicle safety, the company will be obligated by sections 151-160 of the Act to notify the purchasers of the kits and to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge. In addition, section 108(c) of the Act provides that compliance with the Act will not exempt a person from common law liability.; We trust that this information will be of assistance. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5179Open"Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer Dept VER/LB SWF Auto-Electric GmbH"; "Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer Dept VER/LB SWF Auto-Electric GmbH"; "Dear Dr. L ckemeyer: As you have requested, we are responding by FA to your letter of April 28, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked two questions with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and have enclosed a sketch of the lamp. Your first question is: 'Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch . . . where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in.' Your question indicates that the turn signal lamp array of two lamps that is illustrated in the sketch is intended for installation on passenger cars or other vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference the SAE standard applicable to such vehicles, J588 NOV84. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 permits the use of multiple rear turn signal lamps to meet the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108. When multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, paragraph 5.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the functional lighted lens area of each lamp shall be at least 22 sq. cm, provided the combined area is at least 37.5 sq. cm. Your sketch shows that the functional lighted lens area of one lamp is 23 sq. cm, and of the other, 30 sq. cm, with a combined area of 53 sq. cm. Therefore, Standard No. 108 permits you to use the turn signal lamp array shown in your sketch. Your second question is: 'Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements.' Because the distance between the two adjacent light sources in the array does not exceed 560 mm (the sketch indicates that it is less than 550 mm), paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the combination of the lamps be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections, two in this case. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0681OpenMr. K. Krueger, Technical Development, Liaison Engineer, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632; Mr. K. Krueger Technical Development Liaison Engineer Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Krueger: In reviewing our response of March 1, 1972, to your letter of Decembe 6, 1971, we have noted that one of our answers contains an error. On page 2, our answer to question 1(b) should read:; >>>'The provisions of S4.3 that you refer to are intended to reflec the performance of samples described in the test procedures of S5. These requirements are intended to provide an exemption for self-extinguishing materials, and not to exempt small samples that are consumed by fire before *one minute* elapses. The standard establishes burn-rate requirements, and manufacturers should keep this in mind in determining whether particular components comply. If your component is such that it is consumed by fire because of its size before the *one-minute* period, then we would expect modifications to the procedure, of a nature described above, to be made in order that a determination of the burn rate of the material is obtained.' (Emphasis added.)<<<; We regret any inconvenience this error may have caused. Yours truly, Richard S. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2346OpenHonorable Bob Sikes, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Bob Sikes House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Sikes:#This is in response to your May 10, 1976, communicatio enclosing a letter from Mr. John C. Richardson concerning the importation of passenger cars with 'metric instrumentation.' Your communication was forwarded to this agency by the National Bureau of Standards for reply.#Mr. Richardson has encountered difficulty in importing a 1976 model 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation. He has received a letter from Volkswagen of America, Inc., suggesting that 'such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies.' While the precise meaning of 'metric instrumentation' is not clear from either letter, I assume that Mr. Richardson is referring to the marking of the speedometer (in kilometers per hour) and the calibration of the odometer (in kilometers traveled).#The Federal motor vehicle safety standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not presently require any particular form of marking for speedometers or odometers. While we are considering the establishment of a requirement that English units be used, such a rule would permit metric units as an optional addition. Furthermore, such a rule would only be applied prospectively.#Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5483OpenMessrs. Jim Cawse and Fred Diehl Plastics Technology Division General Electric Company One Plastics Ave. Pittsfield, MA 01201; Messrs. Jim Cawse and Fred Diehl Plastics Technology Division General Electric Company One Plastics Ave. Pittsfield MA 01201; Gentlemen: We have received your letter of January 2, 1995, asking fo a confirmation of the appropriateness of your proposed test procedures for plastic materials, as you wish to 'continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C.' Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires, with certain exceptions, that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE J576c. It has been the agency's position over the years that 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) does not establish a requirement that a manufacturer actually conduct compliance testing, but requires only that a vehicle or equipment item conform to any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard if tested in the manner set forth in the standard. We have advised that a manufacturer may exercise due care in certifying compliance of its product on bases other than the test procedures that are set forth in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether the procedures are incorporated by reference, as with J576c, or directly expressed in the standards themselves, although NHTSA itself will conduct its tests according to the procedures set forth in the standards. For this reason, we have no comment on the merits of your suggested approach. Because the agency has proposed amending Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for J576c, we are filing your letter in Docket No. 94-37 as a comment to be considered in this rulemaking. Enclosed is a copy of the proposal with which you are probably already familiar. Although the comment period closed on January 3, it is the agency's practice to consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam5529OpenMr. Paul D. Kelly Albertson, Ward & McCaffrey 36 Euclid Street Woodbury, NJ 08096; Mr. Paul D. Kelly Albertson Ward & McCaffrey 36 Euclid Street Woodbury NJ 08096; "Dear Mr. Kelly: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a 'corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens,' to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer 'suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed.' You further explained that '(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges.' You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows: the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel. You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC 30111). Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC 30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC 30122). In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, 'vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A 'vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the 'make inoperative' prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.