Interpretation ID: nht73-2.28

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER ASSOCIATION

TO: LAUREN SNYDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON; FRANCIS H. BURNS; ED OGLE; JAMES R. GARFIELD

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/02/73 FROM JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA TO GALE S. MOLOVINSKY; N40-30; SECTION 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

It has been brought to our attention that the Veterans Administration regulations pertaining to veterans requiring adaptive equipment on automobiles financed by the VA pursuant to VA Form 21-4502 compel dealers to furnish the car suitably modified before the veteran is permitted to accept delivery.

Since disabled veterans may require prosthetic service, the VA is concerned that no veteran accept delivery of a vehicle that he cannot operate. DOT regulations, however, prohibit dealers from modifying vehicles where safety standards may be affected. Because of the nature of the disability, veterans frequently need radical alterations of the accelerator, steering column, brake pedals, seat chassis and dashboard. A car which has been modified for an individual who has lost both feet or both hands, for example, could be considered unsafe because it would be unrecognizable and undriveable for an individual without knowledge of such adaptive equipment. Furthermore, such modifications might affect existing structural equipment required by the safety standards.

Dealers are uncertain as to whether or not safety standards are effected and therefore reluctant to unilaterally make equipment changes which might be in violation of the law. Although the dealer wishes to assist the veteran in securing operable, reliable transportation, he is caught between the conflicting policy directives of DOT and the VA. Of course, the disabled veteran suffers the most. I have discussed this problem with the VA and Mr. Dyson of your office and a consensus has developed that perhaps NHTSA could clarify policy to permit dealers to modify cars prior to delivery when ordered for specific physically impaired customers.

2

NADA supports DOT's efforts on behalf of our customers to insure that motor vehicles contain as many safety features as needed to reduce the possibilities of injury. It is not NADA's intention to seek modification or relaxation of any safety standard, but merely to affect a process wherein dealers may render their services to those Americans requiring adaptive equipment without fearing the consequences of violating the law as it now stands.

Mr. Burns of the VA's General Counsel's office and others at that agency are also eager to cooperate on this matter.

I look forward to cooperating with your office toward a speedy resolution of this situation.

Sincerely yours,