NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 1081 - 1090 of 2067

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam0471 Open Mr. Charles O. Verrill, Jr., Patton, Blow, Verrill, Brand & Boggs, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Charles O. Verrill Jr. Patton Blow Verrill Brand & Boggs 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you mad several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.; >>>1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keepin regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.; 2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information o the certification label be placed 'in the order shown.' We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.; 3. You requested 'an interpretation that a multi-column label or label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567,' because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.; 4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to us up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.<<<; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator
ID: aiam4394 Open Mr. William R. Pape, Jr., 8152 Ladoga Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32217; Mr. William R. Pape Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville FL 32217; Dear Mr. Pape: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to which you have asked that we reply.; Your first question is 'May one word be introduced on the brake light? Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to the lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the lamp must meet specified candela maxima and minima at 13 discrete test points.; Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whethe it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather narrowly defined, and falls with the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if its is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribed limits. In our opinion, the 'soft pink' or 'hot pink' that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.; Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are 'hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing.' Under assumption that your lamp would not comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold and used.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3191 Open Mr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Department, Michelin Tire Corporation, One Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, New York 11042; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Department Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success New York 11042; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requeste an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall b labeled with 'one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacements sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.; Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred t as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements o Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard, see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.; I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean tha NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3975 Open Mr. K. Weight, 65 E. 200 N., Provo, UT 84601; Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo UT 84601; Dear Mr. Weight: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows i automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.; FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a ne passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent, clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.; Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver t detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the 'black window' is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material i new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so lon as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1379 Open Mr. Richard Wright West, West & Wilkinson, P.O. Box 257, 2815 Huntington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607; Mr. Richard Wright West West & Wilkinson P.O. Box 257 2815 Huntington Avenue Newport News VA 23607; Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or mtor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. the installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel thank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased ingood faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1516 Open Mr. Ronald C. Dobbyn, Program Manager, Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234; Mr. Ronald C. Dobbyn Program Manager Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Washington D.C. 20234; Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2281 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, an April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of school bus' as they become effective in October 1976.; Your interpretation is correct that bus passenger compartment' as use in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield.; You request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standar No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately.; You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2. of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that school bus passenger seat' as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller- Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222.; In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold fo purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of school bus' that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. S1391(14).; In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement o S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum contact area' on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The contact area' refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4122 Open The Honorable Ralph Davenport, South Carolina Legislature, P.O. 1301, Spartanburg, SC 20394; The Honorable Ralph Davenport South Carolina Legislature P.O. 1301 Spartanburg SC 20394; Dear Mr. Davenport: This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the effect of Federal regulations on the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect the tinting of vehicle windows may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; You first asked if the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply t foreign vehicles sold in the United States. As with all our standards, Standard No. 205 applies to any new vehicle, whether made by a foreign or domestic company, manufactured for sale in the United States. Thus, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Violation of Standard No. 205 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, a manufacturer of a vehicle that does not comply with our standards is required to remedy any noncompliances in its vehicles.; You also asked how Federal law affects businesses that tinted th windows of used vehicles. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5027 Open Mr. Steven Rovtar General Manager Blazer International Corp. 2960 Hart Drive Franklin Park, IL 60131; Mr. Steven Rovtar General Manager Blazer International Corp. 2960 Hart Drive Franklin Park IL 60131; "Dear Mr. Rovtar: This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, askin for 'a written ruling' that the product you described 'meets current SAE/DOT guidelines.' The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product 'utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle.' Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit. For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids 'manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses' from 'rendering inoperative, in whole or in part,' mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them 'partially inoperative' within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied. We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam5590 Open Mr. Jim Burgess Engineering Manager Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. 4100 West Piedras St. Farmington, NM 87401; Mr. Jim Burgess Engineering Manager Independent Mobility Systems Inc. 4100 West Piedras St. Farmington NM 87401; Dear Mr. Burgess: This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to thi office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system. You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states: S ide doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard. FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion. While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that 'lift' includes 'ramp.' In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures (2) 1985 final rule Part 552;

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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam0471 Open Mr. Charles O. Verrill, Jr., Patton, Blow, Verrill, Brand & Boggs, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Charles O. Verrill Jr. Patton Blow Verrill Brand & Boggs 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you mad several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.; >>>1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keepin regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.; 2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information o the certification label be placed 'in the order shown.' We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.; 3. You requested 'an interpretation that a multi-column label or label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567,' because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.; 4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to us up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.<<<; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator
ID: aiam4394 Open Mr. William R. Pape, Jr., 8152 Ladoga Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32217; Mr. William R. Pape Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville FL 32217; Dear Mr. Pape: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to which you have asked that we reply.; Your first question is 'May one word be introduced on the brake light? Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to the lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the lamp must meet specified candela maxima and minima at 13 discrete test points.; Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whethe it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather narrowly defined, and falls with the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if its is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribed limits. In our opinion, the 'soft pink' or 'hot pink' that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.; Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are 'hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing.' Under assumption that your lamp would not comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold and used.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3191 Open Mr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Department, Michelin Tire Corporation, One Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, New York 11042; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Department Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success New York 11042; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requeste an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall b labeled with 'one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacements sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.; Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred t as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements o Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard, see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.; I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean tha NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3975 Open Mr. K. Weight, 65 E. 200 N., Provo, UT 84601; Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo UT 84601; Dear Mr. Weight: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows i automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.; FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a ne passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent, clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.; Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver t detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the 'black window' is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material i new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so lon as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1379 Open Mr. Richard Wright West, West & Wilkinson, P.O. Box 257, 2815 Huntington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607; Mr. Richard Wright West West & Wilkinson P.O. Box 257 2815 Huntington Avenue Newport News VA 23607; Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or mtor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. the installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel thank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased ingood faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1516 Open Mr. Ronald C. Dobbyn, Program Manager, Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234; Mr. Ronald C. Dobbyn Program Manager Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Washington D.C. 20234; Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2281 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, an April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of school bus' as they become effective in October 1976.; Your interpretation is correct that bus passenger compartment' as use in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield.; You request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standar No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately.; You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2. of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that school bus passenger seat' as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller- Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222.; In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold fo purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of school bus' that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. S1391(14).; In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement o S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum contact area' on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The contact area' refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4122 Open The Honorable Ralph Davenport, South Carolina Legislature, P.O. 1301, Spartanburg, SC 20394; The Honorable Ralph Davenport South Carolina Legislature P.O. 1301 Spartanburg SC 20394; Dear Mr. Davenport: This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the effect of Federal regulations on the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect the tinting of vehicle windows may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; You first asked if the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply t foreign vehicles sold in the United States. As with all our standards, Standard No. 205 applies to any new vehicle, whether made by a foreign or domestic company, manufactured for sale in the United States. Thus, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Violation of Standard No. 205 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, a manufacturer of a vehicle that does not comply with our standards is required to remedy any noncompliances in its vehicles.; You also asked how Federal law affects businesses that tinted th windows of used vehicles. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5027 Open Mr. Steven Rovtar General Manager Blazer International Corp. 2960 Hart Drive Franklin Park, IL 60131; Mr. Steven Rovtar General Manager Blazer International Corp. 2960 Hart Drive Franklin Park IL 60131; "Dear Mr. Rovtar: This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, askin for 'a written ruling' that the product you described 'meets current SAE/DOT guidelines.' The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product 'utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle.' Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit. For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids 'manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses' from 'rendering inoperative, in whole or in part,' mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them 'partially inoperative' within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied. We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam5590 Open Mr. Jim Burgess Engineering Manager Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. 4100 West Piedras St. Farmington, NM 87401; Mr. Jim Burgess Engineering Manager Independent Mobility Systems Inc. 4100 West Piedras St. Farmington NM 87401; Dear Mr. Burgess: This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to thi office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system. You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states: S ide doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard. FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion. While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that 'lift' includes 'ramp.' In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures (2) 1985 final rule Part 552;

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam0471

ID: aiam4394

ID: aiam3191

ID: aiam3975

ID: aiam1379

ID: aiam1516

ID: aiam2281

ID: aiam4122

ID: aiam5027

ID: aiam5590

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?