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: 10975Open Helen A. Rychlewski Dear Ms. Rychlewski: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test. In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions. The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged. The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:201 d:8/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10992Open Mr. John Renock Dear Mr. Renock: Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you. NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: M. Judson Brown ref:304 d:7/18/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10994Open Patrick M. Raher, Esq. Dear Mr. Raher: This responds to your request for an interpretation of the seat position specifications of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 214, Side Impact Protection. These specifications, which are part of the test conditions for the standards' dynamic crash tests, indicate how a vehicle's seats are positioned in those tests. You asked how the specifications apply in the case of power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat height. As discussed below, the seats would be positioned midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions (with the forwardmost and rearmost positions being determined irrespective of seat height), and at the lowest possible height at that midway position. This appears to correspond to Option 1 in your letter. In your letter, you described a power seat design whose seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to the mechanism utilized in the power seat operation. In particular, the seat can move further forward in its highest position than in its lowest position, and further rearward in its lowest position than in its highest position. You also indicated that a lowering of the seat from a higher position has the effect of moving the seat backward. The seat position specifications of Standards No. 208 (S8.1.2) and No. 214 (S6.3) read as follows: Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used. This provision sets forth two conditions concerning how an adjustable seat is positioned in a crash test. The first condition, for the longitudinal position of the seat, is for the seat to be in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions. The terms "forwardmost" and "rearmost" are not qualified by height, so the absolute forwardmost and rearmost positions would be used, irrespective of seat height at those positions. The second condition, for the vertical position of a seat which is separately adjustable in a vertical direction, is for the seat to be in the lowest position. We interpret this to refer to the lowest vertical position that can be attained at the longitudinal position described above. Therefore, in positioning a seat for a crash test, we would not change the longitudinal position of the seat merely because the mechanism was designed so that lowering the seat from a higher position had the effect of moving the seat backward. Instead, we would find the lowest vertical position that could be attained at the specified longitudinal position. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:8/31/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10999Open Mr. Tim Phillips Dear Mr. Phillips: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) '574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size." The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as '574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). The agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and retreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR '574.5(b)). In summary, 49 CFR '574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure
ref:574 d:8/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11-000612 M.Edie (Part 523)OpenMark D. Edie Office of the General Counsel Ford Motor Company 1350 I Street N.W., Suite 450 Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR 523.2 AND 523.5(b)(2) Dear Mr. Edie: This is a response to your letter on January 21, 2011, in which you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR 523.2 and 523.5(b)(2) as they would apply to the classification of a motor vehicle with components affixed to its undercarriage. The specific components described in your letter are tire aero deflectors, which are attached in front of the tires in order to reduce aerodynamic drag and thereby improve fuel economy. Your letter states that in order to perform as needed, some of the components may be between 20 and 15 centimeters from their lowest point to the ground. The components are made of flexible plastic and capable of bending without breaking and returning to their original position after encountering solid objects up to 20 centimeters in height at typical off-road speeds. You requested our confirmation that this type of component would be excluded from the running clearance measurement in 49 CFR 523.5(b)(2), and thus allow vehicles equipped with these components to be classified as light trucks for CAFE compliance purposes, provided that they meet all other required criteria for that classification. This letter provides the agencys opinion based on the information provided. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not endorse or approve the classification of any motor vehicle. This is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, who must also ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. In order to comply with CAFE requirements, the manufacturer must classify its vehicles according to the definitions in 49 CFR Part 523, as promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(17)-(19). Improper classification can result in NHTSA determining that a manufacturers CAFE compliance obligations for its passenger car and light truck fleets are different from those assumed by the manufacturer, and create difficulties in meeting the standards. NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR 523.5 provide two basic ways in which a vehicle can be classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes: 523.5(a) covers vehicles that the agency considers functional light trucks, that are not passenger cars because they were not manufactured primarily for transporting up to ten individuals; and 523.5(b) covers vehicles which are expressly excluded from the passenger car category due to their capability for off-highway operation.[1] Your question focuses on 523.5(b), which states that a vehicle must either: (1)(i) [Have] 4-wheel drive; or (ii) [Be] rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and (2) [Have] at least four of the following characteristics calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure (i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees. (ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees. (iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees. (iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters. (v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each. Running clearance is defined in 49 CFR 523.2 as the distance from the surface on which an automobile is standing to the lowest point on the automobile, excluding unsprung weight. We have previously interpreted 49 CFR 523.5(b) to mean that it does not require a vehicle to meet four of the five criteria [of 523.5(b)(2)] at all ride heights; however, a vehicle must meet four out of the five criteria in at least one ride height.[2] In the situation presented in that prior interpretation, the vehicle was equipped with a driver-controllable variable ride height suspension system. In some positions, the vehicle would have had a running clearance of less than 20 centimeters, but the agency determined that it was appropriate, for CAFE classification purposes, to measure the vehicles running clearance with its adjustable suspension placed in the position(s) intended for off-road operation under real-world conditions.[3] |
|
ID: 15091.ogmOpen Mr. Jerry Roberts Dear Mr. Roberts: This responds to your letter of April 21, 1997, concerning a seat belt system you have designed. You asked us to evaluate whether the design would comply with S7.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The opinion provided below is based on the facts provided in your letter. As described in your letter, the seat belt assembly at issue is a Type 2 assembly intended for use in forward-facing rear seats in conversion vans. The lower end of the belt is attached to the vehicle floor and the upper end is attached to a retractor mounted on the roof support. The belt itself is fed through a crescent shaped slot in a mounting plate fixed to the roof rail. This crescent shaped slot allows the belt to assume different positions relative to a seat occupant depending on the height at which the belt is latched when fastened. The arc described by the crescent shaped slot is "preferably at least 5 cm longer than the width of the webbing." Standard No. 208 was amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994, (59 FR 39472) to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. S7.1.2.1 of Standard 208 reads as follows:
According to your letter, the crescent-shaped slot located in the guide plate near the upper anchorage automatically moves the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage when the belt is latched around different sized users. This guide plate, which attaches to vehicle structure at the roof rail, is also an anchorage. S3 of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, defines a seat belt anchorage as "...any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, attachment hardware ..." If the distance, measured linearly, between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point with the guide plate at the extreme adjustment positions is greater than five centimeters, it appears that your design would meet the requirement of S7.1.2.1. However, as an alternative means of providing the adjustment specified in S7.1.2, S7.1.2.1 requires that a Type 2 assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso and lap belts. If, in operation, the system you have designed does not automatically move the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage to accommodate occupants, the system you have designed would not meet S7.1.2.1. I note, however, that NHTSA is not able to make such a determination from looking at your drawings. Any determination of compliance would require testing of the system as installed in a vehicle. NHTSA compliance testing has also revealed that guide plates, d-rings and other guiding devices can tear or sever webbing under the severe loads experienced in an impact. The guide plates incorporated in your design should therefore be constructed in a fashion which will minimize this risk. You should also be aware that under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30122, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge. Compliance with applicable standards does not relieve the manufacturer of responsibility in the event a defect exists. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15100.ztvOpen Mr. Lawrence Rucker Dear Mr. Rucker: This is in reply to your recent undated letter that arrived in this office on May 5. You write requesting a manufacturer identification number for your "new style of high-mounted brake lights." You have been told "that everything seems to be within the federal code of 108." This refers to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. My letter is based on the assumption that you intend these lamps to replace the center high-mounted stop lamp rather than to be mounted as pairs to supplement a vehicle's two lower-mounted stop lamps. As you say, your stop lamps are unique because of their design and shape, to judge by the dollar sign and cocktail glass drawings that you enclosed. As replacement equipment, your lamps would have to meet the appropriate requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and be certified as meeting them. Standard No. 108 does not specify permissible shapes for the center stop lamp but it does require the lamp to comply with minimum and maximum photometric (light output) values measured at certain identified test points, as set out in Table 10 of the standard. The test points are, in essence, a grid and control to some extent the design of the lamp. For example, it appears to us unlikely that stylized lamps such as yours can meet the requirements of Table 10, or the requirement that the effective projected luminous area not be less than 4 square inches. If you intend the lamp to be located on the parcel shelf, it will have to conform when photometered through the rear glass and at the orientation in which it is installed, and minimize reflections from the light on the rear window that might be visible in the rear view mirror to the driver. You may obtain a copy of Standard No. 108 and the agency's other regulations by placing an order with the U.S. Government Printing Office, whose telephone number is (202) 512-0133. The volume is "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999." You will find Standard No. 108 at Section 571.108. The portions that apply to center high-mounted stop lamps are paragraphs S3, S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8, and S5.4, Tables III and IV, and Figure 10 (photometrics). If any lamp design does not conform, it cannot be manufactured and sold as replacement equipment without violating Title 49, United States Code, Section 30112(a). A civil penalty of up to $1,100 may be imposed for each lamp sold, up to a maximum of $880,000. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to center stop lamps sold for use on vehicles that were never required by Standard No. 108 to have them in the first place. The center lamp has been required on passenger cars manufactured beginning September 1, 1985, and on light trucks and vans manufactured beginning September 1, 1993. Thus you would not be in violation of Federal law by selling your lamps as presently designed, for use on vehicles produced before these dates. However, they might not be allowed under the laws of Mississippi or other states where you may want to sell them. We aren't conversant with local laws and suggest you ask the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for advice. We have no "manufacturer identification number" for producers of lighting equipment, but we do require manufacturers of replacement lighting equipment to file a simple identification statement with us not later than 30 days after beginning manufacture of their products. This regulation is known as 49 CFR Part 566, and can be found in the same volume as Standard No. 108, reference above.. If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15103.wkmOpen Mr. R. C. Brown Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your April 28, 1997 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff and to your follow-up letters, in which you ask whether you may have a vehicle modifier move the seat in your 1996 Cadillac two inches farther to the rear to make it physically possible for you to operate the vehicle. Modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining this agency's permission, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Because your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law further provides that manufacturers must certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before those products can be offered for sale. In addition, Federal law prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and commercial repair businesses from knowingly "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" provision requires repair businesses to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation. In this case, moving a seat, whether or not the seat belts are also moved, could affect compliance with four standards: No. 207, Seating Systems; No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In situations such as yours, however, where the modification must be made to accommodate a disability, we have been willing to consider violation of the "make inoperative" provision a purely technical one justified by public need. Accordingly, this agency will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of those modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is essential that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that the occupant of a seat that has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we strongly encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications you have made to the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15104.ogmOpenMr. Jurgen Babirad Dear Mr. Babirad: This responds to your letter of April 16, 1997, requesting information regarding modification of a motor vehicle for a driver with physical disabilities. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will replace the driver's seat with a wheelchair restraint system and remove the driver from the vicinity of the air bag originally installed in the vehicle. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 329 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection used to satisfy this requirement are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997, 95 percent of a manufacturer's production must have air bags at the forward outboard seating positions. Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less)manufactured after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1997 are required to provide either automatic crash protection or safety belts at the front outboard seating position. During this period, manufacturers must equip certain percentages of their vehicles with automatic crash protection systems. However, section S4.2 of Standard No. 208 contains an exclusion from the automatic protection requirement for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. The exclusion applies to "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities," defined as:
In general, repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. 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 standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment (such as an air bag) installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Removing a seat, and replacing the seat belts for the seat with a wheelchair tiedown and restraint system, could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. In your situation, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings >against the business that modifies the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made, and the person making the modifications should consider other safety issues that might arise from the modification. For example, in installing a wheelchair tiedown and restraint system, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the driver's wheelchair will be solidly anchored in its new location. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to deactivate the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we encourage the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications. Your letter does not contain enough information to indicate conclusively whether your situation falls within the exclusion for vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities found in Standard No. 208. However, you may nonetheless rely on non-enforcement of the "make inoperative" prohibition for the reasons I described above. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely, ref:208 d.9/22/97 |
1997 |
ID: 15105.drnOpen Norman A. Shubert, Esq. Dear Mr. Shubert: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a new corporation (your client, Great Dane Limited Partnership, "G.D. Ltd."), may use the world manufacturer identifiers (WMI) of two companies it has acquired (Pines Trailer Limited Partnership, "Pines Trailer," and Great Dane Trailers, Inc., "Great Dane Trailers"). Our answer is G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs that had been assigned to Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers. Your letter stated that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers were each assigned a WMI "effective for the 1981 model year." After G.D. Ltd. was formed in January 1997, it "acquired the manufacturing plants, equipment and proprietary rights to manufacture and distribute truck trailers" under both the Pines Trailer and Great Dane names and logos. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that G.D. Ltd. does not manufacture motor vehicles, has no intention of manufacturing motor vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You further stated that all Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers rights to manufacture motor vehicles were transferred when G.D. Ltd bought the rights and property of both entities. Your letter stated that G.D. Ltd. intends to maintain the unique product line and product design of Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers as separate divisions. Your letter stated that G.D. Ltd. does not presently intend to merge "the manufacturing facilities or product lines of the separate divisions." NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused. We agree that the facts of G.D. Ltd.'s case are similar to those in our March 20, 1997 letter to Monaco Corporation. As was the case in Monaco, in G.D. Ltd.'s case, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (G.D. Ltd.), but a division (in G.D. Ltd.'s case, each division, Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers) has a WMI. NHTSA was assured in the Monaco case that there are no plans for the parent company, Monaco, to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require assigning a WMI). Similarly, in your letter to NHTSA, you assure us that G.D. Ltd. itself will not manufacture truck trailers or any other motor vehicles. You have also assured us that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers will remain separate divisions, and advertised as separate trade names. Because the relevant facts in your client's case and Monaco's are similar, we arrive at the same decision in your case as we did in Monaco's. Since G.D. Ltd. itself is not assigned a WMI, but its two divisions have separate WMIs, we agree that G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs that were assigned to Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the motor vehicle. A copy of this letter will be sent to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which has a contract to administer the WMI system for NHTSA. The SAE will make appropriate notations in its records about G.D. Ltd., Pines Trailer, and Great Dane Trailers, and may contact you if it needs further information. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, cc: Ms. Cathy Douds ref:565 |
1997 |
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.