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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2537OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Director Engineering, Wayne Corporation, P. O. Box 1447, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Director Engineering Wayne Corporation P. O. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your oral request of February 17, 1977, for a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, as they apply to Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. In particular, you ask how much force must be used when testing school bus seat belt anchorages for compliance with the standards.; As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration initially proposed that seat belt anchorages be installed in all school buses. At that time, we also proposed that each seat belt assembly be tested under a force of 1,500 pounds. A seat containing three seating positions would have had the three seat belt assemblies tested simultaneously with a possible resulting load upon the seat of 4,500 pounds. The requirement of seat belt anchorages in larger buses was dropped from the proposal based upon comments from school bus operators and as a result of our compartmentalization approach to passenger seating safety in school buses.; The present Standard No. 222 requires seat belts and anchorages i small buses and mandates testing of the anchorages as outlined in Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 requires in S4.2.1 that each seat belt assembly sustain a force application of 5,000 pounds. Where two adjacent seating positions have a common seat belt anchorage mounted on a seat frame, the two seat belt assemblies must simultaneously sustain a 5,000 pound force for a maximum load on the seat of 10,000 pounds.; Standard No. 207, *Seating System*, requires the simultaneous testin of all seat-mounted seat belt assemblies, whether or not they have common anchorages. However, Standard No. 207 is not applicable to school bus seatsconstructed (sic) in accordance with Standard No. 222, and it is not necessary to test simultaneously all seat belt assemblies attached to anchorages mounted on a school bus seat frame.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 06-005826asOpenKim D. Mann, Esq. Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson 1850 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Mann: This responds to your letter asking about the permissibility of certain auxiliary lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You asked about this in connection with a product of one of your clients. Specifically, your letter requested our opinion as to the permissibility of a row of eleven lamps that function as identification lamps, stop lamps, supplemental stop lamps, and turn signals. Based on the information about the product that you provided and the analysis below, it is our opinion that the auxiliary stop lamps and turn signal lamps would impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps, and thus be impermissible under the standard. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that no additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. As you are aware, identification lamps are required You present a variety of arguments that you believe support the permissibility of your clients product, and we will address them here. In your first argument, you state that NHTSA issued an interpretation in 1999[1] stating that a set of brake lights, functioning as supplemental stop lights when brakes are applied, may be installed adjacent to compliant three-lamp cluster rear identification lamps. [emphasis added] This reading is somewhat inaccurate. In that letter, the product addressed was a light bar which contained the required cluster of three identification lamps. Those same three bulbs also acted as supplemental stop lamps by increasing in intensity when the brakes were applied. In addressing the increased brightness, we stated that the effectiveness of [the identification lamps] would not be impaired by an increase in the intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal is applied. [emphasis added] The distinguishing difference between this product and the one you ask about is that the product addressed in the 1999 letter maintained the characteristic three-lamp cluster indicative of identification lamps even when acting as a supplemental stop lamp, whereas the additional eight lamps of your clients design would effectively mask the three-lamp cluster, turning it into an eleven-lamp cluster. Table II of Standard No. 108, which lays out in detail the location and many characteristics of required lighting equipment for truck trailers, is specific that three lamps are to be used, as well as to their required configuration. In your second argument, you noted a letter sent by this agency in 2005,[2] which stated that auxiliary lamps should be located sufficiently distant from the three-lamp ID cluster so as not to impair its effectiveness. You then proceed to state that: It is not the precise number of lights, three, that indicates the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. It is the presence of a series of high-mounted lights across the rear of the trailer. This logic deviates from the logic that NHTSA has used for some time in creating a standardized system for lighting symbols on the highways. In a 1999 letter of interpretation, we summarized our position as follows: Intuitively, it may seem to you that providing additional stop lamp, turn signal, and taillamp functions can only enhance motor vehicle safety. However, we are convinced that our current standardized approach to motor vehicle lighting has positive safety benefits by virtue of its broad public and international acceptance, and that lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 for a specific purpose ought not to be used for a different purpose. A driver, when confronted with a signal, must not be confused and must react to it as quickly as possible. The use of the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster as supplementary turn signals, carry the potential for confusion and hence impairment of the lamps[3] Thus, we believe that the three-lamp cluster, by virtue of the standardization ensured by Standard No. 108, is inherently safer than other, non-conforming patterns of lamps such as an eleven-lamp cluster. This is also why we reject the argument you make that the additional high-mounted turn lights would, when activated, make the trailers presence even more pronounced. While the additional lamps would perhaps make it brighter, the obscuring of the highway-standard three-lamp cluster would outweigh that benefit. You also argue that with regard to an identification lamp cluster, three bulbs is a minimum according to paragraph S5.1.1. You state that the number of identification lamps may be any number exceeding two (including 11). We disagree that this is a correct interpretation of the language in that paragraph. The relevant language of paragraph S5.1.1 reads: Each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment specified in Tables I and III and S7, as applicable This language simply indicates that FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for a minimum number of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. We note that it does not permit additional lamps that interfere with the functioning of the required lighting equipment, or alter established lighting systems, contrary to paragraph S5.1.3. NHTSA has previously stated that the identification lamp system must consist of no more than three lamps. For example, in 2003, NHTSA made the following statement: [A]n identification lamp system complying with Standard No. 108 cannot have more than three lamps. You have correctly interpreted Standard No. 108 to your prospective customers who have expressed an interest in having an array of more than three such lamps.[4] Finally, you point to a 1991 letter of interpretation to J.C. Brown,[5] which stated that an auxiliary high mounted stop light and turn signal complied with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 as lending support to the argument that your clients product would be compliant. The 1991 interpretation concerns an auxiliary center high mounted stop lamp/turn signal that was to be installed on trailers in close proximity to the three-lamp identification cluster. In that letter, the agency concluded that the auxiliary lamps were permitted despite concern that they could mask the light from the identification cluster when activated. The agency reasoned that because of the presence of clearance lamps, which also serve the purpose of identifying the vehicle, the fact that the light from the identification cluster might be temporarily masked did not impair its effectiveness for purposes of section S5.1.3. In the instant matter, our concern is not that the auxiliary stop and turn signal lamps could mask the light, but rather that they necessarily will obscure the standard three-lamp cluster that NHTSA has determined to be the standard for identification lamps, by turning it into an unrecognizable eleven-lamp cluster. We note that while you stated the eleven-lamp cluster would significantly enhance safety, no engineering data were provided to support this assertion. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.4/25/07 [1] 6/23/99 letter to a confidential recipient, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] 7/28/05 letter to Robert Clarke, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [3] 10/26/99 letter to Michael Lafon, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] 3/7/03 letter to Randy McGuire, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [5] 3/7/91 letter to J.C. Brown, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2007 |
ID: nht76-3.14OpenDATE: 04/14/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels." Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. SINCERELY, NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU January 8, 1976 Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally. Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle. Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves. This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank. We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation. I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car. We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks. We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request. Michael J. Murphy President cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA |
|
ID: aiam0567OpenMr. David G. Holden, President, Triple H Frame Company, Coffeyville, KS 67337; Mr. David G. Holden President Triple H Frame Company Coffeyville KS 67337; Dear Mr. Holden: This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1971, stating that yo are an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and asking for clarification of provisions of section 568.4 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations ('Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages'), that refer to 'standards.' You indicated in a phone conversation of December 17, 1971, with Michael Peskoe of this office that you manufacture travel trailer and mobile home frames, which may be equipped by you with both tires and a trailer hitch before being sent to the subsequent manufacturer for completion.; The reference to 'standards' in S 568.4, as you were informed o December 17, is to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.101 *et seq*., formerly 571.21 *et seq*.) which apply to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. Copies of the standards, as you were also informed, may be purchased as indicated in the enclosed 'Notice of Publications Change.'; You stated on December 17 that you planned to include the statement o 568.4(a)(7)(iii) as part of your certification label. Based on the information you have provided, this choice appears to be consistent with the requirements of Part 568. This is because the only motor vehicle safety standard presently applicable to trailers and mobile homes is Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.' It appears quite possible that conformance to this standard would not be substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle you manufacture.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht92-8.10OpenDATE: March 30, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/92 Robert S. McLean to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7058) TEXT: This responds to your March 9, 1992 letter, seeking an interpretation of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). More specifically, you were interested in how certain provisions of these standards apply to a seating position equipped with an automatic shoulder belt certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208 and a separate manual lap belt. Your letter indicated you were particularly interested in whether the automatic belt is considered a Type 2a shoulder belt, as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 209, and whether the automatic belt must provide the warning instructions required for Type 2a shoulder belts by S4.1(1) of Standard No. 209. The answer to both these questions is no. NHTSA has consistently recognized a distinction between automatic safety belts and the manual safety belts defined in S3 of Standard No. 209 (Type 1, Type 2, and Type 2a belts). The origins and application of this distinction is explained at length in this agency's April 14, 1986 interpretation letter to Mr. David Martin, a copy of which was enclosed in your letter to me. Thus, automatic belts are not treated as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 2a belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209, and are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to each of those types of belts. Since automatic belts are not Type 2a belts, automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts. Instead, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 defines the term "automatic belt" and sets forth special provisions for such safety belts. S4.5.3.3 specifies that an automatic belt shall conform to S7.1 of Standard No. 208 (the belt adjustment requirements) and have a single emergency release mechanism, and be equipped with a special warning system in place of the warning system required for manual belts. In addition, S4.5.3.4 specifies that any automatic belts that are not subject to the crash testing requirements for occupant protection under Standard No. 208 must comply with the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.4 of Standard No. 209 (webbing, attachment hardware, and belt assembly performance requirements, respectively). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht91-1.22OpenDATE: January 15, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Kotaro Yakushiji -- Vice President, Emissions & Safety Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-30-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Kotaro Yakushiji (OCC-5508) TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 30, 1990 in which you request an interpretation of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars. Mazda requests an interpretation of the proper application and orientation of the test block when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories. Specifically, Mazda asks about a vehicle with a sunroof wind deflector. The deflector is constructed of plastic material and is mounted at the wind screen header. You state that, for practical purposes, the wind deflector is not removable during use but can be removed for testing. You further state that the wind deflector neither contributes to nor detracts from roof strength. You believe that there are three possible test conditions. The first condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector in place. The second condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector removed and with the contact point greater than ten inches from the forward most point of the longitudinal centerline. The third condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector removed and with the contact point positioned according to section S6.2(d) of Standard No. 216. We have concluded that it is appropriate to conduct the roof crush test with the wind deflector removed. We have reached this conclusion because the purpose of the test is to measure the strength of the roof, not the strength of roof mounted accessories. Further, conducting the test with the wind deflector in place could influence the positioning of the test device. We have concluded that the third condition, rather than the second condition, is appropriate because the contact point in the third condition is positioned according to section S6.2(d) of the standard. As we stated in a prior interpretation letter (letter of October 3, 1980 to William Blythe), the agency intends to adhere to the ten inch dimension specified in section S6.2(d) regardless of roof configuration. I hope that this has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. |
|
ID: aiam3452OpenMr. Fred S. Barrington, Vice-President Engineering, Mid Bus Inc., 710 East Wayne Street, P.O. Box 1985, Lima, OH 45802; Mr. Fred S. Barrington Vice-President Engineering Mid Bus Inc. 710 East Wayne Street P.O. Box 1985 Lima OH 45802; Dear Mr. Barrington: This responds to your July 28, 1981, letter asking whether a portion o your school bus would be considered part of the sidewall or roof for purposes of complying with Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Paragraph S5.3.1.1 defines the head impact zone in which the hea protection requirements apply. The bus sidewall, windows and doors are exempted from complying with the requirements for head impact protection even if they fall within the head impact zone. The bus roof, on the other hand, must comply with the requirements if it falls within the zone. In the bus to which you refer in your letter, the bus wall and roof structure are not distinctly separated. You ask, therefore, where the roof stops and the sidewall begins.; The agency has stated by interpretation that the roof begins where th radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply. From the sketch that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that the roof would begin at the point marked 'B'. Assuming that your diagram is correct, the side of the bus below point 'B' would be considered part of the bus sidewall and would not be required to comply with the head impact requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht78-3.36OpenDATE: 04/12/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA TO: Hess and Eisenhardt Co. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the vehicle classification of a proposed new station wagon having a Cadillac commercial chassis. Specifically, you ask whether the vehicle can be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle on the basis that it has the same chassis that is used on hearses and ambulances, which are multipurpose passenger vehicles. Based on your description, it is the agency's opinion that the proposed new station wagon would be classified as a passenger car. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is described in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." The vehicle you described does not meet either of the criteria of that definition. The fact that your vehicle would be built on the same chassis as hearses and ambulances does not affect its classification as a passenger car. The classification of hearses and ambulances as multipurpose passenger vehicles was based upon specific policy considerations. The unique functions of these vehicles are accommodated by a strengthening of their chassis. Because of the special uses to which they are put, other aspects of the vehicles are designed in a manner which inhibits compliance with several passenger car standards. Given the chassis modifications and the special uses of these vehicles, the NHTSA determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and hearses, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for purposes of classification. These policy considerations are not relevant to the vehicle you describe since it is apparently designed to function primarily as a passenger-carrying vehicle. SINCERELY, THE HESS & EISENHARDT CO. March 1, 1978 N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel Dear Sirs: The Hess & Eisenhardt Company would like the N.H.T.S.A. to give us an interpretation on vehicle classification for a proposed new vehicle. This new vehicle will be a Cadillac Station Wagon. It will have nine designated seating positions forward of the rear axle with luggage storage rearward of the rear axle. We are questioning what type of vehicle it should be classified as. The reason for our question is due to the station wagon chassis. The basic wagon chassis will be the Cadillac commercial chassis. This is a special limousine chassis with, among other things, bigger brakes, springs, wheels and tires. We currently use this chassis for hearses and ambulances. Since hearses and ambulances are classified as an M.P.V. would using an M.P.V. chassis make the wagon an M.P.V.? Or, since it looks like a station wagon, would it be classified as a passenger car? Also, if we increased the seating capacity to eleven people would it be classified as a bus? As you can see, there are a couple of ways to look at our proposed vehicle. Possibly you cannot tell us what it should be classified as, but any advice that would give us a N.H.T.S.A. point of view in this matter would be appreciated. James N. Miller Engineer, Special Vehicles |
|
ID: aiam5089OpenMrs. M. Frances Parton 5788 Cypress Cr. Tallahassee, FL 32303; Mrs. M. Frances Parton 5788 Cypress Cr. Tallahassee FL 32303; "Dear Mrs. Parton: This responds to your letter of October 7, 1992 requesting information on whether a 1992 van can be modified by installing swivel bases on the seats so that you can transfer from the seat to a wheelchair. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat you want modified is a front or a rear seat. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits installing a swivel base on a seat, provided that the seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard. Adding a swivel base to a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety 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. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to provide occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. Standard No. 208 also requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. As you can see, with the exception discussed below, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from adding a swivel base to a seat. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include adding a swivel base to a seat be done in such a way that the seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards. With respect to Standard No. 208's requirements for front seats, NHTSA has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the crash testing requirement for front seats in MPVs will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement 'to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs.' On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. However, the agency is aware that you and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. If you need to have the swivel base added to a front seat, this should allow you to find a converter to make this modification while this decision is pending. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2852OpenLawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., Robert W. Green, Esq., Messrs. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, 1815 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Lawrence F. Henneberger Esq. Robert W. Green Esq. Messrs. Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn 1815 H Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Messrs. Henneberger and Green: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1978, on behalf of you client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company ('Jacobs' herein).; Jacobs manufactures a diesel engine retarder system which 'produce significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped.' Jacobs believes that some means should be provided to warn following vehicles when a retarder is in use. It proposes to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system when a retarder is installed either as original equipment or as an aftermarket accessory. You have asked whether installation of the system would violate either 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A), section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits th installation of any device as original equipment that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Paragraph S4.1.1 and Table I require trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or greater to be equipped with a hazard warning flasher system. The Jacobs device may not be installed if it would impair the effectiveness of the required hazard warning flasher system. The intended use of the Jacobs device is that it act as a warning of a decelerating vehicle in the roadway which may present a potential hazard. As such it augments the hazard warning system and, in our view, would tend to enhance rather than impair its effectiveness. Therefore, it may be installed as original equipment without violating S4.1.3. We have no provisions that would either permit or preclude its sale as an aftermarket device, and whether it is permissible as such is a matter to be determined by the laws of the States in which the truck is registered and operated, as well as those administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration.; Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act prohibits a manufacturer, amon others, from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Nothing in your letter indicates that the Jacobs device will affect the hazard warning signal flasher's ability to function at times when the Jacobs device is in operation, and therefore, it does not appear that its installation violates section 108(a) (2) (A).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.