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: 19019.wkmOpenEd Leboeuf, Legal Assistant Dear Mr. Leboeuf: Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff, subject: Approval of a new type of stud tire. You stated that an inventor in Oklahoma, Mr. Allen D. West, acquired a patent on a stud tire in which the studs do not contact the road when the tire is fully inflated, but the studs are exposed when the tires are deflated to a certain pressure. You enclosed a copy of Mr. West's letter to your office and a copy of a letter to Mr. West from the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. He stated in his letter to your office that he saw a Kansas statute giving the state the authority to approve such tires. You stated that the Kansas Department of Transportation does not do this, however, and you wanted to give Mr. West another place to turn to. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S.C., commonly referred to as the Safety Act, gives this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of the self-certification system, NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or determine compliance of any motor vehicle or item of equipment prior to the product's introduction into the retail market. NHTSA has issued six FMVSSs applicable to tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, 110, 117, 119, 120, and 129. Stud tires must meet the same requirements as non-stud tires. State laws may apply to the use of stud tires. We regret that we cannot provide information on the laws of individual states. I am providing Mr. West a copy of this letter for his information. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you or Mr. West need any further assistance or additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: 24204.rbmOpenMr. Chad Compton Dear Mr. Compton: This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the load requirements for latch systems on the front entry door of a motor home can be reduced if the overall door latch system is composed of two, independently operating latch and striker assemblies. The answer is no. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components. Paragraph S4.1.1 applies to all hinged side doors, other than cargo-type doors. The paragraph specifies that each door latch and striker assembly shall be provided with two positions consisting of a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. S4.1.1 then specifies that each assembly meet minimum level of force requirements for longitudinal loads (S4.1.1.1), transverse loads (S4.1.1.2), and inertial loads (S4.1.1.3). Compliance with the first two of these requirements is demonstrated using the test procedure detailed in paragraph 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991 (SAE-J839). Compliance with the third requirement is demonstrated either by agency-approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 6 of SAE-J839. Nothing in the standard prohibits a door latch system that consists of more than one latch and striker assembly. However, because S4.1.1 applies to each latch and striker assembly rather than to each door latch system, the force requirements for longitudinal, transverse, and inertial loading must be met for each latch and striker assembly provided when the latch is engaged in both its primary and secondary position. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above. Sincerely, |
2002 |
ID: 07-005545asOpenLawrence J. Oswald CEO, Global Electric Motorcars LLC Director, GEM and EV Product Team Chrysler LLC CIMS 483-00-02 800 Chrysler Drive Auburn Hill, MI 48326 Dear Mr. Oswald: This responds to your letter concerning new State laws on medium speed electric vehicles (MSEVs). You noted that Montana and Washington have enacted legislation that purports to allow motor vehicles called MSEVs to operate on certain public roads. The statutes define MSEVs as electric-powered vehicles with a maximum speed of 35 mph that meet certain limited safety requirements similar to those established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for low speed vehicles (LSVs). You requested that NHTSA advise State officials on inconsistencies between these new State laws and Federal law, and potential significant safety problems that such State laws may create. As discussed below, the responsibilities of manufacturers and dealers to comply with Federal law, including not manufacturing or selling vehicles unless they comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), are not limited by State laws on MSEVs. 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 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Chapter 301 provides that a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA has used its authority to, among other things, establish special category of motor vehicles called low speed vehicles (LSVs). This was done in part to accommodate the use of small golf cars as personal transportation vehicles in controlled, low-speed environments, such as retirement communities. In order to qualify as an LSV under the agencys definition,[1] a vehicle must, among other things, have a speed capability no higher than 25 mph and a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3,000 pounds. As defined, LSVs are subject to the limited set of safety measures in Standard No. 500, including requirements regarding the installation of lamps, mirrors, seat belts, and a windshield. However, LSVs are not subject to the rigorous crashworthiness standards to which other vehicles are required to comply. We note that vehicles with a speed capability above 25 mph are more likely to be driven outside controlled, low speed environments, and the limited LSV safety requirements are not appropriate for such vehicles. A motor vehicle that has a speed capability above 25 mph, such as an MSEV with a top speed of 35 mph, would not be classified as an LSV under Federal law. Instead, the vehicles with a speed capability above 25 mph that would be considered MSEVs under the State laws at issue are classified as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks under Federal law. These vehicles are subject to the full range of FMVSSs that apply to those classes of vehicles, including, as you noted in your letter, crashworthiness requirements in frontal, side, and rear crashes, braking requirements, lighting requirements, etc. As noted above, under Federal law, no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is certified as such. In conclusion, regardless of State laws, the classification of a vehicle under Federal law remains unchanged. Therefore, the manufacturer of an MSEV with a speed capability above 25 mph (or which otherwise does not meet the Federal definition of LSV) must certify it as complying with all applicable FMVSSs specified for passenger cars, multipurpose passengers, or trucks, as applicable. I hope this information is helpful. A copy of this letter will be placed in the docket. We will consider whether specific steps are needed to advise State officials about relevant requirements of Federal law. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:500 d.4/29/08 |
2008 |
ID: nht93-3.15OpenDATE: April 23, 1993 EST FROM: Patrick P. Radice -- Director of Operations, Electronics Division, Tridon TO: Chief Counsel -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Patrick P. Radice (A41; Std. 108) TEXT: We understand aftermarket manufacturers of turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers must certify their flashers comply with the applicable requirements specified in FMVSS-108 prior to sale. For vehicles having combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flashers, must the manufacturer certify the aftermarket flasher also meet both the turn signal and hazard warning flasher requirements of FMVSS-108 or can they certify their flashers to meet either the turn signal flasher or hazard warning signal flasher or FMVSS-108 but not both? I look forward to your response. |
|
ID: 10908Open
Robert Charles Maltzahn, Esq. 418 Northwest Midland Building 401 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Dear Mr. Maltzahn: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure "waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment" manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no. Your letter describe your client's product as "manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use." The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is "not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week. The FMVSS's apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." Based on your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:6/27/95
|
1995 |
ID: 16957.wkmOpenMr. Lewis W. Hopkins Dear Mr. Hopkins: This responds to your letter of January 14, 1998, addressed to Walter Myers of this office asking us to review your "Land Ferry" system, also called the Auto-Trans, and asking for "preliminary National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for this alternative mode of interstate highway transportation." Please be advised that this agency does not grant such approvals, as explained below. In addition, your letter was styled "Confidential." However, when Mr. Myers explained to you in a telephone conversation on March 6, 1998 that we cannot give confidential interpretation letters, you withdrew your request for confidential treatment. NHTSA has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S. Code, Chapter 301). The FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and equipment up to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Once a vehicle or item of equipment is sold to its first retail customer, NHTSA's authority terminates, with certain exceptions, and the use of that product becomes a matter of state jurisdiction. The law establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and equipment. In view of the self-certification system, NHTSA neither approves, disapproves, tests, endorses, nor grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market. The term "motor vehicle" is defined in 49 U. S. Code 30102(a)(6) as:
With respect to the Auto-Trans, based on your description and the drawing you enclosed with your letter, both the tractor (driven by mechanical power) and the trailer (drawn by mechanical power), would be classified as motor vehicles. Thus, both parts of the unit would, when manufactured, be required to be certified by their manufacturer(s) as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. As you already know from your correspondence with the Federal Highway Administration, the operation of your Auto-Trans in interstate commerce would be governed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the requirements of individual states through which your Auto-Trans operates. Enclosed for your information are fact sheets prepared by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations, and Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht95-3.29OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: June 27, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA TO: Robert Charles Maltzahn, Esq. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT C. MAITZAHN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10908) TEXT: Dear Mr. Maltzahn: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure "waterjet cutting and clean ing equipment" manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no. Your letter describe your client's product as "manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use." The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is "not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week. The FMVSS's apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to m ove between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use i s more than "incidental." Based on your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: Katz.1OpenNorman Katz, Esq. Saretsky, Katz, Dranoff & Glass, L.L.P. 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Dear Mr. Katz: This responds to your inquiry of February 8, 2006, in which you asked whether there are any safety standards, directives, or regulations related to the necessity for safety shields to prevent the use of the solenoid switch to jumpstart a passenger vehicle. You further asked whether there are penalty provisions related to the agencys regulations and/or directives, and if so, how such penalties are enforced. In response to your questions, although our regulations do contain requirements for theft protection, there is not any specific requirement for a safety shield to prevent use of the solenoid switch to jumpstart a vehicle. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, but instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). Regarding enforcement of the agencys standards, NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge (see 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120). In addition, the manufacturer is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces (see 49 U.S.C. 30165), unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means), that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (see 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). In addition, a manufacturer is prohibited from selling or making available for sale any vehicle or equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). FMVSS No. 114, Theft Protection, specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle (see 49 CFR 571.114 (copy enclosed)). It also specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions resulting from the shift mechanism being moved out of the park position. The standard applies to passenger cars and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less (excluding walk-in, van-type vehicles). Of note with respect to your question, paragraph S4.2 of the standard requires, Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) The normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and (b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. Except in limited circumstances set forth in the standard, a vehicle with an automatic transmission with a park position must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in park or becomes locked in park as the direct result of removing the key. When the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in park, the vehicle may not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade. The jumpstart situation suggested in your letter might arise from a variety of circumstances, including a vehicle owner seeking to activate the vehicle as a result of a lost/misplaced key, or more likely, an attempt by a third party to obtain the vehicle without the owners consent (theft). FMVSS No. 114 requires that the vehicle be configured so as to prevent steering or forward self-mobility when the key is removed. A manufacturer may use any available technology to meet the requirements of the standard (see enclosure from the NHTSA website regarding various anti-theft devices). Accordingly, it is not necessary to require use of any specific technology, such as the safety shield suggested in your letter. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:114 d.6/6/06 |
2006 |
ID: 19132.drnOpenTaylor Jones, Jr., Esq. Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your request for information on how to ensure that a vehicle capable of transporting more than ten (10) persons meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. You represent a Head Start Agency in Montgomery County, Ohio with 4,000 pre-school children, and your client wishes to ensure that the buses it buys meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) school bus safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. Our answer is provided below. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115 "Certificate of compliance," motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that the vehicles they manufacture comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Certification of a vehicle must be shown by a label or tag permanently fixed to the vehicle. NHTSA has established its motor vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567 "Certification." To determine whether a bus meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses, your client should look for the certification label that is usually affixed to either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position, or to the left side of the instrument panel. If none of these locations is practicable, the label must be affixed to the inward-facing surface of the door next to the driver's seating position. (See 49 CFR Section 567.4(c)). A bus that meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses will state "school bus" as its vehicle classification. (See 49 CFR Section 567.4(g)(7)). Although not required by NHTSA to do so, the certification labels on some passenger vans will state "bus, not school bus" as the vehicle classification. I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
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 |
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.