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: aiam2689OpenMs. Charlotte A. Hayes, Satterlee, Mestayer & Freeman, 1606 First National Bank of Commerce Building, New Orleans, LA 70112; Ms. Charlotte A. Hayes Satterlee Mestayer & Freeman 1606 First National Bank of Commerce Building New Orleans LA 70112; Dear Ms. Hayes: This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1977, to our For Worth, Texas office and October 7, 1977, telephone conversation with Robert Churella of my staff concerning the existence of any Federal motor vehicle standard that would require doors on garbage trucks.; There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that requir vehicles to be equipped with doors. In fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206), which regulates door locks and door retention components, specifically exempts from its application those motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has, however promulgated a standard requiring trucks manufactured after July 1, 1971, to be equipped with seat belts. This requirement would provide protection for an individual riding in a vehicle without a side door.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht94-3.71OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: July 15, 1994 FROM: Guy Dorleans -- Legal Compliance Department, Valeo Vision (France) TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/94 from John Womack to Guy Dorleans (A42; Std. 108) TEXT: I am inquiring for information and assistance with the interpretation of Section 571.108 of the Federal Traffic Code. The attached sketch shows the front end of a vehicle which incorporates the following features: Lamp A is a highbeam contributor with one monofilament light source. The wiring of the vehicle dies not allow this lamp to be lit alone in highbeam mode. Lamp A is 150 mm high, between level 750 and level 600 above the ground. Lamp B is the lowbeam with one monofilament light source. Its light emitting area is 50 mm high, between level 650 and 700. Lamp C is a combination of parking lamp and turn signal. In highbeam mode, both filaments A and B are energized simultaneously and table 17a of FMVSS 108 is then fulfilled. Lamp D is a foglamp. As an alternative to the above description, we would like to know whether it is permissible to sell new cars in the United States with the foglamp replaced by an auxiliary driving beam. In this case, all three A, B and D filaments would be permanently e nergized together in high beam mode and table 17a of FMVSS 108 is then fulfilled. Lamp D alone, when tested in a laboratory, would satisfy the photometric requirements of SAE J581 June 89. In another variant, two or three filaments could be switched on in highbeam mode depending on the position of a switch on the instrument panel, at the discretion of the driver. Whatever the position of the switch, table 17a of FMVSS 108 shall be fulfill ed. Would this be permissible? Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Graphics omitted. |
|
ID: aiam5017OpenThe Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-4202; The Honorable John J. Duncan Jr. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515-4202; Dear Mr. Duncan: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15-passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less, vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus, the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a 'school bus' is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children, however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry; |
|
ID: aiam5016OpenThe Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-4202; The Honorable John J. Duncan Jr. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515-4202; Dear Mr. Duncan: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15-passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less, vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus, the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a 'school bus' is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children, however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry; |
|
ID: nht90-4.72OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: December 3, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President, Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson TEXT: This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inqui ry. Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by t he FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency. As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seek ing resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have further questions. |
|
ID: nht92-3.13OpenDATE: 10/21/92 FROM: CHESTER I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT, SALES, WESTBAR CORPORATION TO: WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. -- CHIEF COUNCIL, DOT ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III (A40; STD. 108) TEXT: We are writing for classification and possible further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1. in FMVSS 108. Our request involves mounting locations of clearance lamps on boat trailers which are 80 inches or more in width. In 1989, S5.1.1.9. addressed one aspect relating to the mounting location for clearance lamps on boat trailers. This paragraph allows boat trailer builders a longitudinal variance from the strictest standard whereby the clearance lamps no longer have to be at the highest point nor rearward location on a boat trailer, when design of the trailer does not allow it in effort to protect the function of the lamp from damage during normal usage. Several of our personnel, and several of the staff from one of our major trade organizations, believe there was an additional interpretation from the DOT. This additional interpretation, also directed at boat trailers, would allow a boat trailer manufacturer to draw an imaginary line through the (outboard) tire on each side of his trailer and then mount his red and amber clearance lights outside of these lines. The rationale was to provide desired width identification while providing protection of the light during normal use. A sketch below depicts the most inboard allowable mounting locations should this interpretation be confirmed by your office. (GRAPHIC OMITTED.) 1 = most inboard allowable mounting location for amber clearance lamps. 2 = most inboard allowable mounting location for red clearance lamps. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to receiving your timely response to our request for a written confirmation of this mounting location interpretation. |
|
ID: nht95-6.54OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 23, 1995 FROM: Margaret Fisher, MD -- Kaiser Permanente TO: James J. Gregorio TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/7/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to James J. Gregorio (VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); A43; Std. 207; Std. 208) TEXT: I am writing to request authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim in order to accomodate my physical handicap. Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviate a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees. Enclosed is a statement from my physician validating my medical condition. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience. Your prompt reply to this painful condition would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Attachment September 22, 1995 To Whom It May Concern: Mr. James Gregorio is under my care for tendinitis of the right ankle and both knees. Recovery could take up to several years. Sincerely yours, Margaret Fisher, MD Kaiser Permanente |
|
ID: 08-001744 TPMS 4 questions (Wacker)--22 Jan 09 rsyOpenVice President of Marketing and Sales Schrader Electronics Ltd. 3255 West Hamlin Road Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Dear Mr. Wacker: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation clarifying specific issues with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Specifically, you asked whether a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) must warn drivers of low tire pressure in particular circumstances, such as up to the maximum speed of the vehicle, and under all road surfaces and road conditions (including ice, snow, rain, gravel, dirt, and so forth). You also asked whether a TPMS must comply with FMVSS No. 138 if a vehicle dealer changes the tire and wheel combination prior to first sale. Additionally, you asked whether a TPMS must warn a driver if a tire begins a journey underinflated, but within 20 minutes passes the under-inflation threshold by warming up while traveling. Based on the information you have provided and our analysis below, our answers are as follows. 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 approvals 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. 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. Whether FMVSS No. 138s requirements must be met under various operating conditions: Two questions in your letter addressed the issue of whether FMVSS No. 138s requirements must be met under various vehicle operating conditions. First, you asked whether TPMS must be able to warn a driver of low tire pressure up to the maximum speed of the vehicle. The test procedures of FMVSS No. 138 specify that a vehicles TPMS may be tested at speeds between 50 km/h (31.1 mph) and 100 km/h (62.2 mph), and that the vehicle must meet the applicable requirements when tested at any point within the range. See S5.3.2 and S5.3.6 of FMVSS No. 138. We note, however, that while vehicles are not required to meet requirements beyond those specified in the standard, it is the agencys expectation that TPMS will function normally over a wide range of operating conditions. The same would be true regarding your second question, whether TPMS must be able to warn a driver of low tire pressure on all road surfaces and road conditions. (For Example: Ice, Snow, Rain, Gravel, Dirt, etc) S5.2 of FMVSS No. 138 specifies that the road surface is dry during testing. Again, however, we would expect a TPMS to function normally over a wide range of roadway surface conditions beyond the dry conditions specified for compliance testing. The applicability of FMVSS No. 138 to dealer-altered vehicles: You also asked in your letter whether a TPMS must comply with FMVSS No. 138 if a new vehicle dealer upgrades a Tire and Wheel Combination prior to the original sale of the vehicle. The answer is yes. S5.3.7 of the standard states: The vehicle is tested with the tires installed on the vehicle at the time of initial vehicle sale, excluding the spare tire (if provided). . . . In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 138, NHTSA stated that After considering these comments related to TPMS functionality with replacement tires, we have decided to adopt the approach presented in the NPRM to require the TPMS-equipped vehicle to be certified with the tires originally installed on the vehicle at the time of initial vehicle sale. We emphasize that it would not be permissible for dealers to install tires on a new vehicle that would take it out of compliance with the TPMS standard, and to do so would violate the prohibition on manufacturing, selling, and importing noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment in 49 U.S.C. 30112. 70 Fed. Reg. 18159 (Apr. 8, 2005). NHTSA explained that If the consumer cannot expect to acquire a vehicle that meets all applicable safety standards at the time of first purchase, the purpose of Standard No. 138, and in fact all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, would be severely undermined.[1] Thus, it would be impermissible for a dealer to sell a vehicle at first sale with tires and rims that are incompatible with the vehicles TPMS. After first sale, the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) would be applicable. We note that the agency discussed this provision in the context of TPMS and replacement tires and rims, including concerns that a small population of replacement tires and rims may be incompatible with a vehicles TPMS, at 70 Fed. Reg. 18160-61 (Apr. 8, 2005) and 70 Fed. Reg. 53086 (Sept. 7, 2005). Essentially, NHTSA explained that in such a situation, as long as the TPMS malfunction indicator light illuminated to warn the vehicle operator that the tires and/or rims were preventing the TPMS from functioning properly, we would consider the TPMS to be functioning properly. However, we noted that this result might be different where it could be shown that the installer of the aftermarket or replacement tires or rims knew of the incompatibility beforehand or took some other action to disable a functioning TPMS unit. NHTSA will consider whether these situations result in violations of the make inoperative provision on a case-by-case basis. Whether the low tire pressure warning telltale must illuminate if the low-pressure situation is remedied within 20 minutes of starting to drive: You further asked whether a TPMS must warn the driver (i.e., illuminate the low tire pressure warning telltale) if a tire is 25% below cold placard pressure at the beginning of a journey and within 20 minutes of that journey the air in the tire warms and pressure increases to above the 25% threshold for warning. FMVSS No. 138 requires a TPMS both to calibrate and to be able to detect low tire pressure (and illuminate the low tire pressure warning telltale) within 20 minutes of commencing driving under the specified test conditions. See S6 and S4.2 of FMVSS No. 138. From a safety standpoint, it is desirable to have a low tire pressure warning activate as soon as possible. The 20-minute time period was developed based on the agencys careful balancing of safety and practicability concerns, given the data that we had at the time. There would, however, be no requirement to illuminate the telltale once the air in the tire warms and pressure increases above the low-pressure threshold. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 11/13/09 [1] Id. These safety standards include, among other things, requirements for the vehicles braking system and, if so equipped, electronic stability control system. |
|
ID: nht91-3.29OpenDATE: April 26, 1991 FROM: John Marcum -- Electric Vehicles, S.A. TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A38; Part 591; VSA S108(j)) TEXT: Thank you for your letter of 22 April, 1991 concerning EVSA's request for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for its prototype electric minibus. I understand that the exemption is not possible since it was requested after the vehicle was manufactured. As you point out, however, this imported minibus is evidently exempted from compliance for up to 5 years since it is being used for "research, investigations studies or demonstrations or training". The "research, investigations and studies" references seems clear enough, but I would appreciate clarification as to whether "demonstration and training" can include the carrying of passengers for demonstration and evaluation services. If so, are there any special conditions that must be observed. For example, could the passengers pay for the rides or should the rides be free? Is there a limit as to the length of time during which the passenger demonstration phase is scheduled? We are reviewing the regulations you sent us and will provide any further information that may be needed. |
|
ID: nht90-3.48OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: August 2, 1990 FROM: Rembert Ryals -- Attorney at Law TO: Steven Krapzke -- NHTSA TITLE: Re Schmidt - Volkswagen ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Ryals (A36; Std. 208; Std. 209) TEXT: I assume you probably thought you had heard the last from me. However, before I can satisfy myself and my clients that the 1980 Volkswagen which my clients' son was driving when he was killed was in compliance with the CFRs, I need the answer to two or three additional questions. My client has obtained a copy of the CFRs which were in effect when the Volkswagen was manufactured. These are noted as having been revised October 1, 1979. My client, whose husband is an engineer, has compared the regulations with those that succeeded them and finds no material difference. However, I wanted you to know the date of the standards to which I am referring because I am going to note certain page numbers and, in fact, will enclose a copy of two or three pages and wanted to be certain you knew that these where the 1979 regulations. In short, the page numbers may not correspond with the regulations which are now current but as stated, they do not materially differ. First, enclosed is a copy of page 307. An examination of S4.1.2.1 states that the automobile must meet the lateral crash protection requirements of S5.2 and the roll-over crash protection requirements of S5.3. You have previously told me that the regul ations are performance standards and you talked to me about vehicles being subjected to head-on collision tests at certain speeds. Page 310 of the regulations, and particularly S5.3, states that a vehicle must pass the "roll-over" requirements. My clie nts' son's vehicle was killed when his vehicle rolled and we have an expert who is recognized throughout the Northwest who has stated that if the boy had had a fastened lap seat belt, his injuries would have not been severe. However, our Volkswagen did n ot have any lap seat belt in it when it was manufactured. I wanted you to let me know whether the Volkswagen did pass the "roll-over" test. I also enclose a copy of page 319 which relates to Standard 571.209. That standard seems to unequivocally state that there must be a pelvic restraint in the vehicle, whether or not there is an upper torso restraint and that this pelvic restraint must be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of the vehicle. As stated, had there been a seat belt in this vehicle, the boy would not have been severely injured and certainly would not have been killed. That is at least the opinion of our expert. Please give me your understanding as to whether the Volkswagen was subjected to the roll-over test and did satisfactorily pass it and, secondly, please comment on the apparent inconsistency between 571.209 and the provisions of 208. I will look forward to hearing from you and wish to thank you in advance for your assistance. Attached is a copy of Federal Register, sections 571.208 and 571.209, Chap. V, pages 307, 309, 310 and 319 (text omitted). |
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.