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: aiam1083OpenMr. George H. Jones, Executive Secretary, Independent Tire Dealer, P.O. Box 2835A, Birmingham, Alabama 35212; Mr. George H. Jones Executive Secretary Independent Tire Dealer P.O. Box 2835A Birmingham Alabama 35212; Dear Mr. Jones: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting ou view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.; On page 2, under the heading, 'Does a Retread Have to Pass All Thes Tests', you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, 'How Expensive Could Testing Get?', you quote figures of $250.00 to $400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance Tests, and while there are other laboratory test involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.; On page 3, under the heading, 'What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?' you state, 'If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed.' Notification of defects to first purchasers, however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the ACT, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.; On page 4, under the Heading, 'Must You Submit Information On Defect and Failures?': Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirements applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.; On page 4, under 'What Casing Controls are Required?', you indicat that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, 'May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?' This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.; On page 4, under the heading, 'What are Restrictions on Good Casings?' you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol 'DOT' must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.; On page 5, under the heading, 'Should We Use Affixed Labels o Permanent Molding On Tire?', the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.0078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.; On page 6, under the heading, 'Is Any Provision Made For Sizin Difference in Retreads?', you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirements by only 3% (10% of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.; Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentiall correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4281OpenMr. M.B. Mathieson, Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, L.P., P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. M.B. Mathieson Director of Engineering Thomas Built Buses L.P. P. O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Mathieson: This is in reply to your letters to Francis Armstrong, Robert Williams and Taylor Vinson, all of this agency. I regret the delay in this reply. In summary, Thomas wishes to mount a body of its construction to a 'General Motors chassis model; G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 1lbs. maximum GVWR .' Tw prototypes have been operating. In testing for compliance with the frontal impact requirements of Standard No. 301, the rate of fuel leakage from a pinched or broken fuel line greatly exceeded the amount permitted by the standard. The test conducted by Thomas used sandbags to simulate occupant loading, and the impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 m.p.h. You have asked the following four questions:; '1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?'; '2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged noncompliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?'; The result of the frontal barrier crash test do not constitute a alleged or apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 301 as the impact velocity exceeded the 30 m.p.h. maximum test requirement. In addition, the vehicle's test weight in your test exceeded the test weight specified in S7.1.6(b) of the standard. Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehicle. For NHTSA to find a safety related defect at 30.4 m.p.h. would be the equivalent of imposing a new standard without following Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rulemaking.; However, in our view, Thomas could not in good faith certify complianc of the completed bus with the 30 m.p.h. requirements if there was a failure when a correctly loaded bus was tested at 30.4 m.p.h and no counterbalancing data showing passes in other tests. Had NHTSA conducted a test at 30.4 m.p.h. and found a failure, it would have proceeded to conduct another test in accordance with the specifications of Standard No. 301 and test at a speed slightly less than 30 m.p.h. and with a Part 572 dummy in the driver's seat.; >>>3. 'What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle tes weight for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non school buses for vehicles in the under and up to 10,000 lbs.' class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMVSS 208?'<<<; The test weight is set forth in paragraph S7.1.6(b) of Standard No 301. That section provides that a 'bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test dummies as specified in S6., plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo load and luggage capacity weight, whichever is less,....'; >>>4. 'If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to th requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a test weight as noted by GM (approximately 7,500 pounds) and the results show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the lower GVWR.'<<<; This question cannot be answered because the facts stated in you question appear to be incorrect. Our review of the documentation you enclosed shows that GM has rated the incomplete vehicle at 10,000 pounds GVWR, rather than at approximately 7,500 pounds GVWR, as stated in your letter. GM has, however, specified the maximum unloaded vehicle weight as 6866 pounds, and stated that the completed vehicle will comply if its unloaded vehicle weight does not exceed this amount. It has also stated that the maximum unloaded vehicle weight plus 634 pounds (which, when added to 6866 pounds equals 7500 pounds) cannot exceed the vehicle's GVWR, which is 10,000 pounds in this case. GM therefore has made no weights outside those values, and the burden of certification falls upon the final state manufacturer who completers the vehicle in a manner outside the limits cited by GM.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1579OpenMr. Tsukano, Sub-manager,Technical Division,Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., LTD.,Kojima-Building, 10-2, Nishishinjuku, 1-Chome,Shin-juku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Tsukano Sub-manager Technical Division Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. LTD. Kojima-Building 10-2 Nishishinjuku 1-Chome Shin-juku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Tsukano:#This responds to your August 1, and July 30, 1974 request for approval of hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling. We have evaluated your examples based on the labeling requirements of the standard as amended by Notice 11 of Docket No. 1-5.#The hydraulic brake hose marking on 'Face A' appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter 'size' refers to letter height. The interval between markings, represented by '--', also conform. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#With regard to the markings for brake hose end fittings, the date (indicated by 'XY') is not required. If you choose to add the date to your markings, it should not interfere with the legibility of the required markings. I would like to point out that under Notice 11, the marking requirements do not apply to end fittings 'attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose crimping or swaging.' This means that hydraulic hose fittings for use in passenger cars need not be labeled.#The brake hose assembly markings you submit appear to conform to the requirements of the standard.#With regard to vacuum brake hose, your 'Face A' appears to conform to S5.2.2 if letter 'size' refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the stripe is not required. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#We have placed 'MRCC' on file as the manufacturer designation for your company. #Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson; |
|
ID: aiam3544OpenMr. J. E. Bingham, Senior Test Engineer, British Standards Institution, Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Herts HP2 4SQ, England; Mr. J. E. Bingham Senior Test Engineer British Standards Institution Maylands Avenue Hemel Hempstead Herts HP2 4SQ England; Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standar No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).; My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement o what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2586OpenMr. John Watson, Krystal Glass Co., 224 St. Francis Drive, Boulder Creek, CA 95006; Mr. John Watson Krystal Glass Co. 224 St. Francis Drive Boulder Creek CA 95006; Dear Mr. Watson: This responds to your March 11, 1977, question whether the staine glass portholes manufactured by your company for use on van vehicles have to comply with Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You contend that since the portholes are backed by complying safety glazing the intent of Standard No. 205 is met, even though the stained glass itself is not safety glazing.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot agre with your interpretation. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles. All parts of your stained glass porthole windows must comply with the requirements of the standard. The safety glazing that backs your portholes could be damaged during a crash and the vehicle occupants could be exposed to the noncomplying stained glass. The NHTSA, therefore, disagrees with your conclusion that the intent of Standard No. 205 is met by the Krystal Glass porthole windows.; You should be aware that paragraph S6.2 of the standard requires prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing material that is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et*. *seq*.), and by marking the glazing with the 'DOT' symbol and a manufacturer's code mark. A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. A manufacturer's code mark is assigned by the NHTSA upon the written request of a manufacturer.; Enclosed is a copy of the ANS Z26 standard, as requested in you telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of this office.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5243OpenErika Z. Jones, Esq. Mayer, Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-1882; Erika Z. Jones Esq. Mayer Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20006-1882; Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard No. 213 specifies a minimum thickness for materials of a certain compression- deflection resistance. You ask whether more than one piece of material may be used to meet the thickness requirement. The answer is yes. S5.2.3.2(b) does not require the material to be of a single piece, and the final rule that incorporated the requirement into Standard No. 213 did not address the issue. 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979. Accordingly, more than one piece of material may be used. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0041OpenMr. D. J. Schrum, Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., 2 East End Avenue, New York, NY 10021; Mr. D. J. Schrum Electrical Testing Laboratories Inc. 2 East End Avenue New York NY 10021; Dear Mr. Schrum: Thank you for your letters of July 30, and August 9, 1968, concernin the test of seat belt anchorages which are anchored to a seat.; On the question regarding the test method for applying the load specified in paragraph S3.1.1, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, we would agree with your conclusion to apply the loads at the required different points and directions simultaneously.; On the question of whether bucket seats with seat belt anchorage attached may be tested separately, the applicable paragraph in SAE J787b is 5.2 rather than 5.1 as stated in your letter. There is no test method specified therein relative to this question and accordingly, test of the bucket seat with seat belt anchorages attached may be tested either separately or in sets.; Sincerely, H. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5613OpenMr. Dennis G. Moore President Sierra Products, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550; Mr. Dennis G. Moore President Sierra Products Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore CA 94550; Dear Mr. Moore: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, wit respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses. You believe that 'by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, 'If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a `Petition for Change of FMVSS; "108 Request''. Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, on applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation. The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation. We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4901OpenDavid R. Stepp, Esq. Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara, P.C. Suite 807 1620 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5605; David R. Stepp Esq. Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara P.C. Suite 807 1620 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-5605; "Re: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. Reimportation of Volkswagens Dear Mr Stepp: This responds to your letter of July 1, l99l, on behalf of your client, Escargot Motorcars of Canada, with respect to its plan to export Volkswagen Beetles to Mexico for refurbishment, with subsequent reentry into the United States. You have asked for an interpretation that such vehicles may be allowed reentry without further certification. As you have explained it, Escargot Motorcars plans to purchase Beetles that were initially imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America, and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts 'and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture.' Some of the old Beetles will retain their manufacturer's original certification of compliance located on the door post, while others, if the bodies are worn or damaged, 'the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed.' If the bodies are extensively damaged, Escargot may ship only the chassis to Mexico. You state that '(w)here the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification.' You also state that further certification is also unnecessary for vehicles no longer bearing the certification label, or whose door post condition is such that it must be removed during restoration, because that vehicle's VIN will indicate that it was originally imported into the United States as a certified and complying car. Similarly, those vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment should be allowed entry without further certification 'since the chassis will be preserved and registered.' The appropriate statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), which provides the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), and the vehicle importation regulation (49 CFR Part 591). You suggest that the refurbished Beetles may be admitted without further certification since they were originally manufactured to conform to the Federal safety standards. Thus, it appears that Escargot would seek entry under section 591.5(b), the declaration that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards 'and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently attached by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.' The first issue raised by the factual situation described in your letter is whether the 'refurbished' vehicles would be considered to be new or 'used' vehicles. If the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations for the vehicles to be considered to be new, the vehicles would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of the new manufacturing operations (refurbishing), including the requirements for automatic restraints. However, if the refurbishing involves more minor operations, the vehicles would be considered to be used. As discussed below, only if the vehicles would be considered to be used could they be reimported into the United States based on the original manufacturer's certification label. The range of potential manufacturing operations described by your letter is so broad as to include ones where a vehicle would be considered to be used and ones where a vehicle would be considered to be new. As indicated above, you state the following: After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts 'and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture.' (Emphasis added.) If the operations only involved replacement of the engine and minor restoration/repair of other parts, the vehicle would be considered to be used. If, however, in addition to replacing the engine, the other operations involved replacement or 're-manufacturing' of the other parts mentioned in your letter, it would be considered a new passenger car and subject to all current safety standards, notwithstanding the fact that the old frame was retained. A new certification would also be required. I note that information that this agency has on Escargot's operations in Canada suggests that the latter category of operations may be more what that company has in mind. We have seen an advertising circular issued by The Beetles of Toronto, 'a registered tradename of Escargot Motorcars, Inc.', that boasts 'Every single piece of your Beetle is factory brand new, except one, and that's the frame.' The circular states that The Beetles places around the pan, 'all new components: engine, suspension, braking, steering, etc. The entire body is also new, as are the bucket seats, dashboard, gauges, dials, everything. Even down to the last nut and bolt.' We regard this as the manufacture of a new motor vehicle to which contemporary safety standards apply, and which must be certified by Escargot as conforming to those standards. To the extent that Escargot performed operations that are sufficiently minor that a vehicle would be considered used, it could be reimported into the United States under section 591.5(b), based on the original manufacturer's certification label. Under that section, an importer declares that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards and 'bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle.' In the case of a used vehicle which is being reimported, we interpret the phrase 'conforms to all applicable safety standards' to refer to the vehicle at the time of its original manufacture prior to its first sale. We recognize that, because of age and use, a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, and did not intend that phrase to prevent reimportation of used vehicles that originally complied with all safety standards. While a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, the original certification label ordinarily lasts for the life of the vehicle. The certification label is the primary evidence that the vehicle was originally manufactured to meet applicable safety standards, and, in order for a used vehicle to reimported under section 591.5(b), we would ordinarily expect the certification label to present at the time of the reimportation. We recognize, however, that a certification label may be defaced or destroyed and would not, in such instance, consider absence of the certification label to an absolute bar to reimporting a vehicle under section 591.5(b). However, we would need to very carefully evaluate each factual situation on a case-by-case basis. If you have any further questions of a legal nature, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), and if they are of a technical nature, to Clive Van Orden of the Office of Enforcement (202-366-2830). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0411OpenMr. Donald R. Meton, System Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Donald R. Meton System Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Meton: By letter of May 11, 1971, you requested our opinion as to how Standar No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to a seating system in which the seat belt is attached, to an eyebolt anchored on the seat frame and the eyebolt, in turn, is anchored by another length of webbing to the floor. The evident purpose of such a method attachment on suspension-type seats is to eliminate the shocks which would otherwise be transmitted to the occupant and to augment the strength of the seat, which might be unable by itself to withstand the occupant's weight in a crash.; As you correctly indicate in your letter, a system in which the belt i attached only to the floor requires a force under S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) of 20 times the weight of the seat in a forward and rearward direction, while a system with a lap belt anchored to the seat requires in addition, a force of 5000 pounds to be applied simultaneously to the seat belt in accordance with Standard No. 210 (S4.2(c)). It is our opinion that the hybrid seat belt installation shown by Oshkosh will be likely to impose significant loads on the seating system in the event of a crash, and that it should therefore be treated under S4.2(c) as a system with a seat mounted belt. The webbing running from the eyebolt to the floor is considered to be a part of the seat anchorage and should be employed during the test.; If you have further questions, please advise us. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting 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.