NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4770OpenMr. Samuel Kimmelman Engineering Product Manager Ideal Division EPICOR Industries, Inc. 3200 Parker Drive St. Augustine, FL 32084-0891; Mr. Samuel Kimmelman Engineering Product Manager Ideal Division EPICOR Industries Inc. 3200 Parker Drive St. Augustine FL 32084-0891; Dear Mr. Kimmelman: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, l990 with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring three specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are: 'l. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed, Standard No. 108 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Standard No. 108's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October l965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers 'are intended to operate at the design load for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer.' If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensuring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. '2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers 'are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load . . . as stated by the manufacturer.' Thus, in order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 108, it must equip the vehic1e with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer. '3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.' This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1572OpenMr. Walter Case, 10426 Desdemona Drive, Dallas, TX 75228; Mr. Walter Case 10426 Desdemona Drive Dallas TX 75228; Dear Mr. Case: This responds to your June 13, 1974, request for approval of you 'park-lock' device under the parking brake system requirements of Standard No. 121 *Air brake systems*, 49 CFR S571.121. After a trailer's emergency air supply applies the brakes through the service brake chamber in response to a low service brake air supply, your device locks the brakes in the applied position.; The relevant provision of the standard states: >>>S5.6.3 *Application and holding*. The parking brakes shall b applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.<<<; The arrangement described would not meet this requirement because th energy source to apply the brakes (the emergency air supply) would be affected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system. For example, any failure in the service brake piston diaphragm would cause a loss of air pressure that would in turn 'affect' the energy source that applies the parking brake. The brake chamber housing assembly is an element which is not considered to be part of the service brake system for this requirement.; Standard No. 121 does not specify the design of brake syste components. Therefore we neither approve nor disapprove the use of particular components like the 'park-lock' device. It may be used in any parking brake system which meets the requirements of the standard.; I would like to point out that the standard becomes effective Januar 1, 1975, for trailers, and that it does not regulate air brake systems on trailers manufactured before that date.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4320OpenMr. Robert A. Rogers, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, 30400 Mound Road, Warren, MI 48090-9015; Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associat Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you explained why General Motors (GM) believes that it is not subject to the reporting requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 544, *Insurer Reporting Requirements*. We conclude that GM is an 'insurer' as that term is defined in section 612(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 15 U.S.C. 2032(a)(3) , that GM is therefore subject to the requirements of Part 544, and that GM is overdue in filing its report for the 1985 calendar year.; 49 CFR S544.3 specifies that, 'This part applies to the issuers o motor vehicle insurance policies listed in Appendices A or B, and *to any person which has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than a governmental entity) which are used primarily for rental or lease and are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles,*' (Emphasis added). The emphasized language in the regulation is simply a quotation of the language used in section 612(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act. Because the regulation uses the same language as the statute to describe this type of insurer, Part 544 applies only to those insurers that are statutorily-required to file these reports.; You noted in your letter that, 'GM has an employee lease fleet of 400 cars on which it does not have theft insurance.' As such, GM is an insurer within the meaning of section 612(a)(3), because it:; >>>1. Has a fleet of 20 or more vehicles, 2. Uses the vehicles primarily for rental or lease, and 3. Does not have theft insurance policies for this fleet.<<< GM appeared to agree that it was an insurer within the meaning of th statute when it filed its July 29, 1986 comments to the proposed Part 544. On page 2 of its comments, GM stated that the proposed criterion of exempting only those fleets with fewer than 20 vehicles would result in voluminous additional individual reports which would account for a relatively small percentage of the total vehicle population. GM stated that its lease fleet represents less than 5000 of one percent of all U.S. passenger cars. On page 3 of those comments, GM stated: ' The proposal requests additional information to aid in the agency's efforts to establish an appropriate exemption for small rental and leasing companies. As stated above, GM's lease program is expected to have no more than 5000 participants in 1987.' GM then stated that no data on costs or thefts were available for its leased fleet. This comment certainly implies that GM believed it would be required to report if the proposed requirements were adopted. Since the proposed requirements were adopted in this area, NHTSA thought that the vehicle manufacturers clearly understood that they were subject to these requirements, if they had a fleet of vehicles that were rented or leased to employees.; However, in your recent letter, you stated that you now believe tha you were not required to report theft data for this fleet for three reasons. First you stated that the GM 'evaluation fleet', which consists of 41,000 vehicles is *not* used primarily for rental or lease. According to your letter, slightly more than 4,000 vehicles are leased to employees. Since only 4,000 out of 41,000 vehicles in this fleet are leased to employees, you concluded that the 41,000 vehicle fleet is not used primarily for rental or lease. Hence, you believe that the statute does not require GM to report theft data for the 41,000 vehicle fleet. NHTSA agrees that GM is not required to file a report for the 41,000 vehicle fleet. The law requires GM to report *only* for the 4,000 vehicle fleet that is leased to employees.; Second, you argued that GM's 'evaluation lease' establishes conditional contract that limits the rights of the employee lessees. You sated that, 'Conventionally, the term 'lease' is applied to hiring on a lease with full rights of use for the lessee.' Since GM's evaluation lease limits the rights of the lessee, you stated that it is not a 'lease' within the conventional meaning of that word, so GM is not required to report by the statute. NHTSA agrees that the term 'lease' was used in its conventional sense in section 612. However, neither standard dictionaries of the English language nor Black's Law Dictionary define a lease as a transaction that gives *unconditional* rights of use to the lessee. Instead, a lease is generally defined as a transaction whereby an owner gives another the use of his property for a period of time in return for some compensation. GM's employee lease program satisfies this test, so GM is required to report theft data on the vehicles in its employee lease fleet.; Third, GM noted that the preamble to the final rule establishing Par 544 referred to this type of insurer as 'rental and leasing companies.' Since GM is not a rental *and* leasing company, it concludes that Part 544 was not intended to apply to it. NHTSA agrees that GM is not a rental and leasing company. That term was used as a shorthand notation for the following language in the application section of Part 544 and in the statute: 'any person which has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than a governmental entity) which are used primarily for rental or lease and are not covered by theft insurance policies ...' This shorthand notation was not intended in any way to limit the requirement in Part 544 and the statute for such persons to file reports. Moreover, the language of Part 544 and the statute prevail over the language in a preamble in any event. Accordingly, GM is required to comply with its statutory duty to file reports.; GM has not yet filed its report for the 1985 calendar year, which wa due by January 31, 1987. Since the report was not filed because of a misunderstanding as to whether GM was subject to the requirements of Part 544, NHTSA will not take any enforcement action against GM for this failure to file a timely report if we receive your report under Part 544 for the 1985 calendar year within 45 days of the date of this letter.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1122OpenMr. William R. Rodger, Rockwell-Standard Division, Automotive Technical Center, 2445 West Maple Road, Troy, MI 48084; Mr. William R. Rodger Rockwell-Standard Division Automotive Technical Center 2445 West Maple Road Troy MI 48084; Dear Mr. Rodger: By letter of January 31, 1973, Rockwell- Standard requested th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to postpone the effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, for twenty-four months with respect to vehicles having front axles with GAWR's of more than 12,000 pounds, single rear axles with GAWR's of more than 23,000 pounds, or tandem rear axles with combined GAWR's of more than 50,000 pounds.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the January 31 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5618OpenMr. 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, on th subject of 'optical combination' as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a 'Rider' in 'a proposed change around 1990 that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, `NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.'' You ask how ' u sing the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support.' You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term 'optical combination' is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp 'has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)', and when 'its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.' It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different housings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2427OpenMr. Charles G. Atkinson, President, Southern California Recreational Vehicle Products, Inc., 2449 North Naomi Street, Burbank, CA 91504; Mr. Charles G. Atkinson President Southern California Recreational Vehicle Products Inc. 2449 North Naomi Street Burbank CA 91504; Dear Mr. Atkinson: This is in response to your September 15, 1976 letter, concerning th effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, on manufacturers of replacement and auxiliary fuel tanks.; You are correct in your understanding that this standard applies t completed vehicles, rather than fuel tanks or other fuel system components. Therefore, for example, an auxiliary fuel tank that you manufacture is not itself subject to any performance requirements. However, a person who mounts such an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. He is required by 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that, *as altered*, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards--including Standard No. 301-75.; In addition, the mounting of an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank on motor vehicle after the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is affected by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). That section specifies in relevant part that; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall *knowingly render inoperative*, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard... . (Emphasis added.); Therefore, such a mounting of an auxiliary or replacement fuel tan must be performed in such a way that the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is not knowingly compromised.; Sincerely, Frank A Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5248OpenMr. Terry Karas T.K. Auto Inc. 4116 Notre Dame Chomedey, Laval, Quebec H7w 1T1 Canada; Mr. Terry Karas T.K. Auto Inc. 4116 Notre Dame Chomedey Laval Quebec H7w 1T1 Canada; FAX 514-688-6968 Dear Mr. Karas: This responds to the concern you expressed by telephone to Taylor Vinson of this Office that a phrase in our letter of October 18, 1993, may be misinterpreted by the U.S. Customs Service. The final sentence of the paragraph that begins page 2 of that letter reads: 'If this examination indicates that the vehicle is Canadian, and if it is being imported for commercial purposes, then the vehicle is subject to the registered importer process.' In the context of the letter, we assumed that it was clear that the Canadian vehicle in question was one that did not comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You believe that Customs may interpret the word 'Canadian' to mean any vehicle of Canadian manufacture, whether or not complying with the U.S. safety standards. We are pleased to provide the following clarification. With reference to the examination of the Canadian-manufactured vehicle in question, if it indicates that the speedometer does not have mph markings, this will demonstrate that the certification is to Canadian standards. Consequently, the Canadian- manufactured vehicle is one that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with the U.S. standards, and, if it is being imported for commercial purposes, is subject to entry under bond and the registered importer process. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2077OpenMr. A.J. Burgess, Joseph Lucas North America Inc., Two Northfield Plaza, Troy, Michigan 48084; Mr. A.J. Burgess Joseph Lucas North America Inc. Two Northfield Plaza Troy Michigan 48084; Dear Mr. Burgess: #This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1975 asking whether two of your processes for labeling brake hose may be considered 'permanent' for purposes of Standard No. 106-74. #As used in our standards and regulations, the requirements for a 'permanent' label generally contemplates a label that will remain legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects a manufacturer to make a reasonable, good- faith determination in this respect. The two labeling samples that you submitted as examples of your processes appear to be permanent. #We are presently re-examining the requirement for permanent labeling of brake hose, and a Federal Register notice in this area may be issued shortly. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4009OpenMr. Edmund Gabler, Colonial House, Apartment 507, 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd., Hallandale, FL 33009; Mr. Edmund Gabler Colonial House Apartment 507 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd. Hallandale FL 33009; Dear Mr. Gabler: Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belt and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.; You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if thos belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.; Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type o vehicle. For large 'buses' (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type 'buses' (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.; Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not b the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars, we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.; In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that requir the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.; You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash ar greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that vehicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.; While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits o safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea, some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.; We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that man people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lights. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many 'victims'--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe that the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.; Thank you again for sharing your views with us. I hope this informatio is helpful.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3236OpenMr. Francois Louis, Governmental Affairs, Renault USA, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Francois Louis Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Louis: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1980, requesting a interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in the Renault Le Car vehicle. You state that the rear seat of the Le Car has 48.2 inches of hip room, and ask whether the vehicle would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency recentl issued to Toyota Motor Company regarding the designated seating capacity of the rear seats in several of its models. The rear-seat designs of these Toyota models are very similar to the Le Car, in that the presence of wheel wells results in hip room measurements below 50 inches under the strict measurement technique specified in the definition of 'designated seating position' (SAE J1100a). As was pointed out in that letter, however, if occupants move their hips slightly forward of the wheel wells, which extend only a few inches out into the seat, there is over 50 inches of usable hip room in these vehicles.; Your letter states that the close proximity of the two inboard portion of the rear seat belt assemblies in the Le Car indicates that only two positions are intended by the manufacturer. The agency would give more credence to this factor if the inboard portions of the belt assemblies were on stiff, immovable cables (or similar design). With the current design, a person wishing to sit in the center position can easily move the belts out of the way, so the belts are not real impediments to use of the center position.; In answer to your ultimate question, the agency must conclude that th rear seat in the Le Car vehicle could qualify as having only two designated seating positions since the hip room is below 50 inches according to the technical measurement procedure specified in the standard. However, we think this is an extremely close case since there is over 48 inches of hip room even between the wheel wells and greater than 50 inches of hip room if the measurement is made mid-way the seat cushion. Therefore, we strongly urge Renault to modify its seat design or to add a third set of belts in this vehicle model. As noted in the letter to Toyota, if manufacturers do not voluntarily comply with the clear intent of the definition of 'designated seating position', the agency may find it necessary to modify the measurement technique that is currently specified.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.