Okay, I've been trying to find out the deal on this for a few days, and I'm coming up empty.

I looked through the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) at nhtsa.gov, and couldn't find it.

I called the California Highway Patrol. The guy I talked to, used to run open-wheel race cars, and actually was really nice, but couldn't tell me why they were illegal... but he could tell me that he couldn't find it on the books in California, so if they're actually illegal, it's a federal law, not a Cali law.

I called the Utah Highway Patrol. The guy there, said he knew they were illegal, but he couldn't tell me where the law was, either. He said it was federal too... told me to look up 571.110 and 571.120. I've read both (along with several others) and it's (apparently) not there.

So... I know that some of the board members are police officers for their day (or night) job.

And I know that some of the board members have gotten tickets for running beadlocks on the street.

What I don't know, is the exact title and section of the law being violated, by running 'em on the street. And it's driving me nuts; I want to know what exactly is illegal about beadlocks (even more so, knowing that military three-piece locks are legal).

Furthermore, and (I suspect) why I got as much info out of the CHP and UHP (Colorado doesn't know/care anything about beadlocks, we can run 'em here), I want to find that title and section, and read it, to see if I can't build a street legal beadlock.

To that end, and since there's gotta be some poor guy out there who needs some parts, and has some free time to blow...

If you can find me that title and section, either in a state law book, or a FMVSS, I'll give the first guy to find it either way, a $20 Rockstomper gift certificate for your trouble.

To make it fair, if it's FMVSS, post the URL of the law (I know they're on the web); if it's a state law, since it's probably not more than a paragraph or two, howsabout posting the whole thing. First guy gets the cert; if somebody finds it federally, and somebody else finds it for a state individually--both get certs. If one guy finds it federally *and* for a state, I'll give him/her a $40 cert... but it's gotta be for real (don't post the URL for the tire failure tests--I've read them) and it's gotta be something I can pull up on the web or read (with a title/section/whatever reference) right here. And it's first-one-only.

Yes, this is biased (sorta) in favor of cops... so howsabout it, officers... I know you're out there, and I'll bet you guys can find this stuff faster than anybody else.

Scott, I have looked through the California Vehicle Code for this, and come up empty.

By no means does that mean that it isn't in the CA code... hell, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. :D

Scott, I know this isn't what you are looking for, but I have seen the following snippet drifting around the web. It is purported to have originally been copied and pasted from an email from MRT (Marsh Racing Technology):

There are two DOT tests that beadlocked wheels cannot pass, radial fatigue and burst.

In the radial fatigue test, the wheel is spun at high rpm and lateral pressure is applied to the tire. The wheel must run a certain amount of time to get approval. Under these stresses, NO beadlock wheel currently manufactured can succeed. That has to do with the amount of material holding the tire on the wheel. (On a conventional DOT wheel, this is determined by the gauge of the metal, the width of the flange and the circumference of the wheel. On a beadlock wheel this is determined by the circumference and thickness of the BOLT.)

In the burst test, a mounted tire is pumped full of hydraulic fluid until it reaches a DOT-determined pressure or until the tire bursts from the rim. Again, no beadlock wheel currently being manufactured by any company can pass this test.

This is why we cannot and will not sell our beadlock wheels for street use. They were originally designed for circle track racing and have recently been bulked up and re-designed for rockcrawling applications.

Still, we are pursuing a solution to the problem because we know that many folks who enjoy rockcrawling cannot invest in a separate trailer rig or even another set of 'road' wheels to get from home to trail.

We do have available a 'simulated' beadlock which can be installed on many of today's OEM wheels.

If any of the state laws cite DOT stats, this may be what they reference.

Randii

Scott: Have you got the barrel nuts in for the beadlocks yet? I finally got logged back into the board so I dont have to call long distence!! The order is for Monty. Griffeth

This was discussed pretty extensively several months ago, and I don't recall seeing a definitive answer. I'm not a lawyer either, so can't really help here. I do recall seeing (what appear to be) the statutes you've cited. DOT allegedley doesn't test or approve specific wheels, just general types, and there was some talk about the "approved type of wheel" clause and the listings maintained by various tire and wheel manufacturers associations of wheel sizes, types and beadforms. Apparently MRT and Champion have different views on the matter:

http://www.championwheel.com/champion_wheel_statement.htm
I would really like to see this cleared up, but think it's unlikely anytime soon. I do think your locks have a better chance of passing the tests that Randii described than the other types of locks that I've seen - at least the lateral runout test, and here I think the advantage is because your rings (1) locate against the bead shoulder like a conventional wheel, and (2) are 1/4" steel. I'm more concerned about the burst test because on a conventional rim the applied pressure forces the beads to seat tighter against the rim, but with a beadlock it stretches the bolts and forces the tire away; maybe the issue here really is strength, and perhaps the issue is that their pump won't keep up wth the resulting leaks. Either way the strength of your design has an advantage, but no one can say if it's enough until tested.

What did the peace officer write on the tickets that you talk about? There had to be some sort of law # or section infraction on the ticket?

Seems like an easy ticket to beat if there is no state law on the books. Is the CHP going to write you a ticket for federal court?

I quickly ran a search of all US Federal Codes in Lexis-Nexis and didn't find anything in regards to bead locks.

Searched the US Regulations for anything beadlock related and again found nothing.

Didn't have time to check each state's codes, regulations and laws yet.

I did get some hits when I used a search with those numbers and the word "wheel" and saw a lot of proposals but it didn't look like there was anything related to beadlocks specifically in there. I haven't had time to read though all of them (which I don't think I will considering the length and number).

So who really knows for sure?

The CHP officer I talked to, said he couldn't find it in Cal Vehicle Code.
The UHP officer couldn't either.
I can't find it in federal code; I found all kinds of tire tests, but can't find the actual code to the wheel testing (that Randii mentioned, thirdhand from MRT)

If I can find the hydro burst spec, I can probably engineer the test without physically doing it; I'm willing to take it to court personally, if I can get the test info to the point that I can take an engineer's stuff to court with me and show the judge that it passes. The hydro leakage might be a problem, I agree... that's why I'm thinking engineer-test it rather than physical.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't see how a beadlock could possibly fail the radial fatigue test if a conventional wheel passes. The snip that Randii posted, does mention that it relies on the bolts to hold the tire on during that test. Assuming that's in the "pushing the tire over the lock ring" direction, there's a wheel area of 3-4 square inches holding the tire on, on a conventional wheel. That's based on cross-sectional area of steel in the wheel shell--the weakest link, so to speak. That's mild steel. The bolt cross-sectional area (on ours, anyway) is about that, and it's high-strength fasteners, not mild steel.

So now y'all see why I'm offering a prize of sorts, for the first guy who can find me the test... as stupid as I might sound for saying this, I *want* to get stopped (and ticketed) in Utah (or somewhere) for running beadlocks, and be able to set a legal precedent that basically sends a message of "leave us alone".

But getting the ticket thrown out on the grounds that the cop can't actually find the law he cited me in violation of... just reminds the cop to recheck his books, it doesn't help the rest of the country.

Just to clarify... I haven't actually gotten a ticket for this yet. I don't want to get the ticket and then find out that I have a court date too soon to get all my stuff in order--I want to have it in order before I take my beadlocked truck to Utah and *get* a ticket for it. I can't get a ticket for it in Colorado, 'cause we don't even have fender laws, let alone beadlock laws.

And Skeeter, yep, barrel nuts are here (and gone again). Finally! Thanks for your patience.

Scott, if you take it that far, you can count on a donation from me for your legal defense fund :p :D ;)

Originally posted by DRM
Scott, if you take it that far, you can count on a donation from me for your legal defense fund :p :D ;)

Me too.

Originally posted by Lloyd
champion_wheel_statement.htm[/url]
I I'm more concerned about the burst test because on a conventional rim the applied pressure forces the beads to seat tighter against the rim, but with a beadlock it stretches the bolts and forces the tire away; maybe the issue here really is strength, and perhaps the issue is that their pump won't keep up wth the resulting leaks. Either way the strength of your design has an advantage, but no one can say if it's enough until tested.

I think if it does come down to this as a problem all you would have to do is put the ring on the interior of the rim so that the bolt would go through the rim and pull the ring out. That way the bead would only be pushing against the actual rim and not the ring.

Good luck Chris

Originally posted by FattyCBR


I think if it does come down to this as a problem all you would have to do is put the ring on the interior of the rim so that the bolt would go through the rim and pull the ring out. That way the bead would only be pushing against the actual rim and not the ring.

And how would you be planning to keep air in this?

I say who cares. Hardly anyone gets pulle dover for them and if the cops don't now what they are what are they going to give you a ticket for????? Especialy if they don't even know if there a law against them.

Steve Frisbee is "peace officer" and he runs beadlock wheels. claims they are just another form of split rim.

Originally posted by Lloyd


And how would you be planning to keep air in this?

I think you'd have to use a matched bolt and threaded nut surround. I'm not sure if that's clear. It's kinda like you drill a bigger hole and then press a round nut into the drilled out hole that's matched to the bolt. If you then put a rubber washer inside the rim around the bolt that squished around it when you tightened the ring it could hold the air in. Hey man that's what R&D's for.:flipoff2:

I think people just need to slap some Chrome trim rings on there to cover the beadlocks up and look sexy sly in the process :p:p:p

You will find that the federal specifications refer to tire and rim association on rim configurations. You can find them at;

THE TIRE AND RIM ASSOCIATION, INC.
175 Montrose West Ave., Suit 150
Copley, Ohio 44321
Tel. 330.666.8121
Fax. 330.666.8340
e-Mail TireandRim@AOL.com


The association members are from all over the world.
They have complete specifications for all tires and rims for Passenger Car, Light Truck, Truck-Bus, Off-the-Road, Agricultural, Industrial, and Cycle. There is also a section on valve stems.

The approved rim configurations for light truck are J (ISO), K, L, LB, E, F. Non of these contours are bead locked. I would post a picture of the contour, but I don't have my comrade red star.

Approved rim contours for a 33x12.50R15LT through 37x12.50R15LT tires are 8 1/2J, 9J, 10J, 11J.

As a side note, a 35x12.50R15LT traction tread measures 34.76, but for the maximum grown tire it measures 35.47. This is why the tire never measures the full height when static.

In order to get a bead lock configuration approved you will need to have the Association approve it. It will be up to you to have a certified lab do the testing for the approval of the configuration. Not inexpensive, but should be doable. This then would add a new configuration to the Tire and Rim association Year Book.

Also for testing procedures, refer to ASTM standards.

ok, i've been hit 2 times for running them here in WA, first time i was cited for defective equipt, though the cop couldn't prove they were defective, i even agrued it with the judge that there was no defect and that they are still running and driving with teh same air in them to this day that is supposedly defictive, didn't work i got hit with it anyhow, second time i got hit i was cited for tunning a 2 piece split rim wheel, 2 piece split rim's are illegal, but 1 piece's are not, first off a beadlock's not a split rim, split rim's lock in not bolt in, and there's only one lock ring, not 2, again i did not get off for this one either, as the judge in gray's harbor county is an ASSHOLE!!!

I know this is off topic sort of but..
who has gotten tickets for this in CA. and how much did it set you back?

Your ticket should have a citation number or something like that that says what the code number is for what you did wrong. Am I wrong?

And this Tire and Rim Association is a government body capable of drafting, approving, and ratifying new legislation? Cause if indeed beadlocks are prohibited by US Code it'd take an act of congress to ammend such code. Literally.

RRaker - I got hit with a fix-it ticket. Cop told me they see me all the time around town and on SAR call-outs and would write the citation if I didn't take them off my Cruiser. I was pissed off and did not keep the ticket - but did leave the bastard stuck in a ditch when he called me a few months later looking for help. I told him I couldn't get there cause I did not have rims under my Cruiser yet (yea it was a lie, but I loved leaving him there).

Here is the e-mail I sent to the Washington State Patrol on September 6th, 2001.
NO REPLY came from them when I asked them to tell me why beadlocks did not comply with the FMVSS code. I had originally sent a message asking if beadlocks were street legal in WA. They responded that they were not legal so I asked why.


To whom it may concern:
Since it has been 15 days since I sent you this question via e-mail I am sending it again to make sure that you receive it. If you are currently working on your response to my inquiry regarding beadlocked wheels, please let me know. Thank you.

PS I have attached three pictures of Champion Beadlock wheels which may aid in our discussion.

Respectfully
David

----- Original Message -----
To: <equipment@wsp.wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Beadlock equipped wheels


> To whom it may concern:
>
> Thank you for your prompt response to my inquiry regarding the legality of using beadlock equipped wheels on public roads in Washington.

How do beadlocks not meet the requirements of FMVSS 571.110 standard No. 110?
>
>
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_49/49cfr571_main_00.html
>
> 49 CFR - CHAPTER V - PART 571
> § 571.110 Standard No. 110; Tire selection and rims.
> S4.4 Rims.
> S4.4.1 Requirements. Each rim shall:
> (a) Be constructed to the dimensions of a rim that is listed pursuant to the definition of test rim in paragraph S3. of § 571.109 (Standard No. 109) for use with the tire size designation with which the vehicle is equipped.
> (b) In the event of rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 97 kilometers per hour, retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.
>
>
> 49 CFR - CHAPTER V - PART 571
> § 571.109 Standard No. 109; New pneumatic tires.
> S3. Definitions.
> Test rim means, with reference to a tire to be tested, any rim that is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accordance with S4.4. For purposes of this section and § 571.110, each rim listing shall include dimensional specifications and a diagram of the rim.
>
>
> My interpretation of the requirements of these federal code sections leads me to believe that a rim needs to meet the two requirements of S4.4
> (Standard 110):
>
> (b) Each rim shall: In the event of rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 97 kilometers per hour, retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

> Beadlock wheels meet requirement (b). The intent behind the design of beadlock wheels is to keep the tire bead seated on the rim at all rims.
>
> (a) Each rim shall: Be constructed to the dimensions of a rim that is listed pursuant to the definition of test rim in paragraph S3. of § 571.109 (Standard No. 109) for use with the tire size designation with which the vehicle is equipped.
>
> In the case of Champion beadlocks wheels, this requirement (a) appears to be met because Champion makes their beadlock wheels from the standard wheels which they manufacture and sell for use on public roads and highways.
>
> However, do you consider the Champion beadlock wheels as not meeting this standard because when they modify the wheel to make it a beadlock they change the dimensional measurements of the rim so it no longer has the same dimensional measurements and diagram on each rim listing as required by Standard 109?
>
> Please clarify your findings.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
> Sincerely,
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <equipment@wsp.wa.gov>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:58 PM
> Subject: RE: Beadlock equipped wheels
>
>
> > To: David
> > From: Equipment
> > August 20, 2001
> >
> > This message is in response to your e-mail regarding the use of
"Beadlock
> > equipped wheels" on public roadways.
> >
> > The Washington State Patrol has adopted the standards set forth by the
> > Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) for vehicles. The
> "Beadlock"
> > do not comply with FMVSS 571.110 standard No. 110 making them illegal
for
> > use on public roads in Washington. The "Beadlock" is manufactured for
> > racing or off-road use.
> >
> > DOT has its approval on items for public road use as well as off-road
use.
> >
> > Thank you for your inquiry.
> > Sincerely,
> > Equipment
> >
> > ----------
> > To: equipment@wsp.wa.gov
> > Subject: Beadlock equipped wheels
> > Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:57PM
> >
> > To whom it may concern:
> >
> > Are beadlock wheels legal to use on public roads in Washington?
> >
> > Beadlock wheels which "lock" the bead of a tire to a rim by use of bolts
> > (often 15-50 in number) are often used for drag racing vehicles and for
> > performance applications in 4x4 and offroad vehicles. A large number of
> > different manufacturers (including Champion Wheel) offer a wide range of
> > these types of wheels for vehicles. The following link is to the
Champion
> > Wheel website and has an open letter explaining why beadlocks are street
> > legal.
> >
> > http://www.championwheel.com/champion_wheel_statement.htm
> >
> > I good friend of mine has been ticketed twice in a month for having
> > beadlocks. The officer issueing the ticket was not a State Trooper, it
> was
> > a local city officer in the Olympia area (I can get specifics for you if
> you
> > request them).
> >
> > If beadlocks are truly street legal as the company states, then why are
> > tickets being given out for them alleging they are "faulty equipment"
and
> > not DOT approved?
> >
> > Please clarify this situation for myself as well as the thousands of
other
> > people who run this style of wheel or are contemplating buying this kind
> of
> > wheel for use on a street legal 4x4.
> > Thank you for your consideration.
> >
> > If you have any questions please feel free to e-mail me at this address.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > David

Originally posted by mike
And this Tire and Rim Association is a government body capable of drafting, approving, and ratifying new legislation? Cause if indeed beadlocks are prohibited by US Code it'd take an act of congress to ammend such code. Literally.

I think that the tire and rim assn. is an industrial association of tire and rim manufacturers. Title 49 CFR Section 571.109 ... 120 refers to their (and other associations) approval list, which these organizations may update as they see fit. Neither Federal nor state law prohibit beadlocks (to the best of my knowledge) but reqires that all rims be of a type approved by the Tire and Rim Association, who will require testing in accordance with ASTM protocols (another industrial society). Another example where Federal and State code refers to an industrial organization is residential and commercial wiring, where they usually reference the National Electric Safety Code, which is published, maintained and modified yearly by IEEE.

ok, i've been hit 2 times for running them here in WA, first time i was cited for defective equipt, though the cop couldn't prove they were defective, i even agrued it with the judge that there was no defect and that they are still running and driving with teh same air in them to this day that is supposedly defictive, didn't work i got hit with it anyhow, second time i got hit i was cited for tunning a 2 piece split rim wheel, 2 piece split rim's are illegal, but 1 piece's are not, first off a beadlock's not a split rim, split rim's lock in not bolt in, and there's only one lock ring, not 2, again i did not get off for this one either, as the judge in gray's harbor county is an ASSHOLE!!!
That's the cool think about America... you can APPEAL. What're you waiting for?

Randii

Scott there is no law or interpertation as to beadlock ask eric ( I believe that was his name) I called your shop and spoke to him, and told him why certain states gave tickets for this and why others did not. Hope this helps:smokin: :smokin: :smokin:

:cool: if you get pulled over, just claim that your rims are those mean looking street locks that 4wpw sells

Originally posted by randii
That's the cool think about America... you can APPEAL. What're you waiting for?

Randii Yeah, but the county's where Dave got his tickets are small; there's no way a judge would give him an appeal because they only have one judge!

True but he could appeal and take an attorney with him next time and win. :)

Originally posted by Billy Badass
Yeah, but the county's where Dave got his tickets are small; there's no way a judge would give him an appeal because they only have one judge!

I believe that beadlocks are illegal because they don't carry the DOT approval stamp. This makes them defective equipment so they can't be used on the road.

I think most manufacutures don't apply for DOT approval because they want an out if some idiot doesn't tighten the bolts correctly and takes out a bus load full of kids. By stamping them "For Offroad Use Only" they limit their liability.

Originally posted by Billy Badass
Yeah, but the county's where Dave got his tickets are small; there's no way a judge would give him an appeal because they only have one judge!

Size of the county is irrelevant - the means are there to appeal ANY case to a higher court -on through State Supreme Court and US SUpreme Court if it worked out that way. But there IS someone else to appeal the case to, I can gur-run-tee it :p

Originally posted by Bear
I believe that beadlocks are illegal because they don't carry the DOT approval stamp. This makes them defective equipment so they can't be used on the road.

I think most manufacutures don't apply for DOT approval because they want an out if some idiot doesn't tighten the bolts correctly and takes out a bus load full of kids. By stamping them "For Offroad Use Only" they limit their liability.

Bear, I kinda doubt this. In Rockstompers case, they take wheels that already have the DOT stamp on them and then modify them.

Title 49 CFR 571.109


[[Page 311]]

S4.4.1 Each manufacturer of tires shall ensure that a listing of
the rims that may be used with each tire that he produces is provided to
the public. A listing compiled in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section need not include dimensional specifications or diagram of a rim
if the rim's dimensional specifications and diagram are contained in
each listing published in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
standard. The listing shall be in one of the following forms:
(a) Listed by manufacturer name or brand name in a document
furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon
request, and in duplicate to the Docket Section, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590; or
(b) Contained in publications, current at the date of manufacture of
the tire or any later date, of at least one of the following
organizations:

The Tire and Rim Association
The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation
Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.
Deutsche Industrie Norm
British Standards Institution
Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization
The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia

S4.4.2 Information contained in any publication specified in
S4.4.1(b) which lists general categories of tires and rims by size
designation, type of construction and/or intended use, shall be
considered to be manufacturer's information pursuant to S4.4.1 for the
listed tires and rims, unless the publication itself or specific
information provided according to S4.4.1(a) indicates otherwise.

Originally posted by Madmarx


Bear, I kinda doubt this. In Rockstompers case, they take wheels that already have the DOT stamp on them and then modify them.

Doubt which part? The original manufacturer of the wheels that Scott is using wouldn't have a problem with this because you're modifiying the original design. They're no longer responsible for it. Law enforcement could still ticket you because you've changed the design of a DOT approved piece and therefore made it "defective equipment".

FWIW, YMMV and all that other crap.

Rims are NOT approved by DOT. They're approved by one or more of seven organizations listed. Read my post one above yours. Or the tire manufacturer may specify a rim by describing it, etc. and submitting that information to the address in S4.4.1(a) of 571.109

From Title 49 CFR 571.110:

S4.4 Rims.
S4.4.1 Requirements. Each rim shall:
(a) Be constructed to the dimensions of a rim that is listed
pursuant to the definition of test rim in paragraph S3. of Sec. 571.109
(Standard No. 109) for use with the tire size designation with which the
vehicle is equipped.
(b) In the event of rapid loss of inflation pressure with the
vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 97 kilometers per
hour, retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a
controlled braking application.

And the definition from ...109

test rim means, with reference to a tire to be tested, any rim that
is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accordance with S4.4.
For purposes of this section and Sec. 571.110, each rim listing shall
include dimensional specifications and a diagram of the rim.

My interpretation (which is totally worthless because this isn't my field of expertise) is that if Interco (for example) listed a rim or set of rims, beadlocked or not, and whether or not such rims were approved by the Tire and Rim Manufacturer's Association, Inc., which they recommended specific sizes of their tires to be mounted, and then posted, distributed and copied a section to NTSB as described in the code, it would be perfectly legal to mount those tires on those rims and run them on the highway in any state. However, I also think that this would leave them open to litigation after the first accident in which that tire/rim combination was present, just as Bear said. It's not the beadlock, but whether or not the tire manufacturer will specifically list their tire for a type of rim (or "test rim") not on the manufacturer associations' lists that creates the issue.

A little off topic but related.

So can you get a ticket if you are not running the rim that is stamped on the side of the tire? ie 10j

Didn't go read it but:"Approved rim contours for a 33x12.50R15LT through 37x12.50R15LT tires are 8 1/2J, 9J, 10J, 11J. "

What if you ran say a 7J don't know if it exist but.

This is just a thought.

Ok, I was curious about this one myself and droped a line to the National Transportation Library. I recieved this email today:



Unfortunately, searching both the NHTSA and larger DOT databases for
"automotive bead lock rims"
yields -0- results.

Online, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards can be found at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/49cfr571_00.html (standards)
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/index.html (summaries of
standards)

For information, interpretation or guidance on these or any other federal
regulations, please direct your questions to the authoring administration; in
this case, that is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). For regional NHTSA office contacts, please see:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/regions/Index.cfm?Fitting=No

The toll-free NHTSA hotline is:
1-800-424-9393
In the Washington, D.C. metro area and for foreign callers, the number
is:
202 - 366-0123

As well, the "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations"
Brochure, HS 805 674, is available from:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Office of Planning and Consumer Programs (NPS-30)
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
or call:
DOT Auto Safety Hotline
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236)

DOT at the state level also should be able to assist you. A list of links to
state DOTs is available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/webstate.htm

Sincerely,

National Transportation Library
NTL Reference Staff