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: aiam3514OpenWilliam D. Brusstar, Jr., Esq., General Motors Corporation, General Motors Building, 3044 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48207; William D. Brusstar Jr. Esq. General Motors Corporation General Motors Building 3044 West Grand Boulevard Detroit MI 48207; Dear Mr. Brusstar: This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1981, requesting listing of those states whose certificates of title have been approved by the agency for use in lieu of the separate Federal odometer form.; The Odometer Disclosure Requirements (49 CFR Part 580) provide that th transferor of a vehicle may make the disclosure required by the Federal odometer laws on the state certificate of title, if the state title document contains essentially the same information required on the Federal odometer disclosure statement. If the information contained on the state certificate of title varies from that required by the Federal form, the state must obtain the approval of this agency before its certificate of title can be used as a substitute for the Federal form.; In order to spare states the burden of an apporval (sic) process th agency has indicated that certain variations from the Federal form are acceptable. In the *Federal Register* notice of August 1, 1977, which amended the disclosure regulation, we gave examples of shortened forms that would be acceptable. A state title can be considered to be approved for use as a full disclosure statement if it varies from the Federal form in only those aspects noted in the August 1, 1977, notice, a copy of which is enclosed.; The following states have odometer statements on their motor vehicl title forms that are consistent with the requirements of the Federal law:; >>>Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania Hawaii, New York, North Dakota<<<; In addition, the following states submitted title forms to the agenc asking for approval but had unacceptable statements. Each state was advised that before its form could be approved, certain additional information was required on its certificate of title. We do not know whether that information has been included on the titles.; >>>North Carolina, Delaware, South Dakota, South Carolina, Indiana Virginia, Washington, Utah, Wisconsin, New Mexico<<<; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, David W. Allen, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1483OpenMr. Al Zajic, Project Engineer, American Trailers, Inc., 5702 E. Admiral Place, 15708 Admiral Station, Tulsa, OK 74115; Mr. Al Zajic Project Engineer American Trailers Inc. 5702 E. Admiral Place 15708 Admiral Station Tulsa OK 74115; Dear Mr. Zajic: This responds to your April 12, 1974, question whether a permanentl attached steerable axle on a trailer is required (1) to meet the S5.3.2 stopping distance requirement with no uncontrolled lockup of any wheel above 10 mi/h, and (2) to meet the parking brake requirements for trailer converter dollies or for all other vehicles.; The answer to your first question is yes. The steerable axle(s) of an trailer must meet the stopping distance requirements of S5.3.2 with no uncontrolled lockup of wheels above 10 mi/h.; In answer to your second question, the permanently attached steerabl axle you describe is not a separate vehicle which would qualify as a trailer converter dolly. Therefore the axle is simply part of a trailer which must meet the parking brake requirements of either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. Neither of these options specifies that there be parking brakes on steerable axles, although in satisfaction of S5.6.2 (grade holding), the manufacturer could utilize parking brakes on the steerable axle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4681OpenMs. Linda L. Conrad Nives Ford, Inc. 15690 South Harlem Avenue Orland Park, IL 60462; Ms. Linda L. Conrad Nives Ford Inc. 15690 South Harlem Avenue Orland Park IL 60462; "Dear Ms. Conrad: This responds to your letter asking what lega obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side air bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to replace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car. In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle, (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so, and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, beginning with 1987 model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory requirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed. However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) 'shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208. After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the air bags, except as needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a functioning air bag before you resell the car. Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems intact and functional. As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars. While air bags are in some respects 'supplemental' to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles are designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn, and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purchaser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may well expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer. In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacment of deployed air bags. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1179OpenMr. R. J. Updegraff, Manager, Kysor of Cadillac, 1100 Wright Street, Cadillac, MI 49601; Mr. R. J. Updegraff Manager Kysor of Cadillac 1100 Wright Street Cadillac MI 49601; Dear Mr. Updegraff: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1973, concerning th applicability of section S5.1.4, *Pressure gauge*, of Standard No. 121, to an electronic gauge that displays the air pressure under normal conditions only when the driver pushes a switch but that provides continuous display at pressures below 70 p.s.i.; Section S5.1.4 requires a pressure gauge to be 'readily visible.' Use in this context, 'readily visible' means visible whenever the driver wants to see it. It does not mean that the air pressure level should be continuously visible. As we understand your system, the driver could determine the air pressure at any time by pushing the 'air pressure' button. We have concluded that this operation satisfies the intent of S5.1.4 and that your system would be permissable (sic) under that section.; The low pressure warning signal is required by section S5.1.5 and mus be separate from the pressure gauge. You state that you provide a flashing red light and an audible alarm, in addition to providing continuous readout of air pressure below 60 p.s.i. This would appear to conform to S5.1.5.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3144OpenMr. H. J. T. Young, Vice President - Technical Affairs, SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue, St. Clair Shores, MI 48082; Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice President - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores MI 48082; Dear Mr. Young: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson o this office in which you requested an interpretation S4.1.1.19 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; S4.1.1.19 states: >>>A lamp manufactured on or after January 1, 1974 and designed to us a type of bulb that has not been assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not listed in SAE Standard J573d 'Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units', December 1968, shall meet the applicable requirements of this standard when used with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed-in bulb shall meet these requirements with the bulb operated at the bulb's design voltage.<<<; It is noted that this paragraph consists of two sentences. You hav asked whether the 'lamp' and 'bulb' of the second sentence are the same 'lamp and bulb' of the first sentence.; The answer is no. The first sentence would require testing, at th bulb's design voltage, of bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps but not of bulbs used in, for example, taillamps. The former, though listed in J573d (Table 2), is not assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating since these bulbs emit shaped beams while the latter is used in the sealed lamp, it is tested at the bulb's design voltage rather than using the rated mean spherical candlepower. Furthermore, the rulemaking history of the paragraph clearly indicates that the two requirements are separate. As the agency noted in the preamble to the proposal, 'The proposal specifies that when no rating has been assigned by the bulb manufacturer or the SAE *or* if the lamp is sealed and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall be operated at design voltage' (emphasis supplied) (38 FR 16230).; You noted that your question relates to the voltage required b Standard No. 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that utilizes a European halogen bulb that meets ECE Regulation 37.; Since J579c requires the test voltage to be 12.8 volts for all th sealed beam bulbs, the photometric test should be at 12.8 volts and not at the so-called 'system voltage' of 12 volts.; I hope this is responsive to your request. |
|
ID: aiam1657OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Director, Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Director Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of October 1, 1974, in which you as whether a manufacturer who modifies a certified flat-bed trailer by adding beverage compartments and required lamps and reflectors may use the certification date of the trailer for determining conformity to applicable safety standards, rather than the date on which the modifications are completed.; We question your description of the trailer as certified by lacking floor, for this characterization would be unusual under the definitions provided in Part 568. It is difficult for us to envision a trailer being a 'completed vehicle' (requiring no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function) if it lacks a floor, unless the floor is considered to be a readily attachable component, which we also view as unlikely. If, however, that is the case, the situation you describe is covered specifically in the requirements for vehicle alterers (49 CFR SS 567.7, 568.8). Section 567.7 of the Certification Regulations provides that a person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified can certify the conformity of the altered vehicle as of any date between the date of manufacture of the original vehicle and the date the alterations are completed. This makes it unnecessary, unless the alterer chooses otherwise, for the vehicle to conform to standards which become effective after the date of the original certification.; This provision was intended to place the responsibility of alterers o a par with that of final-stage manufacturers for determining conformity to applicable standards. Some discussion of this point is contained in the preamble to the notice in which the vehicle alterer requirements were issued, and a copy is enclosed for your information.; The only other situation we can envision in which a trailer can b certified and still lack a floor would be one arising under S568.6, 'Requirements for manufacturers who assume legal responsibility for the vehicle.' If the incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed responsibility for the vehicle, then the person adding the floor and beverage compartments, although a final-stage manufacturer, would be under no obligation to further certify the vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0945OpenMrs. Lewis Polin, 1912 Nester Street, Philadelphia, PA 19115; Mrs. Lewis Polin 1912 Nester Street Philadelphia PA 19115; Dear Mrs. Polin: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which yo requested information on infant car seats and regulations affecting the manufacture of such seats.; Enclosure 1 is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 Child Seating Systems, along with a recent amendment to the standard. The effective date of this standard was April 1, 1971. All child car seats which both seat and restrain a child in a motor vehicle are now required by law to comply with the requirements of this standard. This regulation requires the date of manufacture to be placed on each seat along with recommendations for its use. Child seating systems are recommended for use by children from approximately eight to nine months to three to four years of age.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presentl developing a proposed amendment to the existing standard which will require dynamic tests of all child restraints and will regulate infant restraints which are not presently covered by Standard No. 213. However, it is not anticipated that this amendment will become effective in the near future.; Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of press releases notifying consumers o devices which have failed to pass Standard No. 213, and of the action the manufacturers are taking to correct the situation. Additionally, we are enclosing a copy of a consumer information booklet entitled, 'What To Buy In Child Restraint Systems.' We hope this information will assist you.; We do not endorse or advocate any specific product, but rather develop issue, and enforce minimum safety standards for consumer protection. In the final analysis, the consumer should select a restraint which best fits his particular needs. Many practical considerations may affect the usage of a device, for example, the activity level of the child, portability of the device, and ease of attachment. These are all factors which the buyer of a child restraint system should consider in making his selection.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2978OpenMr. Michael J. Schmitt, Counsel, Engineering Division, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA, P.O. Box 6620, Buena Park, CA 90622; Mr. Michael J. Schmitt Counsel Engineering Division Yamaha Motor Corporation USA P.O. Box 6620 Buena Park CA 90622; Dear Mr. Schmitt: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1979, with respect t Yamaha's plan to equip its motorcycles with a hazard warning signal system.; You have cited S4.5.5 of Standard No. 108 which requires that th hazard warning signal 'operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch'. Because of the ease with which such a switch can be operated on an open vehicle such as a motorcycle by a person other than the vehicle operator, you would like to integrate the warning system with the ignition switch, so that it will flash when the ignition is in the 'on' or 'off' position, but not the 'off-lock' position unless the key is inserted.; As you noted, the Standard does not require that a motorcycle b equipped with a hazard warning system. Should you voluntarily install the system on a motorcycle, there is no legal requirement that it conform to the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Because of this, although we appreciate your wish to meet the requirements of the standard, we offer no opinion on your system and are willing to defer to your judgment in this matter.; We are confident that Yamaha would not install such a system withou insuring that the charging system has an adequate capacity, otherwise, the turn signal system might be viewed as 'additional ... motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness' of required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S4.1.3.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3390OpenMr. Richard A. Rechlicz, N88 W16414 Main Street, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051; Mr. Richard A. Rechlicz N88 W16414 Main Street Menomonee Falls WI 53051; Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking severa questions about the application of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, to school buses.; First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and questio which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.; Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.; Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exits. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forwardmost side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.; Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statut requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.; Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone whic states that it is 'the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit...' You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4455OpenMs. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset, NY 11767; Ms. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset NY 11767; "Dear Ms. Salvio: This responds to your November 10, 1987, lette asking whether the 'Guardian Gate' your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions. The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate 'is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus sic .' The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked 'on both its sides to the vehicle, the cab side, as well as the pump panel side.' The advertisement said this 'dual locking' feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of 'hazardous conditions' (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include). Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206 states: 'Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. ...' (S4 exempts certain types of doors from Standard No. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.) From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because 'seating accommodations' referred to in S4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206. Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefighters riding in the 'jump seat area' of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
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.