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: aiam4731OpenMr. Theo Bose Webasto Heater, Inc. 1458 E. Lincoln Madison Hts., MI 48071; Mr. Theo Bose Webasto Heater Inc. 1458 E. Lincoln Madison Hts. MI 48071; "Dear Mr. Bose: You wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA asking about requirements for 'diesel fuel burning coolant heaters and air heaters' that you import for installation in trucks, buses and school buses. According to the installation instructions for the heaters, they are connected either to the fuel tank of the vehicle or to a separate fuel tank. The FHWA forwarded us your letter with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for this standard. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS's applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.) The Safety Act defines the term 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (102(5), emphasis added.) As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for compliance with the Safety Act and applicable regulations. There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the heating unit you describe. Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) applies only to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. (The standard applies to trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, and to school buses.) However, Federal law may affect the installation of your product, depending on who installs the heating unit and when the work is performed. If the heating unit were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 should be carefully scrutinized. (I have enclosed a copy of our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) for your information.) If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with Standard No. 301 would of course be especially germane to whether the modification had rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1533OpenMr. Robert C. Gibson,Imperial-Eastman Corporation,6300 West Howard Street,Chicago, Illinois 60648; Mr. Robert C. Gibson Imperial-Eastman Corporation 6300 West Howard Street Chicago Illinois 60648; Dear Mr. Gibson:#This responds to your May 2, 1974, question concerning the labeling of multi-piece end fittings, the use of hose marked with the DOT symbol in non-brake applications, and the acceptability of an end fitting design under the requirements of Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*.#The answers to your first two questions will appear in the upcoming notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of amendments to Standard No. 106. #As to the acceptability of a certain end fitting design , the standard specifies performance requirements for end fittings. Any design which meets the specifications of the standard may be manufactured after the effective date of the standard.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1499OpenMr. E.J. Wagner, Manager, Director, American Retreaders' Assoc., Inc., P.O. Box 17203, Louisville, Kentucky 40217; Mr. E.J. Wagner Manager Director American Retreaders' Assoc. Inc. P.O. Box 17203 Louisville Kentucky 40217; Dear Mr. Wagner: This is in reply to your letters of April 7 and April 8, 1974 regarding Standard No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.' Your April 7 letter asks whether Standard No. 117 requires treadwear indicators to be straight across the tread face. Your letter of April 8 encloses two sample rubber labels and asks whether each conforms to the requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 117.; Paragraph S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117 does not specify configuration for treadwear indicators. Rather, it incorporates by reference the requirements for treadwear indicators of S4.2.1(d) of Standard No. 109, which calls only for a treadwear indicator that provides a 'visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch.' We do not construe this language to require a straight-across treadwear indicator and other configurations are therefore permitted.; With respect to the labeled you enclose in your letter of April 8, eac would conform to all of the requirements of S6.3 (which includes the requirements for both affixed (S6.3.1) and permanent (S6.3.2) labeling) if the tires to which they are affixed are of neither bias-belted or radial construction. If they are of either of these construction types, that information would have to be retention of the original casing labeling.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4361OpenMr. Thomas Baloga, Safety Engineering, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., P. O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. P. O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Baloga: Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1987, to Stephen Oesch of my staf concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection.* You asked the agency to confirm that the 36 millisecond time interval be used in the calculation of the head injury criterion (HIC) applies both to the Part 572, Subpart B test dummy and to the Subpart E test dummy. This is to confirm that the 36 millisecond time interval should be uSed in the calculation of a HIC for both types of test dummies.; On October 17, 1986 (51 FR 37028), NHTSA published a final rule in th Federal Register amending Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. One of the amendments modified the manner in which a HIC is calculated in the crash testing required by the standard. That amendment referred to S6.2 as the provision of the standard containing the HIC requirement. Instead, the notice should have amended S6.1.2, which sets out the HIC calculation for the Part 572, Subpart B test dummy, and S6.2.2, which sets out the HIC calculation to be used with the new Part 572, Subpart E test dummy. The agency will publish an amendment to adopt the necessary changes to S6.1.2 and S6.2.2 to make clear that the change to the calculation of the HIC criterion affects those two provisions.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1163OpenMr. R. W. Harvey, Peterbilt Motor Truck Co., 300 Toland Street, San Francisco, CA 94124; Mr. R. W. Harvey Peterbilt Motor Truck Co. 300 Toland Street San Francisco CA 94124; Dear Mr. Harvey: This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1973, in which you state yo are a distributor of Peterbilt trucks and ask whether certain operations you perform subject you to Federal requirements. These operations are modifications to air brake systems and the installation of used bodies on new truck chassis.; A company whose business includes the installation of used bodies o new truck chassis is a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and, as such, has certain responsibilities under the Act and regulations issued by this agency. In response to your question regarding registration, you are required pursuant to NHTSA 'Manufacturers' Identification' regulations (49 CFR Part 566) to submit to the agency information regarding the manufacturing operations of your company and the types of vehicles that it manufacturers.; A manufacturer is also required, pursuant to NHTSA 'Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, 568) to ascertain and certify the conformity of each vehicle he manufacturers to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under these regulations the person who completes the vehicle (the 'final-stage manufacturer') is required to affix to the vehicle a label that contains the certification that the vehicle conforms to applicable standards, as well as other information. Our experience has been that most manufacturers who install truck bodies onto new chassis are final-stage manufacturers, who must affix this label. Persons whose manufacturing operations precede that of the final-stage manufacturer are required to provide documentation with the vehicle that indicates what steps will be necessary in order to bring the vehicle into conformity with applicable standards. You also ask if there are requirements for the making of periodic reports. NHTSA 'Defect Reports' regulations (49 CFR S 573.5(b)) do require manufacturers to furnish the NHTSA with quarterly production figures.; The other operation you describe is the modification of vehicle ai brake systems, including changes in valves, lines, spring brakes, air tanks, etc. If you merely modify an existing air brake system, there are presently no certification or reporting requirements applicable to you. The NHTSA has just issued certification requirements for persons who alter completed vehicles, and depending on the extent of the modification you perform, these requirements may apply to you. They are effective February 1, 1974. All trucks manufactured after September 1, 1974, that are manufactured with air brakes will be required to conform to requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. The law would not allow you to modify the air brake system of any truck manufactured on or after that date, before the sale of the truck to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale (a user), if the modification you performed would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the standard.; I have only summarized the requirements that, based on the facts yo have provided, would be applicable to you. Your responsibilities are stated specifically in the regulations we have referred to, and you may obtain copies of these requirements as indicated on the enclosed, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5659OpenJeffrey S. Bakst, Esq. Attorney at Law 2406 Auburn Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45219-2702; Jeffrey S. Bakst Esq. Attorney at Law 2406 Auburn Avenue Cincinnati OH 45219-2702; "Dear Mr. Bakst: This responds to your request for the views of th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below. You advise us that you are 'dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988.' You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You further informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours. Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser? The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(c): A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify NHTSA by certified mail, and the owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer -- (1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . . Under 49 U.S.C. 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer 'shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy.' The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, replacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination. Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the 'two sources of energy' are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124? The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows: There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an opinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2466OpenMr. William G. Mathews, III, Vice President, Universal Imports, 14622 Southlawn Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20850; Mr. William G. Mathews III Vice President Universal Imports 14622 Southlawn Lane Rockville Maryland 20850; Dear Mr. Mathews: #This is in reply to your November 5, 1976, lette concerning antique tires. You have asked whether it is permissible to import 6.70 x 15 tires, an original equipment size on several classic Mercedes-Benz, that are not marked in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires*. #Standard No. 109 applies to 'new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948' (S2). The 6.70 x 15 tire size designation appears in Table I-A of Appendix A of the standard. While this tire may have been original equipment on several classic cars, it is also for use on passenger cars manufactured since 1948. As such, it is subject to all the requirements of Standard No. 109. Therefore, a 6.70 x 15 tire that is not marked according to the standard may not be imported into the United States. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5209OpenMr. Dale Moore, CIC Hagan Hamilton Insurance and Financial Services 448 South Baker Post Office Box 847 McMinnville, OR 97128; Mr. Dale Moore CIC Hagan Hamilton Insurance and Financial Services 448 South Baker Post Office Box 847 McMinnville OR 97128; "Dear Mr. Moore: This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myer of this office in which you asked whether 15-passenger vans used by Linfield College to transport high school-age students to the college must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. You explained in your letter and its enclosure that Linfield College sponsors an 'Upward Bound' program, in which selected high school-age students from disadvantaged families are transported to the college campus for academic tutoring and other activities, including field trips, counseling, etc. You have been advised that the college's 15-passenger vans 'may have to meet federal requirements in order to be leased or purchased from an automobile dealer.' Let me begin by stating that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for new school buses regulate the manufacture and sale or lease of new vehicles used for transporting students. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate what bus may be used for particular student transportation purposes. The requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles are set by the State. Thus, if there are regulations about what buses an Oregon college must use to transport Oregon high school students, such regulations are administered by the State of Oregon, not the Federal government. Some background information on our requirements might be helpful to your inquiry. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 to 1431, as amended (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The Safety Act defines a school bus as 'a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' It is a violation of the Safety Act for any person to sell or lease any new motor vehicle as a school bus that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards. It is not a violation of Federal law, however, to sell any noncomplying used vehicle as a school bus, even if the seller knows the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus. Similarly, it is not a violation of Federal law to use a noncomplying vehicle to transport school children. As noted above, that is because individual states, not the Federal government, regulate the use of motor vehicles. In the situation described in your letter, several issues must be addressed to determine whether the vans are subject to our school bus safety standards. The first issue is whether the vans are 'buses.' Since the vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, the answer to that question is yes. The second issue is whether Upward Bound activities are considered 'school related events.' Although Oregon may have a specific definition of 'school related event' for the purpose of determining whether Linfield College must use certified school buses, with regard to Federal law, we conclude the answer is yes. That is, if a new bus were sold or leased to the college, we would consider the new vehicle as being sold or leased for a school related event. The goal of Upward Bound is to prepare the participating students for post- secondary education. That is also, of course, one of the goals of the secondary schools in the program. Your enclosure states that Upward Bound staff 'visit each high school on a weekly basis doing counseling and follow-up work with each student.' These regular ongoing visits could not happen without the cooperation of the secondary schools in the program. Accordingly, it appears to us that the Upward Bound program is an 'event related to' the secondary schools concerned, within the meaning of the Safety Act. The final issue is whether transporting Upward Bound students constitutes a significant use for the vans. Linfield College need not purchase certified new school buses for its general purpose vehicles, even though such vehicles may be used occasionally to transport Upward Bound students. On the other hand, if Linfield College purchases or leases the vans knowing that they will be significantly used to transport Upward Bound students, the seller who knows of such anticipated use must sell only properly certified school buses. For information regarding state requirements on the use of school buses, you may contact Mr. Donald Forbes, 135 Transportation Building, Salem, OR 97310, telephone (503) 378-6388. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2036OpenMr. R.W. Hildebrandt, Group Director of Engineering, The Bendix Corporation, 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, Ohio 44035; Mr. R.W. Hildebrandt Group Director of Engineering The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria Ohio 44035; Dear Mr. Hildebrandt: #This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975 requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, as applied to brake hose end fittings. #S5.2.3 of the standard requires (with an exception not relevant here) that one component of a multi-piece end fitting be labeled with certain information. You have pointed out that many end fittings designated for use with nylon brake hose include components identical to those found in fittings used with copper tubing, which is not covered by the standard. Labeling of one of these common components would satisfy the standard. You have interpreted Standard No. 106-74 as permitting an end fitting manufacturer to label his full stock of such components, even though some of them would appear in copper tubing assemblies. Your interpretation is correct. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4048OpenMr. William Frank Mitchell, 4228 Floyd Road, Austell, GA 30001; Mr. William Frank Mitchell 4228 Floyd Road Austell GA 30001; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, concernin Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; In 1972, Congress enacted Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information an Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. SS 1981-1991, seeking to eliminate odometer tampering and to establish certain safeguards for the protection of motor vehicle purchasers. This law is applicable in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone and American Samoa.; Section 1988(a) of the Act requires the Secretary of Transportation t prescribe rules relating to written odometer disclosures. These powers have been delegated to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 49 C.F.R. S 1.50(f). To carry out the Congressional mandate, this Agency promulgated rules for the disclosure of odometer information, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4, and specified the form to be filled out by transferors of motor vehicles, 49 C.F.R. S 580.6. In addition, NHTSA exempted transferors of certain vehicles from the disclosure requirements. 49 C.F.R. S 580.5.; The portion of the regulation you question, 49 C.F.R. S 580.5(a)(1) exempts the transferors of motor vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 16,000 pounds from the odometer disclosure requirements. The phrase 'gross vehicle weight rating' is defined as 'the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' 49 C.F.R. S 571.3.; In explaining the exemption for heavier vehicles, NHTSA stated: >>>A new section, 49 C.F.R. S 580.5, has been added in response to number of comments that objected to the application of the requirements to categories of vehicles for which the odometer is not used as a guide to value. Buses and large trucks, for example, are routinely driven hundreds of thousands of miles, and their maintenance records have traditionally been relied on by buyers as the principal guide to their condition. The NHTSA is in agreement with the position taken by Freightliner Corp. , White Motor Corp. , and the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, and has therefore created an exemption for larger vehicles. The exemption applies to vehicles having gross weight ratings of more than 16,000 pounds.<<<; 38 *Federal Register* 2978 (1973) While some courts have determined that NHTSA's authority to creat exemptions may be limited, we believe that NHTSA has the authority to create exemptions for transfers of vehicles for which the odometer reading is not relied upon as an indicator of vehicle mileage or condition. Consequently, the exemption remains a part of the odometer disclosure regulations.; Sincerely, Kathleen DeMeter, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law |
|
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.