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: aiam2840OpenMr. Irving A. Cohen, Goulston & Storrs, One Federal Street, Boston, MA, 02110; Mr. Irving A. Cohen Goulston & Storrs One Federal Street Boston MA 02110; Dear Mr. Cohen: This is (sic) responds to your May 26, 1978, letter asking severa questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, to your client, a fabric manufacturer.; In your first question, you ask whether the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) alone regulates the flammability of seat covers or whether other agencies are involved. We know of no other agency involved in the regulation of motor vehicle seat covers.; Your second question asks whether the manufacturer of the fabric or th manufacturer of the vehicle or seat cover would be responsible for compliance with the standard. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle would be responsible for ensuring compliance with it, not the manufacturer of the fabric. For replacement seat covers, the installer of those covers, if it is a repair business, manufacturer, or dealer, would be required to ensure that it was not rendering inoperative compliance of the original seat covers with Standard No. 302 and would be responsible for installing only complying seat covers.; Your final question asks who is responsible for recalls and othe agency requirements, the vehicle manufacturer or the fabric manufacturer. Once again, since this is a vehicle standard, the vehicle manufacturer must comply with our requirements, not the fabric manufacturer. In conclusion, your client as a manufacturer of fabric is not responsible for compliance with the agency's flammability standard or the recall and remedy regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1295OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1973, asking whethe the fuel spillage measurement specified in Standard No. 301 is an average rate of one ounce per minute (your Item A) or an actual rate. (Your Item B); Your item B is correct. Fuel spillage shall not exceed one ounce pe minute in any one of the fifteen minutes of the observed period.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3302OpenMr. George Beggs, Mechanical Plastics Corp., Castleton Street, Pleasantville, NY 10570; Mr. George Beggs Mechanical Plastics Corp. Castleton Street Pleasantville NY 10570; Dear Mr. Beggs: This responds to your April 28, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibility as a manufacturer if you modify a Volkswagen by the addition of a recreational device (Hatchpack). The modification that you propose appears to be substantial in that it might involve a significant alteration of the vehicle rear and roof structures.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to give yo some general background information. First, the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. It is the responsibility of a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable requirements of all of our safety standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. For example, when your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the Hatchpack device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment.; From the general discussion in your letter, you appear to wan information on safety standards for which you would be responsible. Further, you state that Volkswagen has indicated its concern about the compliance of its vehicle with the crashworthiness safety standards if it is modified as you propose. As we stated above, as an equipment manufacturer, you would not be responsible for the compliance of any safety standard since we have no equipment standards applicable to the device that you manufacture. However, the installer of the device on a new vehicle would be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to comply with all affected safety standards. The installer will probably need your help in making its certification. Therefore, we suggest that you closely confer with Volkswagen to learn which safety standards they feel might be violated by the addition of your equipment. With this information, you can conduct testing or undertake engineering analyses of your device as mounted on the vehicle to see whether Volkswagen's fears have merit. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as modified will continue to comply with the safety standards, then you can pass this information along to the installer of the equipment who could then certify the vehicle in compliance.; The following are the responses to your specific questions. 1. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed and sold on new automobiles by licensed new car dealers?; As I stated above, the addition of this equipment to a new vehicl means that the installer of the equipment must attach an alterer's label to the vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Therefore, the installer would be responsible for any safety standard that might be affected by the installation.; 2. Under what sections of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an independent accessory installer onto a new automobile which is then sold as a new vehicle by a licensed new car dealer?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 1.; 3. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an automobile manufacturer as a factory option for new vehicles which are then to be sold by licensed new car dealers?; If the automobile manufacturer installs the device, that manufacture simply certifies the vehicle in compliance with all safety standards as it must do with any vehicle it produces.; 4. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall i it is to be installed by an automobile owner/user?; There are no safety standards or other regulations applicable t modifications made to vehicles by their owners if the modifications are entirely made by the vehicles' owners. If a business such as a garage were to make the modification, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. However, since the vehicle would be used, such a business would not be required to attach a certification label.; 5. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the parties responsible for certifying to the N.H.T.S.A. that the product is in compliance with the required standards?; No person is required to certify to the NHTSA that a vehicle or produc complies with the requirements. In certain instances, a certification label must be attached to the vehicle. We have indicated in our response to each of the preceding questions when labels must be attached and by whom.; 6. In each of the cases described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, an No. 4, who are the liable parties in the event of injury or death as a result if (sic) improper installation?; If the improper installation results in a noncompliance with a safet standard or with a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would hold the installer primarily responsible. If, however, we were to discover that the equipment itself were the cause of the defect or noncompliance, the equipment manufacturer would be responsible to the agency. With respect to private liability that might result from a defect or noncompliance, you should consult with your own attorneys for an answer to this question.; 7. Based on the general information supplied with this letter would th installation of this unit by other than a motor vehicle manufacturer require an 'alterers' label or certification?; As we indicated earlier, the answer to this question is yes if th installation is made on a new motor vehicle that has been previously certified by its manufacturer.; 8. Under which, if any, of the cases described in questions No. 1, No 2, No. 3, and No. 4 would there be an N.H.T.S.A. requirement for a fuel system integrity crash test?; The NHTSA does not require that any manufacturer perform a crash tes if it can prove that the vehicle would comply with the requirements by some other means, such as design analysis. It is impossible for us to tell from your drawings whether your device would likely impact the fuel system. Volkswagen can probably be helpful in providing information in this area. If some impact on the fuel system is likely, testing or analysis would be required in each of the first three instances raised in your questions. No testing is ever required for the modification of used vehicles by their owners.; 9. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from Mechanica Plastics Corp. for the Hatchpack product?; The NHTSA requires no advance forms of certification or assurances fro manufacturers that their products comply with safety standards. Our enforcement scheme is one of self- certification where the agency might subsequently purchase and test a vehicle for compliance with the standards.; 10. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from th installing party as described in questions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4?; The answer to this question is the same as the answer to questio number 9.; We hope that this clarifies your responsibilities and duties wit respect to the device that you propose to manufacture. Again, we strongly encourage you to consult with Volkswagen engineers who can be the most helpful in telling you of the standards that you are likely to impact with your device. If you have any further questions, please contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2143OpenMr. Donald W. Taylor, Manager, Product Safety and Quality, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. Donald W. Taylor Manager Product Safety and Quality Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to Volvo of America's October 9, 1975, question whether truck equipped with an air-assisted hydraulic brake system with hydraulic push through capability and, in the towing vehicle configuration, a source of compressed air for air braked trailer operation is subject to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; From your description of the system and the materials that accompanie your letter, the truck does not qualify as an air-braked vehicle to which the standard applies. The fact that it is capable of operation in combination with an air-braked vehicle and supplies the compressed air for braking that vehicle does not affect the truck's classification as an hydraulic-braked vehicle.; At the time Standard No. 121 was developed, it covered virtually all o the trucks and truck- tractors in the heaviest categories. In planning and making your decisions to introduce hydraulic-braked vehicles in these weight categories, you should be aware that this agency is planning to cover all such vehicles with the basic performance requirements presently contained in Standard No. 121.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4994OpenMr. Bill Willett 1609A Sumner Drive Mobile, AL 36605; Mr. Bill Willett 1609A Sumner Drive Mobile AL 36605; Dear Mr. Willett: This responds to your letter of April 17, 1992, wit repect to motor vehicle lighting. You believe that a 'flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used.' The light you have in mind is one which 'flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and emergency flashers.' The light is intended 'to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used . . . .' You have asked 'Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights.' Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that stop lamps be steady-burning when the brakes are applied. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business' from any modification that renders wholly or partially inoperative motor vehicle equipment, such as stop lamps, installed pursuant to a standard such as Standard No. 108. Were the existing stop lamps to be rewired to flash, we would regard the change from steady burning to flashing as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of this prohibition. However, please note that the prohibition includes only four categories of persons, and does not apply to modifications made by a 'survey group member' who is not within one of those categories. Nor does it apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner. In addition, you should check with the authorities in Alabama to ensure that your modifications do not violate any provision of the State motor vehicle code. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0484OpenMr. Harold T. Halfpenny, Halfpenny, Hahn & Roche, 111 West Washington Street, Chicago, IL, 60602; Mr. Harold T. Halfpenny Halfpenny Hahn & Roche 111 West Washington Street Chicago IL 60602; Dear Mr. Halfpenny: This is in reply to your letters of October 18, 1971, and November 1 1971, to Mr. Douglas Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the 'Panic-Stop' signal system from Donel Corporation.; You are correct in your interpretation that Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 108 is not applicable to the 'Panic-Stop' system when this system is not installed on motor vehicles as original equipment. The motor vehicle laws and regulations of the individual States, are, however, applicable to the 'Panic-Stop' system when sold and used as aftermarket equipment.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2513OpenMr. Dennis G. Moore, Dry Launch, 1113 Greenville, Livermore, CA 94550; Mr. Dennis G. Moore Dry Launch 1113 Greenville Livermore CA 94550; Dear Mr. Moore: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking severa questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).; It is evident from your letter and others that our previou interpretations of the term 'optical combination' have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is 'optically combined' when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (*e.g.* taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the 'same light source'. In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. our re- interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.; You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1 'permit clearance lights that are designed *for OEM application only* be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp' as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.; The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5239OpenMr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights, MI 48071; Mr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights MI 48071; "Dear Mr. Nigro: This responds to your letter about auxiliary heater fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) for installation on buses using those alternative fuels. You stated that your company currently manufactures auxiliary heaters for diesel fueled buses, and is interested in developing heaters that would 'burn CNG and LNG same as the engine.' In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you would like information about NHTSA's current requirements for auxiliary heaters on alternative fueled buses and the agency's future plans in this area. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering auxiliary heaters of any kind, and I am not aware of any plans to issue standards in this area. Nevertheless, an auxiliary heater is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 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. (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 that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. As Mr. Shaw informed you on the telephone, earlier this year NHTSA proposed to issue a safety standard that would apply to CNG tanks (i.e., containers designed to store CNG as motor vehicle fuel on-board a motor vehicle) and vehicles using CNG as a fuel (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If this proposed standard is adopted, it would affect your product in the following manner. If your heater 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, including the CNG fuel system standard. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed 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 the CNG standard should be carefully scrutinized. 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 the CNG standard. 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 the CNG standard would be especially germane to whether 108(a)(2)(A) were violated. 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 the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. The certification responsibilities discussed above would affect vehicle manufacturers even if the proposed CNG standard is not adopted or is not yet effective when you market your product. Except for FMVSS 301, which sets fuel system integrity requirements for gasoline and diesel-powered buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR, all of the FMVSS's that apply to a diesel- or gasoline- powered vehicle now apply to a CNG-powered vehicle. A manufacturer of a CNG- powered vehicle who installs your heater as original equipment must certify the vehicle to those standards, regardless if the CNG FMVSS is among them. Similarly, a vehicle alterer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS's. The 'render inoperative' prohibition would also apply even in the absence of a CNG FMVSS. The commercial entity listed in 108(a)(2)(A) who installs the heater on a CNG-powered vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any FMVSS that applies to the vehicle, even if a CNG standard is not among them. I am enclosing for your information a copy of NHTSA's proposed FMVSS for CNG tanks and vehicles. Also enclosed is a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to heaters on commercial vehicles. (49 CFR 393.77). You can contact the FHWA for an interpretation of its regulations at the following address: Theodore McConnell Chief Counsel Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2006OpenMr. Fred Long, South Texas Tire Test Fleet, Drawer J, Devine, TX 78016; Mr. Fred Long South Texas Tire Test Fleet Drawer J Devine TX 78016; Dear Mr. Long: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, wit Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS).; You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires ar available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that; >>>tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which the are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)<<<; As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate th method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0191OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; >>>Re: Consumer Information<<< Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in response to your telegram of December 15 concerning th submission of consumer information on passenger cars produced by your associated company in England. You stated, 'This data will be submitted to the Bureau thirty (30) or more days in advance of any of these cars being offered for sale in the United States as required by section 375.6 as published on October 22, 1969.'; The regulation (49 CFR S 375.6(b))requires information to be mad available to prospective purchasers, on or after January 1, 1970, on 'each of the vehicles offered for sale' at the dealer showroom. The general applicability of the information is to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1970. The intent of the regulation is to provide prospective vehicle buyers with information on all the various types of vehicles currently being manufactured and available for purchase after that date.; You apparently are assuming that, within the meaning of the regulation no vehicles are 'offered for sale' to prospective purchasers except those that are physically present in the dealer showroom. This certainly does not reflect the practice of most manufacturers, whose dealers, while keeping a representative stock of vehicles on hand, offer for sale (and enter into contracts for sale of) the manufacturer's complete line of vehicles. This interpretation would, furthermore, tend to defeat the main reason for providing information to prospective purchasers, since a dealer would never be obligated to provide information on vehicles other than those that happened to be in his possession at a given moment.; We advise you, therefore, that the term 'vehicles offered for sale' i the prospective purchaser requirement, 49 CFR S 375.6(b), refers to all the types of vehicles that a manufacturer represents, or the dealer represents with the permission of the manufacturer, as being available for purchase by the general public at a particular dealer location. The regulation requires that consumer information be provided to prospective purchasers on each of there (sic) vehicles on or after January 1, 1970, and to the Administrator 30 days in advance of its availability to prospective purchasers.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
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.