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: aiam4741OpenMr. Michael F. Pickholz President, Panda Technik 35656 Ashford Sterling Heights, MI 48077; Mr. Michael F. Pickholz President Panda Technik 35656 Ashford Sterling Heights MI 48077; "Dear Mr. Pickholz: This is in reply to your letter of April l9, l990 enclosing a sample of a motor vehicle reflector, expressing your concern that 'no laws or regulations are violated in the use' of it. It is contemplated that the reflector will be distributed in the United States to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationery vehicles. The reflective efficiency is represented to be up to ten times that of conventional reflectors, such as those 'required by law' on motor vehicles. The photograph you enclosed shows the reflectors mounted on a large, wide truck or trailer. The reflector 'can be installed with simple hand tools', on either the front or rear of the vehicle. It is apparent from your letter that Panda intends the reflector to be an aftermarket device, and one that is capable of installation by the vehicle owner. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the reflector as an aftermarket device, and there is no Federal prohibition applicable to installation of the reflector by a vehicle owner. There is a general prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which modifications may not be performed to vehicles in use, by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, if they result in rendering inoperable, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Should the reflective efficiency and mounting location of your reflector result in a reduced ability of drivers of other vehicles to perceive the turn and stop signals of the vehicle on which the reflector is mounted, we would regard the turn and stop signals to have been rendered inoperable in part within the meaning of the prohibition. Thus, you should ensure that the device would not have this effect. Supplementary lighting devices are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion. We are returning your sample. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3084OpenMr. Robert J. Wahls, Freedman Seating Company, 400 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL 60062; Mr. Robert J. Wahls Freedman Seating Company 400 Academy Drive Northbrook IL 60062; Dear Mr. Wahls: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection o deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 21 specifies that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, *provided* structural integrity of the seats is maintained.; Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of th seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.; I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding th force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1543OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1974 to Dr. Gregory askin whether the five master cylinder reservoir designs indicated would meet he requirements of S5.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75.; Each of these designs appears to conform to S5.4.1 providing that th reservoir capacity requirements of S5.4.2 are met. It appears that Designs (3) and (4) would require additional fluid for the clutch.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1056OpenMr. Gorou Utsunomiya, Branch Manager, Toyo Kogyo USA Rep. Office, 28777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo USA Rep. Office 28777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya:#This is in reply to your letter of March 15, 1973 asking our conformation of your understanding of the illumination requirements of Standard No. 101 as it applies to certain controls.#Your understanding is correct. Only the controls listed in Column 1 of Table 1 must be illuminated, and if any of those controls are located on the steering column, illumination need not be provided. If you provide illumination for other controls, the intensity need not be adjustable.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3591OpenDwight Hicks, Jr., 1208 Balthis Drive, Apt. B, Gastonia, NC 28052; Dwight Hicks Jr. 1208 Balthis Drive Apt. B Gastonia NC 28052; Dear Mr. Hicks: This responds to your recent inquiry regarding the applicability o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 to a warning device you plan to manufacture. That device is a rectangular sign with a base. The sign has the word 'HELP' in reflective letters on its surface and is designed to be illuminated by a cyalume light stick attached to the top of the sign. The sign is intended either to be mounted on a vehicle or to be erected on the road.; Section 3 of Standard 125 provides that the standard does not apply t warning devices which have 'self-contained energy sources' used to illuminate the device. Although the cyalume light stick used in your device would not provide a very bright source of illumination, the light stick would constitute such an energy source. Therefore, the warning device you describe does not appear to be subject to that standard. This conclusion applies only to the device as described in your submission to us. Subsequent design modifications regarding this energy source could change the agency's conclusion.; With regard to your question as to a recommended color to be used i your sign, section 5.3 of Standard 125 specifies the colors the agency has determined to be most appropriate for use in warning devices. We recommend that you use those colors.; Page 3 of your submission to us includes what appears to b instructions to users of your device. Those instructions state that failure to attach the light sticks to the sign would be a violation of our standards. Neither Standard 125 nor the statute under which it was issued applies to users of warning devices. Instead, they apply to the manufacturers, distributors and sellers of warning devices. These parties are prohibited from manufacturing or selling warning devices which, although subject to the standard, do not comply with our standard. Therefore, we urge deleting the last sentence of the first numbered paragraph on page 3.; If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4254OpenMs. Diane Le Mire, Traffic Administrator, Equus Products, Inc., 17291-B Mt. Herrmann Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708; Ms. Diane Le Mire Traffic Administrator Equus Products Inc. 17291-B Mt. Herrmann Street Fountain Valley CA 92708; Dear Ms. Le Mire: Thank you for your letter asking how our regulations would affect th manufacturing, importing, and distribution of a shade device for a vehicle. According to the sales brochure included with your letter, your product, which is called 'VENTSHADES,' is a stainless steel shade that is designed to be installed on the top of a vehicle's window frame. The purpose of the device is to allow vehicle occupants to partially lower their windows when it is raining and keep the rain out. In addition, the brochure says that the ventshade can reduce glare. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is helpful.; I believe some background information about the agency may be o assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a foreign company importing an item of vehicle equipment into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process.; We do not have any standards that directly apply to your product. Th agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The performance and other requirements of the standard apply to any item of glazing material used in a vehicle, including a windscreen made of plastic or other glazing materials. Your product is not made of a glazing material, but is instead made of steel, and is thus not covered by Standard No. 205.; However, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to th requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, use of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individua vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1406OpenMr. Elmer Rattner, Rebcor, Inc., P.O. Box 156, 3300 Dixie Highway, Fairfield, OH 45014; Mr. Elmer Rattner Rebcor Inc. P.O. Box 156 3300 Dixie Highway Fairfield OH 45014; Dear Mr. Rattner: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and subsequen telephone conversation with Mr. Feldman of this office asking whether the motorcycle helmets you manufacture may be labeled with the DOT symbol before the March 1, 1974, effective date of Standard 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; The NHTSA's position is that it would be 'false and misleading,' withi the meaning of the statute, for a DOT symbol to appear without qualification on helmets manufactured before the effective date of the standard. We do, however, consider it permissible to have a DOT symbol on the helmet if it is covered by a label, not easily removable, that states in letters at least one-quarter of an inch high:; >>>NO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS HELMET.<<< Further, since the requirements of the standard only apply to helmet that fit headform size C, manufactured on or after March 1, 1974, and will not apply to helmets that do not fit headform size C until extended to those sizes by a future amendment to the standard, the DOT symbol required for helmets that fit headform size C should not appear on any other helmets until the standard is made effective for those other sizes.; You also asked whether a manufacturer would be allowed to label helmet with a statement to the effect that, although no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a helmet of that size, it meets all Federal performance requirements for helmets of other sizes. We would have no objection to such a statement, provided the manufacturer ensures that it is true.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4604OpenMrs. Blanche Kozak 49 Sorrento Avenue Methuen, MA 01844; Mrs. Blanche Kozak 49 Sorrento Avenue Methuen MA 01844; "Dear Mrs. Kozak: Thank you for your letter concerning the applicabl classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job. Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new 'motor vehicles' and new items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no authority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a 'motorcycle' for the purposes of our safety standards. NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohbits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cushman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State. I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters. Statement One: You said: 'I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit.' (emphasis added) Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massachusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles. Statement Two: You then noted that 'similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles.' Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called 'motorcycles' to the larger vehicle group called 'motor vehicles.' As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, 'motorcycle' is a subset within the broad category of 'motor vehicles.' Other subsets of 'motor vehicles' include 'passenger car,' 'truck,' and 'bus.' Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles. Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a 'motorcycle.' Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards require Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles. Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle 'does not have a solid door, only a canvas one.' Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a 'motorcycle,' our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it. Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees 'were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act,' because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle. Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts state government. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0647OpenMr. Vincent G. Grey, Engineering Manager, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 1413 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Vincent G. Grey Engineering Manager Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1413 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Grey: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1972, forwarding to us draft of a TTMA Recommended Practice concerning GAWR and GVWR that you have developed as a guide for the truck trailer industry. You ask whether the draft is consistent with the applicable regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568).; The draft which you submitted is consistent with the regulation although it is much more specific than the regulations and represents just one method of achieving compliance. We appreciate your efforts in making the substance of the regulations available to this large segment of the industry.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3968OpenThe Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr., SD-185, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510, Attn: Mike Manuel; The Honorable Donald W. Riegle Jr. SD-185 United States Senate Washington DC 20510 Attn: Mike Manuel; Dear Senator Riegle: This letter is in further response to your inquiry concerning schoo bus seating issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr. I regret the delay in our response.; Mr. Furr is interested in amending our safety standards to limit th number of passengers that a school bus may carry. He suggests reducing the passenger capacity of a standard 72- passenger school bus by the use of different seat configurations.; I would like to begin by explaining that our agency has two sets o regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1426), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. One of those standards is Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Your constituent is correct that our safety standards do not limit th overall passenger capacity of a school bus. This is because the agency is not aware of any safety problem associated with the way manufacturers rate the capacity of their buses. We believe that manufacturers should be able to design their school buses to carry any number of passengers, provided that the appropriate occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 222 are met.; Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 222 states that: >>>The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat i expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.; The number of seating positions in a bench seat, expressed by 'W,' i calculated to determine the amount of force school bus seats must withstand in order to provide adequate crash protection for passengers. School bus seats must comply with the standard's requirements for forward and rearward performance by withstanding specified amounts of applied energy. The amount of energy applied to a particular bench seat is dependent on the number of seating positions. As that number increases, the amount of force the seat must withstand likewise increases.; In accordance with S4.1, a 39-inch bench seat is assumed to have designated seating positions. We recognize that such seats may be occupied by fewer persons, but that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number. School buses with 24 39-inch bench seats are therefore assumed to carry 72 passengers. The school bus manufacturer must ensure that each bench seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and all other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on the calculations of seating positions and the required force applications.; Mr. Furr suggests alternative seating configurations for school buses He suggests that bench seats on a school bus, currently designated by a manufacturer to carry 72 passengers, should be designed with rows of 47-inch and 31-inch bench seats. Mr. Furr believed that 47-inch bench seat and a 31-inch bench seat could carry 3 and 2 passengers, respectively, for a total passengers capacity of 60 for the school bus. He suggests a change in the regulation to reflect this design change.; NHTSA is not aware of any data indicating that there is a safet problem associated with the seating capacity of school buses to justify a rulemaking action amending Standard No. 222. From our experience with Standard No. 222, some school districts appear to have concerns that actions reducing seating capacity in their vehicles might result in the need to purchase additional buses at substantial costs. Since we are not aware of any information indicating that a safety need exists to regulate the capacity of a school bus, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend Standard No. 222 in the manner suggested by Mr. Furr. Further, no amendment is necessary to permit local school districts to order seat configurations such as those suggested by Mr. Furr. The districts may do so now as long as manufacturers can ensure that their school buses meet all the applicable performance requirements of our safety standards.; The second set of regulations administered by NHTSA was issued unde the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, apply to state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), *Pupil Transportation Safety*, contains guidelines for the identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. HSPS 17 does not set a limit on the seating capacity of school buses. It does, however, recommend that school districts design their bus routes to utilize fully the capacity of the bus, while avoiding standees. You may wish to consult with the State of Michigan to determine to what extent that state has adopted the provisions of HSPS 17.; Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. I hope thi information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.