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: aiam4489OpenRobert L. Bernard Attorney at Law 12342 Wrenthrope Drive Houston, TX 77031; Robert L. Bernard Attorney at Law 12342 Wrenthrope Drive Houston TX 77031; "Dear Mr. Bernard: This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR 571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufactures. It does not. Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirements, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 nor Part 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4523OpenMr. Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Research and Development P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio, TX 78284; Mr. Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Research and Development P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio TX 78284; "Dear Mr. Klusmeyer: This is in reply to your letter of July 11, l988 to Mr. Vinson of this office with reference to a 'deceleration' or 'pre-braking' concept. As you presently envision the implementation of this concept, an amber lamp would be activated when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator pedal, and would be extinguished automatically when the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal. You believe that the optimum location appears to be immediately adjacent to the center highmounted stoplamp. You believe further that this location has already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, and ask whether it is precluded by Standard No. l08. Your belief is based upon the Federal Register notice of October l983 adopting the center highmounted stoplamp, which stated that 'Other types of lamps or added functions such as deceleration signals may be desirable and should be investigated.' However, this was in the context of alternatives to adoption of the center lamp, and relates to the agency's statement in the same paragraph that 'with additional research, more nearly optimum specifications for stoplamp configurations may be developed.' Indeed, the agency made it quite clear in prohibiting combining the center lamp with any other lamp or reflector (paragraph S4.4) that no added functions were contemplated or desirable. Under paragraph S4.4 therefore, a deceleration lamp and the center stop lamp could not be combined. S4.4 would not prohibit an amber lamp adjacent to the center lamp. However, paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits optional lighting equipment if it would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. Your letter indicates that the deceleration signal is deactivated by renewed pressure on the accelerator pedal (and not by pressure on the brake pedal) so that a following driver would be presented with both amber and red signals, creating the possibility of confusion, and hence impairment. You have not indicated whether the deceleration lamp would be steady-burning or flashing, but we believe the possibility of confusion would increase were the lamp flashing. However, were the lamp to be extinguished when the brake pedal is applied (which activates the stop lamps), then the possibility of confusion would be substantially lessened. With respect to deceleration warning systems, last year the Flxible Corporation determined that a system installed on its buses created an impairment, and hence a noncompliance with paragraph S4.l.3. The company then conducted a notification and remedy campaign (87V-089) as required by statute. The company concluded that its flashing amber deceleration lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stoplamps. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1721OpenMs. Janet K. Marcus, 258 Soundview Avenue, White Plains, NY 10606; Ms. Janet K. Marcus 258 Soundview Avenue White Plains NY 10606; Dear Ms. Marcus: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1974, asking severa questions regarding automobile recall campaigns, particularly regarding owner identification and notification. You ask whether there has been a proposal before the NHTSA to 'tie in' vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) with automobile registrations, and ask whether the Federal government can become a central data bank for such information.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, motor vehicl manufacturers have been required since November 1970 to maintain the names of first purchasers (Pub. L. 81-265, 84 Stat. 262 (15 U.S.C. 1402(f)). In addition, manufacturers have been required under NHTSA Defects Reports regulations (49 CFR S 573.6) to maintain owner lists, including VIN's, of all vehicles subject to notification campaigns. Since August of 1974, manufacturers have all been required to submit to NHTSA the VIN's of all vehicles subject to a campaign that have not been corrected after a campaign is approximately 6 months old. The NHTSA is presently establishing procedures by which these VIN's will be available to the public.; The NHTSA does not contemplate becoming a general clearinghouse fo VIN's. State registration information appears to be the best source for obtaining the addresses of vehicle owners. In fact, recently enacted amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470, October 27, 1974) now specify that manufacturers obtain the names of vehicle owners through State records. Manufacturer's records of first purchasers are to be used to notify when present owners cannot be found through State records or other similar sources. The Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council has not discussed these new amendments, but we expect that their issuance will satisfy the Council's concern for locating vehicle owners in cases of defects.; I have enclosed copies of NHTSA regulations dealing with notificatio of defects.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0833OpenMr. Reginald Graham, Auto Top, Inc., 10972 Chicago Drive, Zeeland, MI 49464; Mr. Reginald Graham Auto Top Inc. 10972 Chicago Drive Zeeland MI 49464; Dear Mr. Graham: This is in reply to your letter of August 25, 1972, concerning th application of section S4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 to a folding dinette seat manufactured by your company for use in recreational vehicles.; The seat you describe has a back that folds flat to make a bed. A sea back that travels through such a large arc does not fall within the limited exceptions provided in S4.3 for a 'back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants,' and it must therefore be equipped with a restraining device conforming to S4.3. The quoted language applies to the type of seat whose back is adjustable through a few degrees of arc to provide a variety of riding positions for persons of different sizes and postures. A seat back that folds to the point where it no longer restrains the longitudinal motion of the occupant is required to have a device that prevents it from assuming that position accidentally.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4870OpenMr. Takeo Wakamatsu Executive Vice President and General Manager Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. Bridgeport Office 100 Center Square Road P.O. Box 464 Bridgeport, NJ 08014; Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu Executive Vice President and General Manager Mitsubishi Motors America Inc. Bridgeport Office 100 Center Square Road P.O. Box 464 Bridgeport NJ 08014; "Dear Mr. Wakamatsu: This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter t Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for 'derating' the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request. NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles. I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0560OpenMr. Paul A. Tatarski, Manager Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Paul A. Tatarski Manager Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Tatarski: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971, to Lawrence R Schneider requesting an interpretation on the mounting of front identification lamps.; Standard No. 108 requires that identification lamps be mounted 'a close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' (Table II). The 'vehicle' is the vehicle as completed, and not the incomplete vehicle. Therefore, if the 'top' of the vehicle, *i*.*e*., the highest point, is a location other than the cab, the identification lamps must be mounted at the 'top', and not on the cab, if it is practicable to do so. Generally, manufacturers of van-body vehicles have found it practicable to mount identification lamps on the van body. Modified lighting diagram O-1 which you enclosed originally depicted the correct location of identification lamps for a truck with a van body.; If the manufacturer of the cab portion of a truck has place identification lamps on the cab, the lamps need not be removed when the lamps necessary for conformance are added at the 'top.'; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5298OpenMr. Pat McCue Allied Service Systems Manufacturing P.O. Box 6027 Phoenix, AZ 85005; Mr. Pat McCue Allied Service Systems Manufacturing P.O. Box 6027 Phoenix AZ 85005; Dear Mr. McCue: This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of thi agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response. The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on 'how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying compliance to these standards. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a 'seat belt assembly' as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle.' Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a 'seat belt assembly,' and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold. If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehicle. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified 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. I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our understanding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law. In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limits the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment. You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5332OpenMr. Daniel T. Mason Product Development Engineer Avery Dennison - Automotive Division P. O. Box 1019 Troy, MI 48099-1019; Mr. Daniel T. Mason Product Development Engineer Avery Dennison - Automotive Division P. O. Box 1019 Troy MI 48099-1019; "Dear Mr. Mason: This responds to your request for an interpretation o labeling requirements under 49 CFR part 541 Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard. Your letter has been referred to my office for a reply. You asked whether a label that leaves a fluorescent 'footprint' of a vehicle identification number (VIN) on a vehicle part, complies with section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) of part 541. The answer is yes. Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that if a theft program label is removed from a vehicle part, 'residual parts of the label' be left in the area of the part where the label was affixed. The residual parts, also known as 'footprints,' provide investigators evidence that a label was originally present. 'Footprint' requirements for theft labels were discussed in the preamble to the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 541 (See 50 FR 43166, at 43174, October 24, 1985): ... this standard requires only that removal of the labels must leave residual parts of the label ... , on the part, and that these residual parts must be discernible by trained investigators. For purposes of this requirement, 'discernible' does not mean that residual parts must be visible under natural light. (50 FR 43174) In your letter, you stated that Avery Dennison's VIN marked labels have a fluorescent agent that transfers onto vehicle parts when the label is applied. If the label is removed, and the formerly labelled area is viewed under an ultraviolet light, a reproduction of the VIN is visible. If the labels, when removed, leave 'residual part s of the label ... on the part' that is 'discernible' under ultraviolet light, the Avery Dennison label would fulfill section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). I hope this responds to your question. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0130OpenMr. J. Wuddel, Ing., Westfalische Metall Industrie KG, Hueck and Company, 4780 Lippstadt/Westf., Germany; Mr. J. Wuddel Ing. Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck and Company 4780 Lippstadt/Westf. Germany; Dear Mr. Wuddel: Thank you for your letter of February 11, 1969, to Mr. David A. Fay concerning your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 108.; Subsection (d) of Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 states 'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item or equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard...'; Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is now in effect and permits red or amber rear turn signal lamps, the States cannot restrict these lamps to be red only.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam3931OpenMr. Jerry D. Williams, Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corporation, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your February 13, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of the agency's definition of a bus. A 'bus' is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulation is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act require manufacturers to certify that their vehicles as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. 'Designated seating position' is defined in S571.3 as 'any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats....' Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheel chair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; The vehicles you manufacture must be certified as meeting all th standards applicable to those vehicle types. For example, you must certify your MPV's as complying with all the safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture a MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.; In the materials you enclosed with your letter, you indicate that som of the vehicles you manufacture are equipped with wheelchair lifts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a final rule recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029, March 27, 1985) amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components* to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the Standard.; 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.