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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1382OpenMr. G. W. Way, Correct Manufacturing Corporation, P.O. Box 689, Delaware, OH 43015; Mr. G. W. Way Correct Manufacturing Corporation P.O. Box 689 Delaware OH 43015; Dear Mr. Way: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1974, asking abou the category into which a Divco truck would fall and the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 121 (Air Brake Systems) and 105a (Hydraulic Brake Systems) to them. The vehicles you have described are 'trucks' for purposes of the safety standards. The applicability of the braking standards is simple: trucks equipped with air brakes must conform to Standard 121, and those equipped with hydraulic brakes must conform to Standard 105a.; I enclose a sheet telling you how to obtain copies of the motor vehicl safety standards and regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2957OpenS. B. Aronson, Pennsylvania Notaries, 625 Stanwix Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222; S. B. Aronson Pennsylvania Notaries 625 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh PA 15222; Dear Mr. Aronson: This is in response to your letter of January 4, 1979, requesting ou opinion as to whether a rubber stamp which contains the odometer information on the newest Pennsylvania title could be applied to older titles in lieu of having a separate form attached.; There are no legal bars to your recommendation. In fact, the stamp yo recommend makes more sense than a separate form. A separate form can be removed and replaced with another sheet. A stamp cannot be so abused.; We appreciate and support your recommendation. Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3645OpenMr. Jim Cowen, Manager, Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, MO 64802; Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. Box 1868 Joplin MO 64802; Dear Mr. Cowen: This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of 'sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks' indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacturer, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.; When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuan to 49 CFR 573 *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. Under this regulation either a component or a vehicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles or more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.; We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Bod and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1678OpenMr. Kenneth Winiarski, Field Enterprises Education Corp., Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, IL 60654; Mr. Kenneth Winiarski Field Enterprises Education Corp. Merchandise Mart Plaza Chicago IL 60654; Dear Mr. Winiarski: Your letter of October 8, 1974, to Mr. Bobby Boaz has been forwarded t this office for reply. You appear to be interested in obtaining some general statements regarding the applicability of motor vehicle safety standards to different types of motor vehicles.; We attempt to apply each Federal motor vehicle safety standard to a wide a range of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment as is reasonable, practicable and appropriate. It is not entirely accurate, however, to say that the standards apply to the performance of equipment which vehicles are required to have. The standards are divided conceptually into three types: Those which apply to new vehicles, those which apply to motor vehicle equipment (*e.g.* tires, child seats, etc.) and those which apply to both vehicles and equipment. In the case of a standard which applies to vehicles, the tests employed by the standard can take into account vehicle structure, weight, and design. In other words it is the method by which equipment is integrated into a vehicle that is important, rather than the performance of the equipment taken alone.; Standards which apply to vehicles specify the particular vehicle type to which they apply. Most early vehicle standards applied only to passenger cars. Since that time we have attempted to expand the applicability of some of these standards to other vehicle types. In each case, as I indicated above, a standard must be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of vehicle to which it is applied. In some cases, this is a matter of technology as you suggest. In others, however, the question may be one of safety need. For example, some standards do not apply to trailers (*e.g.*, Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of interior materials') or to equipment for use in trailers (No. 205, 'Glazing materials') because State laws prohibit people from riding in trailers. In this regard standards can also be directed at particular vehicle types to alleviate safety problems particular to them. A good example of this is Standard No. 217, 'Bus window retention and release.'; Your statements regarding seat belts and the applicability of Standard No. 208, 209, and 210 are not correct. While these requirements are somewhat complex, I believe an appropriate summary would be that seat belts and anchorages are required at all permanent seating positions including lateral or rearward positions, in all motor vehicles except trailers, motorcycles, and the passenger seats in buses.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4180OpenMr. Ivan Chien, Manager, Lee-Chien, Inc., P.O. Box 56-104, Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C.; Mr. Ivan Chien Manager Lee-Chien Inc. P.O. Box 56-104 Taipei Taiwan R.O.C.; Dear Mr. Chien: This responds to your letter dated May 28, 1986, asking for informatio about certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Enclosed are copies of an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form for ordering copies of safety standards, and the copy of Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors, which you requested.; This agency has issued no safety standard regarding fog lamps. However S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, provides that no additional lighting equipment, such as fog lamps, which impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 shall be installed on motor vehicles. This prohibition applies to parties installing your product on vehicles, and not to you as the manufacturer of the product. This is because the installer is the only party which can ensure that the reflectors are installed so that they do not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Generally speaking, this requirement of Standard No. 108 applies only to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories added to a vehicle after that purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories may be added to vehicles.; This general rule is, however, limited by the application of th provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act). That section specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' NHTSA considers it an element of design on vehicles that they have lighting and other equipment which are required by Standard No. 108 and whose effectiveness is not impaired by additional lighting equipment. Therefore, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing a fog lamp would have to take care that the fog lamp, by its intensity, color or placement, does not impair the performance of required lighting equipment.; If the installation of your fog lamps would impair that effectiveness a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing such fog lamps would be rendering inoperative that design element of the vehicle, and thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle on which this element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation. You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to a vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle. Hence, if your aftermarket reflectors are sold to and installed by vehicle owners, those persons would not be subject to the prohibition of section 108 referenced above.; You should also be aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act o manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as reflective mirrors or fog lamps. If either you, as a manufacturer, or this agency determines that your product does not comply with an applicable safety standard or that the products contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to remedy that noncompliance or defect. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if an item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:; >>>1. repair the product so that the noncompliance or defect i removed, or; 2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalen product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, you as the manufacturer must bea the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4929OpenMr. Floyd J. Barkman Vice President Sales & Marketing Collins Bus Corporation P.O. Box 2946 Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946; Mr. Floyd J. Barkman Vice President Sales & Marketing Collins Bus Corporation P.O. Box 2946 Hutchinson KS 67504-2946; "Dear Mr. Barkman: This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, t Ms. Susan Schruth of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Because your questions concern a final rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Ms. Schruth has referred your letter to our office for response. Your questions are as follows. 1. Based on a final ruling that went into effect September 1, 1991, all MPV and/or buses with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 pounds are required to have Type 1 or Type 2 occupant restraints at all seated positions. Also, all outboard occupants or passengers are required to have three point shoulder harness. We also understand school buses are exempt from the outboard shoulder harness. Are these statements correct and are there any exceptions to these rulings? Your understanding of the September 1, 1991, final rule is correct. The only exception to these requirements is that the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement does not apply to rear outboard seating positions located adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle to allow access to more rearward seating positions. I am enclosing a copy of the Federal Register notice for this final rule. A discussion of this exception is found on page 46258. A discussion of the agency's rationale for excluding small school buses from the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement is found on page 46260 of the same notice. 2. We build under 10,000 GVW buses for the day care industry that use school bus interiors with school bus safety seats and lap belts at all locations. The exterior of the bus is commercial. Would these buses require the outboard shoulder harness? The answer to this question depends on whether these vehicles are classified as school buses. Under NHTSA's certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle's type is determined using the definitions set out in 49 CFR 571.3. A school bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, to and from school or school-related events. A program for pre-primary age children is considered a school if the program is primarily educational rather than custodial in nature. If your vehicle is a not a school bus, it must comply with the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement. If the vehicle is a school bus, it does not have to comply with this requirement. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0439OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1971, to the Acting Chie Counsel, concerning several matters involving the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). In your letter you request an interpretation of whether S 573.5(b) requires reports of quarterly production figures irrespective of whether or not the manufacturer has a safety-related defect campaign to report for that or any other quarter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated in the denial of the petition for reconsideration (36 F.R. 14774), the requirement that production figures be reported is related to more than the particular quarter in which the information is submitted. Consequently, this information must be submitted for each quarter regardless of whether a defect notification campaign takes place during that or any quarter.; In your letter you also petition for certain modifications to th regulation. These are discussed separately below.; >>>1. You petition that, if the quarterly production figures ar required regardless of the existence of defect notification campaigns, we exempt 'recreational vehicle manufacturers' from this requirement. This request is denied. Under present standards and regulations, as you know, recreational vehicles may be classified in any one of numerous vehicle categories set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. We cannot consider your petition without your specifying the types of vehicles for which you request the exemption and a justification for each particular type of vehicle, based upon the specific characteristics of the vehicle that you believe warrant our granting an exemption. I add, however, that we find your arguments concerning the burden of reporting production figures to be insubstantial. The ability of the NHTSA to monitor notification campaigns clearly outweighs, in our view, the burden of reporting vehicle production figures. Furthermore, we do not agree with the position you take, that the proposed requirements of Docket 71-11, 'Manufacturers Identification', regarding estimated yearly production figures can in any way serve as a substitute for actual production figures in terms of providing hard data on the effectiveness of notification campaigns, on the percentage of production campaigned, or in terms of monitoring manufacturers' estimates of the number of vehicles involved.; 2. For the reasons stated in the denial of petition for reconsideratio we deem your petition for additional notice on the requirements for reporting production figures (S573.5(b))to be without merit, and it is accordingly denied.<<<; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2404OpenMr. Brian Gill, Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities, American Honda Motor Co. Inc., P.O. Box 50, Gardena, CA, 90247; Mr. Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities American Honda Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1976, asking for a interpretation of the spacing requirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps specified in Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Standard No. 108 requires that motorcycle turn signal lamps be locate so that their edges are at least 4 inches from the edge of the headlamps (on the front) and tail or stop lamps (on the rear). You have asked for confirmation 'that the minimum separation distance is measured between the edges of the illuminated lenses of the respective lamps on a line passing through each lamp . . . rather than being measured on a horizontal line between two planes touching the edges of the illuminated lenses'.; This will confirm your interpretation that the minimum separatio distance is to be measured at the point where the edges of the two lamps are closest to each other.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0593OpenMr. A. N. Schuppert, Vice President of Engineering, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., 1331 S. Washington, Lansing, MI 48920; Mr. A. N. Schuppert Vice President of Engineering Diamond Reo Trucks Inc. 1331 S. Washington Lansing MI 48920; Dear Mr. Schuppert: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1971, concerning th Certification regulations, and the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 567, 568). You state that you do not believe the publication of December 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 23571), responds to certain questions you raised in your docket submission of October 27, 1971, and request that we clarify these points for you.; You stated that one problem not dealt with by the amendment of Decembe 10 is that it is impractical for you to place multiple tire sizes (you use an example of nine sizes for one model line) on a small certification label. However, we believe the preamble to the notice of December 10 deals directly with the problem you raise. It said, 'as on some vehicles it will be difficult to affix the required label in the designated location, because of space limitations, . . .' 'multicolumn labels or adjacent labels in two or more parts are permitted.' The provision for listing multiple tire sizes is optional with the manufacturer, and if it presents difficulties a manufacturer may list a single GAWR and GVWR based on the specific tires with which the vehicle, as manufactured, is equipped.; Your letter of October 27, 1971, indicates that you have traditionall furnished a vehicle identification plate with vehicles you manufacture which specifies a 'maximum GVW rating' and you raise questions concerning possible discrepancies between the 'maximum GVW rating' on the Vehicle Identification Plate and 'GAWR' and 'GVWR' on the Certification label. The position taken by NHTSA is that the only values that should be provided for gross vehicle or gross axle weight rating are those on the certification label. Any other capacity placed on the vehicle should be clearly and unambiguously described, and should not be represented in any way that it could be confused with GAWR and GVWR. Furthermore, while the GAWR and GVWR may be placed on a vehicle identification plate in the case of a vehicle for which you are the final-stage manufacturer, it may cause problems if the vehicle is an incomplete vehicle (unless pursuant to S 567.5(b) and 568.7, you as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assume the legal responsibility for the vehicle). The value on the identification plate might conflict with the GAWR and GVWR placed on the certification label affixed by the final-stage manufacturer.; The answer to the issues raised in your October 27 letter are a follows:; 1. Your first problem appears to be that vehicles previously rated a Class 8 under State law, based on axle capability, will under the definitions of GVWR and GAWR now be Class 7 due to the tires generally furnished with the vehicle. The GVWR rating on the certification label is not intended to replace the method under which vehicles are classified under State laws. If States use GVWR as a basis for classification without understanding that the criteria for determining this figure differ from those used previously, the problem should be brought to the States' attention by affected parties.; 2. Your second and third questions concern the differences between th vehicle identification plate and the GVWR on the certification label when the final manufacturer makes changes in the chassis equipment. Your question appears to assume that you will have the responsibility for the certification label on an incomplete vehicle. This is not the case. Except when the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes complete legal responsibility under S 567.5(b) and 568.7, the certification label including GVWR and GAWR, is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer's duty is to furnish information concerning weight ratings and conformity with the standards in the Part 568 document, in which you can easily provide as detailed information as you wish. Any permanent labels that you affix as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer are not part of our regulatory scheme and are your own responsibility. If your own 'identification plate' causes you problems, discontinuing the practice would be a possible solution.; In your question 4, you ask whether the ultimate retail customer i considered a final manufacturer if he makes changes that affect GVWR and GAWR. The answer is that the ultimate retail customer is a final-stage manufacturer if he fulfills the definition of that category in S 568.3. If the vehicle he purchases is an incomplete vehicle as defined in that section, then he has the same responsibility as any other final-stage manufacturer to affix a label with the correct GVWR and GAWR information. If he purchases a complete vehicle, then he is not a manufacturer and need not make changes in the labels regardless of what he does with the tires. Merely changing tires, or purchasing a vehicle complete except for tires, would not make such a purchaser a final-stage manufacturer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4883OpenMr. Andreas Geis Robert Bosch GMBH Automotive Division K4/EWM13 Postfach 1163 W-7580 Buehl Germany; Mr. Andreas Geis Robert Bosch GMBH Automotive Division K4/EWM13 Postfach 1163 W-7580 Buehl Germany; "Dear Mr. Geis: This responds to your letter asking how a vehicl should be loaded when determining compliance with Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You suggested that the vehicle's loading state could influence the position and size of the vision areas. As explained below, a vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104 under each and every loading condition between and including unloaded and loaded to the maximum recommended weight. Standard No. 104 does not specify a loading condition for the development of vision areas, nor does SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), presently incorporated by reference into the Standard. Furthermore, there is no mention of the vehicle loading condition in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 104. Since no loading condition is specified in the standard, the question arises whether the absence of loading conditions means that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 104 if it complies with the vision area requirements at any single loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded or whether the vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements at every loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded. NHTSA has recently discussed this issue at length in an October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. (copy enclosed). As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions can only be overcome if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. Applying this test to the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104, we begin with the presumption that the vision area requirements must be met under all loading conditions. We must then examine the standard as a whole and its purposes to see if there are any indications of an intention to limit Standard No. 104 to a particular loading condition or conditions. Nothing in the language of Standard No. 104 suggests an intention to limit the standard to a particular vehicle loading condition. In fact, there is some indication in the language of the standard that it's requirements are intended to be met irrespective of loading condition (see sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3). Moreover, the purpose of the standard, to ensure driver visibility by requiring wiper systems to clear a specific portion of the windshield, is only served if the wiper system functions adequately at all loading conditions. Therefore, since the language and purpose of Standard No. 104 indicate no intention to limit the standard's requirements to a particular vehicle loading condition, the presumption that a wiper system must comply at all loading conditions stands. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.