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: aiam0852OpenMr. W.G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley GA 31030; Mr. W.G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1972, requesting a opinion as to appropriate steps to take in certifying vehicles you complete when the chassis, as delivered to you, are equipped with tires which are inadequate for the loads the vehicles are intended to carry. You state you are presently certifying the vehicles on the basis of the load ratings of correct tires, arranging for these tires to be installed by the dealer, and requesting a notarized statement from him to that effect. As a basis for this procedure, you refer to our previous correspondence to you dated March 24, 1972, in which we authorized a somewhat similar procedure involving certain school buses.; As stated to you in our letter of March 24, the procedure outline therein 'is allowed only as to chassis that have already been received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter . . .' Blue Bird is the final-stage manufacturer, and is responsible for the weight ratings applied to the vehicles presently in question. These ratings must be consistent with the definitions of those terms in the regulations, and must reflect the characteristics of the vehicles at the time of their sale to the consumer, assuming further manufacturing does not occur. Although you receive assurances from a dealer that he will change the tires, this will not absolve you from responsibility under the regulations should the dealer fail to do so. We are of the opinion that the best procedure for Blue Bird to follow is to replace the tires before delivery to the dealer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1740OpenMr. J. L. Brown, President, Brown Truck and Trailer Mfg. Co., P.O. Box 1281, Charlotte, NC 28201; Mr. J. L. Brown President Brown Truck and Trailer Mfg. Co. P.O. Box 1281 Charlotte NC 28201; Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your December 11, 1974, question whether Standard No 121, *Air brake systems*, or any other Federal brake regulation applies to trailers that are equipped with electric brakes. In a January 2, 1975, telephone conversation with Mr. Herlihy of this office, you indicated that the brake system on your products is entirely electrical.; No Federal braking standards apply to your electrically-brake trailers. Standard No. 121 applies only to trucks, buses, and trailers that the manufacturer chooses to equip with an air brake system.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4811OpenMr. Richard Cahalan Director of Core Services Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Human Services Department of Mental Retardation 160 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114; Mr. Richard Cahalan Director of Core Services Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Human Services Department of Mental Retardation 160 North Washington Street Boston MA 02114; "Dear Mr. Cahalan: This responds to Mr. Oscar Harrell's lette requesting information about Federal regulations concerning the modification of vehicles to accommodate mentally retarded individuals. According to that letter, in response to conversations about this issue with Mr. George Shifflett of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Harrell received copies of interpretation letters from my office to Mr. Vincent Foster dated September 4, 1986 and to Mr. W.G. Milby dated November 26, 1979. These letters express NHTSA's policy concerning modifications of vehicles to accommodate the special needs of handicapped individuals and the requirement in 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibiting commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Given the public interest against restricting the mobility of the handicapped, it is the agency's policy, depending on the particular situation, to consider certain violations of that section as technical ones justified by public need. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that a van conversion company modified new Dodge Maxi-vans for your agency before they were purchased. Among the steps taken by the converter to accommodate handicapped individuals are the removal of the 'top,' the addition of a new 'bottom,' and the installation of a wheelchair lift. According to Mr. Harrell's letter, the converter, when contacted last year, stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with State and Federal regulations. You indicated, however, that the converter failed to certify that the vans, as altered, comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. I apologize for the delay in our response. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Based on your letter and the telephone conversation with my staff, it appears that the van converter would be considered an 'alterer' for purposes of of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Section 567.7 defines 'alterer' as A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale... As an alterer, section 567.7 requires the vehicle converter to do the following: (1) Supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This supplemental label must state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see 567.7(a)), (2) Provide the modified values for the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered if they are different from those shown on the original certification label (see 567.7(b)), and (3) Provide the type classification, if the vehicle as altered has a different type classification from that shown on the original certification (see 567.7(c). If the converter did not comply with these requirements, then it did not fulfill its certification responsibilities under Part 567. From what you have written to us, we assume that is the case. However, this does not in itself mean that the vehicles, as altered, do not comply with applicable safety standards or are otherwise unsafe. If you believe that the conversion of these vehicles poses a safety problem, you should contact this agency's Office of Enforcement and explain the specific safety problem. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0501OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P. O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P. O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Your inquiry concerning the certification required of seat belt installed in motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1972, has been brought to our attention. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, which governs the installation of seat belts, requires belts to conform to Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 is amended effective January 1, 1972, your question is whether a vehicle manufactured after that date must have seat belts that are certified as conforming to the new provisions of Standard No. 209.; We construe Standard No. 208 to require only that the belts conform t Standard No. 209 as it was at the time of their manufacture. Thus, a belt manufactured before January 1 that conforms to the contemporaneous (pre-amendment) version of Standard No. 209 may be installed in a vehicle manufactured after that date. A belt manufactured after January 1, must, of course, conform to the amended version of the standard.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5353OpenMr. Randolph Schwarz 141 North Madison Drive South Plainfield, NJ 07080; Mr. Randolph Schwarz 141 North Madison Drive South Plainfield NJ 07080; "Dear Mr. Schwarz: This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera o NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids. Your letter has been referred to my office for a response. As a consumer retrofitting your vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid, you had several questions concerning the possible effects that an ingredient in the brake fluid might have on elastomers used in brake systems. Your questions are answered below. You mentioned 'seal swelling additives' added to DOT 5 brake fluid, that contact various elastomers in the brake system. Your first question was, when brake fluid manufacturers combine additives with brake fluid, should consumers be concerned with the combined fluids' compatibility with various elastomers used in braking systems? Standard No. 116 defines, at S4. Definitions, brake fluid as a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system where it will contact elastomeric components made of: styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychlorophene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock, or natural rubber (NR). In order to minimize failures in hydraulic braking systems, Standard No. 116 specifies minimum performance standards for brake fluids. These performance standards include tests for styrene and butadiene rubber cups, the most common type of elastomer in a hydraulic brake system. The brake fluid manufacturer must certify that the brake fluid complies with Standard No. 116. (See S5.2.2(d).) While DOT 5 brake fluid must meet Standard No. 116, the specific ingredients in the fluid are not regulated by the standard. The brake fluid manufacturer is expected to be aware that in addition to SBR, its brake fluid may contact EPR, CR, and NR elastomers in the brake system. Thus, the brake fluid manufacturers must ensure that contact between the fluid and the above stated elastomers would not result in a safety-related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the brake fluid manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the brake fluid contains a safety related defect, the brake fluid manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective brake fluid and remedying the problem free of charge. Your second question was whether DOT 5 brake fluid's compliance with Standard No. 116 ensures compatibility with elastomers. The answer is yes, for SBR elastomers. Further, besides Standard No. 116, the brake fluid manufacturer is subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, that were previously discussed. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of safety related defects resulting from other ingredients used with brake fluid. Your third question was whether Standard No. 116 only addresses SBR compatibility with brake fluid. Standard No. 116, at S4, addresses brake fluid that contacts four elastomer types. However, the tests specified in the standard are only of the most commonly used SBR cups. Your fourth question was, if Standard No. 116 only mentions SBR elastomer, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification, or to discuss elastomer compatibility on the brake fluid container? Information discussing the elastomer compatibility of the brake fluid, or other ingredients, may be voluntarily placed on brake fluid containers. Standard No. 116 specifies information that brake fluid containers must carry. However, Standard No. 116 does not prohibit manufacturers from noting on brake fluid containers, compatibility of the silicone brake fluid, or other ingredients, with various elastomers. Finally, you asked what Standard No. 116 specifies as the maximum viscosity for DOT 5 brake fluid, at -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Standard No. 116 specifies, at S5.1.3(c), that the maximum viscosity is 900 centistokes (cSt). I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2496OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P. O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 2, 1976, request fo confirmation that head and knee contact areas specified under S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, may be measured by the use of the direct transfer of a medium (such as spray paint) from the head or knee form to the seating surface with the addition of the area that falls within nonintersecting lines that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. You also request confirmation that the impact requirements of S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, and S5.3.2.2 may be conducted on seating that is attached to a test fixture instead of being mounted in a bus body. In both cases you suggest rulemaking action to make your recommended procedures a part of the standard.; When a standard does not specify a particular aspect of a requirement such as the means to measure contact area, a manufacturer is entitled to use any reasonable method it chooses to demonstrate, in the exercise of due care, that the regulated vehicle or item of equipment in fact conforms to the requirement. For your information, the agency intends to use a contact medium test similar to the test you describe and will include in its computation of 'contact area' the maximum area that falls within nonintersecting line segments that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. The outer bounds of direct contact do not include areas that represent splattering of the transfer medium without contact of the nead or knee form.; In response to your second request, Standard No. 222 is a vehicl standard. Therefore, the impact requirements have meaning only as they apply to seating when installed in a vehicle. For this reason the agency intends to conduct its compliance testing with the seating installed in a bus. The agency's contemplated procedure may involve the removal of seating around the seating being tested, and the test device may be mounted to the floor in place of the seating that is removed.; However, the requirementk that the seating conform as it is installe does not prohibit a manufacturer from using a different test procedure from that specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a vehicle (or item of equipment) would comply if tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus, the NHTSA test procedures need not be duplicated by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. Blue Bird, for example, is free to conduct its test on a test fixture outside the bus as long as it can certify that its vehicle would comply if tested by the NHTSA according to the standard.; In view of this disposition of your requests, the agency does no intend to undertake modification of Standard No. 222 at this time. The NHTSA will continue to monitor the results of tests conducted to determine compliance with the head and kneeform contact area requirements of the standard and will modify the standard if warranted.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0151OpenMr. Yoshiyuki Mizuno, Factory Engineer, Nissan Motor Corporation, 400 County Avenue, Secaucus, NJ 07094; Mr. Yoshiyuki Mizuno Factory Engineer Nissan Motor Corporation 400 County Avenue Secaucus NJ 07094; Dear Mr. Mizuno:#Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1969, to Dr William Haddon, Jr., concerning the location and the identification of the windshield washer switch on the steering column.#The system as you describe it appears to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with the standard is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.#In reference to your second question about the identification of the windshield washer switch, Paragraph S3.2 reads, in part, '.... The following controls, when mounted on the instrument panel, shall be identified to permit recognition -- >>>... (c) Windshield Washing System, ....'<<<#This section of the regulation does not apply to the identification of controls in any position other than on the instrument panel.#Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2479OpenMr. Eugene C. Kellogg, USM Corporation, P.O. Box 103, Birmingham, MI 48012; Mr. Eugene C. Kellogg USM Corporation P.O. Box 103 Birmingham MI 48012; Dear Mr. Kellogg: This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1976, concerning th effective date of 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumper Standard*.; Part 581 was published on March 4, 1976, pursuant to Title I of th Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). It is scheduled to become effective on September 1, 1978, at which time it will absorb Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, the currently effective bumper standard.; There has been no action taken to delay the scheduled implementatio date of the Part 581 bumper standard. If a decision were made to delay the standard's effective date, it would be published in the Federal Register.; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rulemaking procedure permit the filing of petitions for reconsideration of final rulemaking actions. Such petitions must be filed within 30 days of the date on which the final rule is published and must be either granted or denied by the agency. Petitions for reconsideration of Part 581 were submitted by several manufacturers. The agency is still considering the issues raised in those petitions and has not yet made a decision as to their disposition. The agency response to the petitions for reconsideration will be published in the Federal Register.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0444OpenMr. Elmore J. Baruth, Bostrom Division of UOP, Director Plastics R/D, 133 West Oregon Street, Milwaukee, WI, 53201; Mr. Elmore J. Baruth Bostrom Division of UOP Director Plastics R/D 133 West Oregon Street Milwaukee WI 53201; Dear Mr. Baruth: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1971, to Michael Pesko of my staff, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. Your letter asks several questions concerning the applicability of the standard to vehicle seats you manufacture. These questions are dealt with individually below.; You first ask whether Standard No. 302 applies to open air tractors earthmoving equipment, or rapid transit seating, or only to ground transportation wherein the people are enclosed by a cab or housing. As stated in paragraph S3. of the standard, it applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. These terms are defined at 49 CFR S571.3, and a copy of this section is enclosed for your information. The vehicles you mention, *i*.*e*., open air tractors, earthmoving equipment, and rapid transit vehicles are generally not vehicles of these types, but if you wish an opinion as to a particular vehicle, you must submit additional information concerning it to us. The criteria you establish, however, 'ground transportation wherein the people are enclosed by a cab or housing' is not an accurate reflection of the specific vehicle types involved, and should not be used as a guideline.; You state that you understand that 'all covering materials, foams thread, welting, etc. used in the construction of a seat is covered', and you are essentially correct, and proceed to ask several questions based on brochures of your product that you forwarded to us. These questions are answered below.; >>>1. *Adhesives*. Adhesives should be tested as part of adjacen materials whenever possible. Both the standard as issued and the notice of proposed rulemaking published May 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 9565) provide for the testing of composite materials, and adhesives joining materials that are to be tested as composites should be tested as part of the composites.; 2. *Seat composite*. Under the present standard, seat composit components that are welded together only at certain points should be treated as composites at the point of weld, and as separate materials between welds, if they are not otherwise uniformly attached to each other at those points. Under the notice of proposed rulemaking of May 26, 1971, however, this configuration would be considered as comprised only of separate materials.; 3, 4, 5. *Bearings, plastic parts and rubber parts, and shoc absorbers*. Components that comprise the seat track or suspension need not meet the standard's burn- rate requirements. Components that are included, however, that are smaller than the sample size specified in S5.2.1 may be tested using the heat-resistant wires specified in S5.1.3.; 6. *Permalator ties*. You describe 'permalator ties' as small diamete wires spaced parallel at about one inch increments, and tied together with hard twisted paper twine that are encapsulated within the foam. As both the wires and the paper twine are incorporated into the foam they must be tested if the particular foam is included within the portions of components set forth in S4.2. Furthermore, they should be tested as part of the foam.; 7. *Paint and decals*. Paint and decals on steel parts that would no be included under S4.1 need not meet the requirements of the standard. Paint and decals on steel parts that are within S4.1 should be tested as part of the steel parts.; 8. *Chassis lubricant*. Seat chassis lubricant is not within th standard's requirements.; 9. *Welting with and without paper core*. Welting with and withou paper core should be tested as part of the material to which it is attached whether it is either, as you mention, extruded vinyl or generated from the parent material. If necessary, it may be tested using the heat-resistant wires specified in S5.1.3.; 10. *Plywood*. Plywood used in seats in seat backs should be teste similarly to other materials used in the same locations.<<<; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4954OpenMr. Stephen C. Bartch Applications Engineer Quigley Motor Company, Inc. Manchester, PA 17345; Mr. Stephen C. Bartch Applications Engineer Quigley Motor Company Inc. Manchester PA 17345; "Dear Mr. Bartch: This responds to your letter concerning Safet Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that you propose to convert certain 1992 Ford vans to your 4x4 drive system, however, the fuel tank in the vans interferes with the transfer case placement. You therefore plan to either replace the OEM tank with a smaller one that has identical attachments or modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference. You requested that we summarize your responsibilities regarding Standard No. 301. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, 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 meets all applicable safety standards. Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. The operations you propose to conduct on 1992 Ford vans would make you an alterer, and the operations would affect the compliance of the vehicles with Standard No. 301. An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards, such as Standard No. 301, that specify dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a 'body builder's guide.' I have enclosed a pamphlet which provides additional information concerning relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 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.