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: aiam2163OpenMr. LeRoy E. Mueller, President, Wisconsin Trailer Company, Inc., Richfield, WI 53076; Mr. LeRoy E. Mueller President Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc. Richfield WI 53076; Dear Mr. Mueller: This responds to your November 26, 1975, request for confirmation tha the NHTSA permits the establishment of gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) for trailer axles based on use at a speed of less than 60 mph.; Your interpretation is incorrect. In the April 28, 1975, interpretatio letter to Mr. James Srch that was enclosed in the NHTSA's recent letter to you, it was stated that '. . .NHTSA has found it necessary to specify that GAWR's and GVWR's be calculated on the basis of highway speeds and not qualified by reduced speed ratings. . . .'; Since the NHTSA's November 20, 1975, letter to you, the agency ha published a proposal that would amend the definition of GAWR to conform to this interpretation. A copy is enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2499OpenHonorable Mark O. Hatfield, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; Honorable Mark O. Hatfield United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510; Dear Senator Hatfield: With regard to my letter to you of July 1, 1976, concerning th application of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company of Salem, Oregon, I would like to advise you of a clarification of the requirements of the standard that may be relevant to Layton's product.; Essentially, it has been clarified that the requirement of S5.1.1 o the standard accommodates a manufacturer's decision to equip its motor vehicle with tires other than 'tires for highway service.' This means that Layton can choose to use tires that do not conform to the requirements set forth in S5.1.1 of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the notice that contains a detailed discussion of this clarification.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2533OpenMr. John O. Bohmer, President, Bohmer - Reed, Inc., Motorhome Conversions, Brooten, MN 56316; Mr. John O. Bohmer President Bohmer - Reed Inc. Motorhome Conversions Brooten MN 56316; Dear Mr. Bohmer: This responds to your February 25, 1977, letter asking whether you motor home conversions make you a manufacturer or an alterer for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; In your conversion of motor homes, you install used bodies on ne chassis. The NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that requires certification. This makes you a manufacturer rather than an alterer. The rules for certification are found in Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. I have enclosed copies of these regulations for your information.; Your second question asks whether the converted vehicle must compl with Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, even though the original body was manufactured prior to the effective date of the standard. Vehicles must comply with all standards in effect on the date of their manufacture. For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to treat as the date of manufacture, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those dates. Therefore, it appears that the vehicle you manufacture would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5022OpenMr. Hal Balzak 28025 N. Sarabande Lane #1216 Canyon Country, CA 91351; Mr. Hal Balzak 28025 N. Sarabande Lane #1216 Canyon Country CA 91351; "Dear Mr. Balzak: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below. Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes, the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components. However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that '(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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. . . .' This provision applies to both new and used vehicles. You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been 'rendered inoperative' by another agent, such as a crash. The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0220OpenMr. D.J. Broom, Technical Manager (C.V), The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited, Forbed House Halkin Street, London SW1, England; Mr. D.J. Broom Technical Manager (C.V) The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited Forbed House Halkin Street London SW1 England; Dear Mr. Broom: Thank you for your letter of February 2, 1970, to the Federal Highwa Administration, transmitting the August 1969, edition of the S.M.M.T Tyre and Wheel Engineering Manual.; Your letter also expressed your intention of having the 1969 manua supercede the 1965/66 data book as referenced in Section S3 of Standard No. 109. As we stated in our letter of March 14, 1969, to Mr. Woodbridge, Chief Engineer of S.M.M.T., 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, within Section S3, lists the Tyre and Wheel Engineering Data Book dates 1965/66 of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited (S.M.M.T.), 'as one of the references containing acceptable test rims. When Standard No. 109 and 110 were developed, the National Highway Safety Bureau accepted the S.M.M.T. 1965/66 Data Book tire and rim combinations based on established usage. We did not, nor do we at present intend to accept general updating of these referenced publications, either foreign or domestic, as valid reasons for amending Standards no. 109 and 110. consequently, any new tire size designations or alternative rim sizes that you wish to list within Standards No. 109 and 110 will have to comply, on an individual basis, with the abbreviated guidelines as outlines in the October 5, 1968, *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5472OpenMary M. Mann, Director Federal Government Regulations National Marine Manufacturers Association Washington Harbour 3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 145 Washington, D.C. 20007; Mary M. Mann Director Federal Government Regulations National Marine Manufacturers Association Washington Harbour 3050 K Street N.W. Suite 145 Washington D.C. 20007; Dear Ms. Mann: This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, t Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion which follows. Side treatment 1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closest edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroreflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. You asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108. NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspicuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side. 2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acceptable: a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side. NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum. (b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane. This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable. Rear Treatment 1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without underride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1. This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment. 2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied 'across the full width of the trailer' but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to 'items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies.' There is a cross member at the rear which will have conspicuity treatment across the full width, however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108. The exclusionary term 'items of equipment' is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirement. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as 'items of equipment' to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it. 3. Does NHTSA interpret 'full width of the trailer' to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame. NHTSA has defined 'overall vehicle width' to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for 'full width.' We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be located at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret 'full width' to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members. 4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) prohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation 'that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps.' (We believe you mean 3 inches). This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp. Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding 'that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory.' We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1962OpenMr. 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: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1975, requesting answers t two questions 'relating to the requirements for 16 or 18 gage wire specified by [SAE Standard] J589' ['Turn Signal Switches'] in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You first asked: >>>'1. Once the switch has met test requirements using the 16 or 1 gage wire, can a switch manufacturer change the wire gage to a smaller or larger size for installation and use on a vehicle?'<<<; We are uncertain as to what you mean. If you intended to refer to th vehicle manufacturer, the answer to the question is yes. He may use a gage other than 16 or 18 when the switch is installed in his vehicle. The test set forth in J589 is a laboratory test measuring voltage drop that must be met by a switch when 16 or 18 gage wire is used.; You next asked: >>>'2. Would a switch which was tested with other than 16 or 18 gag wire (larger or smaller) meet the certification requirements of Part 567 of the federal standards?'<<<; When a manufacturer certifies conformance to Standard No. 108, he i indicating that the turn signal switch will meet the requirements of SAE J589 if tested with 16 or 18 gage wire. He may use any method he chooses to ensure this. This agency does not, through its certification requirements or otherwise, instruct manufacturers how to test their products.; Thank you for your suggestion that we amend Standard No. 108 t incorporate SAE J589 which does not specify the gage of wire for test purposes. We have already proposed adoption of J589b in Notice 3 of Docket No. 69-19.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5188OpenMr. Ben F. Barrett Associate Director The Legislative Research Department 300 West Tenth Street, Room 545-N Topeka, KS 66612-1504; Mr. Ben F. Barrett Associate Director The Legislative Research Department 300 West Tenth Street Room 545-N Topeka KS 66612-1504; "Dear Mr. Barrett: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993, i which you stated that a Kansas school district wants to use 15-passenger buses to transport school children, but does not want to cause those buses to meet the additional safety requirements applicable to school buses. You also stated that although the state definition of a school bus is the same as the Federal definition, it has been suggested that the state amend that definition to exclude 15-passenger vehicles. You asked our comments on the consequences of such legislation, including any sanctions, liability, or other issues that could result. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), defines a school bus as a passenger motor vehicle 'designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' This agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle 'designed for carrying more than 10 persons,' and a school bus is further defined as a bus that is sold 'for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.' Thus, the 15-passenger buses to which you referred would clearly fall within the Federal definition of 'school bus.' The Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In the case of school buses, it is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell a new school bus that is not certified as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the new vehicle, and the seller is subject to substantial penalties for knowingly selling a noncomplying school bus, including civil fines and injunctive sanctions. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that no state shall maintain in effect any standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the state standard is identical to the Federal standard. If it is not, the Federal standard preempts the state standard unless the state standard imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles acquired solely for the state's own use. Therefore, even if the State of Kansas redefines a school bus to exempt 15- passenger buses, Federal law remains applicable and any new school bus sold in Kansas must comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, state law notwithstanding. The purchaser or user of the vehicle is not under the same legal constraints as the seller. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students, whether or not the vehicle meets Federal safety standards. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the state or school district retrofit a vehicle to bring it into compliance with Federal standards. That is because once that vehicle has been sold new to the first customer, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law. Although not required by Federal law, this agency strongly recommends that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards be used to transport school children. In that connection, please find enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Specifically, the Guideline recommends, among other things, that any vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is used as a school bus comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Finally, we would note that the use of vehicles that do not comply with Federal school bus safety standards to transport school children could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. Therefore, school districts should consult their attorneys and/or insurance carriers for advice on that issue. We hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0670OpenMr. Preston W. Grace, President, White River Distributors, Inc., P.O. Box 1462, River Stadium Drive, Batesville, AR 72501; Mr. Preston W. Grace President White River Distributors Inc. P.O. Box 1462 River Stadium Drive Batesville AR 72501; Dear Mr. Grace: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1972, concerning you earlier letter to us of March 6, 1972, which we answered on March 22. You indicate that you have received trucks with identical specifications, but with different GVW ratings, and ask, why is it permissible for a manufacturer to place different GVW ratings on identical vehicles. You state further that, based on our letter, you have concluded that it is the responsibility of the user to see that the GVW rating assigned by the final-stage manufacturer is not violated.; As we indicated to you in our letter of March 22, 1972, there i nothing in the regulations that prohibits a manufacturer from placing different GVW ratings on identical vehicles, as long as the rating in each case meets the requirements of sections 567.4(g)(3) or 567.5(a)(5), whichever is appropriate. Manufacturers may have various reasons for changing the GVWR or GAWR of vehicles they manufacture, and the regulations allow them to do this. As we indicated to you previously, final stage manufacturers such as yourself might resolve this problem by specifying the desired weight ratings in your purchase order.; Your statement that it becomes the user's responsibility to see tha the GVWR assigned by the final stage manufacturer is not violated is essentially correct. However, the requirement for affixing the GVWR and GAWR to a vehicle should not be confused with the requirements pertaining to the overloading of vehicles. The latter are presently primarily a matter of state enforcement, and do not affect the requirements of final stage manufacturers to affix GVWR and GAWR in accordance with Parts 567 and 568.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4633OpenDon A. Norton, Esq. Levinson, Murray & Jensen, P.C. Suite 400 312 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60606; Don A. Norton Esq. Levinson Murray & Jensen P.C. Suite 400 312 West Randolph Street Chicago IL 60606; Dear Mr. Norton: This is in reply to your letter with respect t compliance of imported motor vehicles with the Federal standard relating to vehicle identification numbers (VIN). I regret the delay in responding. You have asked 'in what manner does the importer affix the vehicle identification number to the tag that is to be located so as to be visible from the outside of the vehicle through the left portion of the windshield? Is the proper procedure to acertain the proper chassis number of the vehicle, and then to fashion, emboss, and affix a plate of any design that would comport with the visibility regulations,' or is it affixed by the State authority that licenses the vehicle. Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the responsibility of the importer of any vehicle not originally manufactured to comply with the standards. Compliance with Standard No. ll5 requires affixation of the VIN in the location you described (paragraph S4.6). The VIN label should be affixed by the person conforming the vehicle, as compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. ll5, must be demonstrated simultaneously in order to satisfy Federal requirements. A State does not affix VINs. In response to a request you made for information, please note that we have searched our records and find no l98l or other model Mercedes-Benz with the serial number WDB10704612000486. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting 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.