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: aiam0215OpenMr. Georges Siwac, Sofica, Division De La Societe Anonyme Francaise Du Ferodo, 24 Rue Des Pavillons, 92 - Puteaux (France); Mr. Georges Siwac Sofica Division De La Societe Anonyme Francaise Du Ferodo 24 Rue Des Pavillons 92 - Puteaux (France); Dear Mr. Siwac: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969 which evidently became lost after it reached us.; In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answer to them, are as follows:; >>>1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation i vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.; 2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported int the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.; 3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent fo service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products, it also applies to manufacturers who are 'offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States'. The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.<<<; Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to you inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Very truly yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam5017OpenThe Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-4202; The Honorable John J. Duncan Jr. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515-4202; Dear Mr. Duncan: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15-passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less, vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus, the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a 'school bus' is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children, however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry; |
|
ID: aiam1054OpenMr. William Goldberg, 15 Blair Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540; Mr. William Goldberg 15 Blair Hall Princeton University Princeton NJ 08540; Dear Bill: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1973, forwarding to m a copy of the preface to your forthcoming paper on the development of Standard No. 213, and asking a few questions which we have already discussed over the phone.; With respect to the preface, it is essentially accurate, at leas sufficiently so for the purpose for which it is intended.; The questions you've asked are repeated below, followed by our answers. 1.>>>What gives credibility to and what reduces credibility of comment filed with Docket 2-15? Are the comments of some organizations given more credence than others?<<<; Each comment to the docket is assumed to be of equal credibility tha is, we assume each is offered in good faith, and based upon the writer's legitimate beliefs and interests. The agency evaluates each submission on its own merits.; 2.>>>Do non-separating 3-point belts present a problem for usage o current child restraint systems?<<<; Our understanding is that child seats can be used with 3-point belts These belt systems do utilize one member that is essentially similar to the traditional lap belt. We understand the shoulder portions of these belts can be adjusted so as not to prevent installation of the child seat, by either placing that belt section in front of or behind the child seat. We have not received any information from the public that these belts are in fact difficult to use with child seats. If we do we will certainly look into the matter thoroughly.; 3.>>>Has NHTSA or will NHTSA be cooperating with JPMA on some kind o market survey?<<<; The NHTSA has forwarded a list of suggested questions, which are als in the docket. We do not expect our contribution to include more than recommending that these questions be asked.; 4.>>>To what extent is rulemaking determined by comments and b internal direction?<<<; This certainly depends on the issues involved. For the most part initial decisions are made by the agency, with modifications resulting from comments received. However, comments may affect some issues more than others. In Standard No. 213, for example, much impetus for a dynamic test has been created by comments.; We've recently amended the standard, based on two outstanding notice (September 30, 1970, April 10, 1971). In case you haven't seen the amendments, I have enclosed a copy.; Sincerely, Mike Peskoe, Attorney |
|
ID: aiam3069OpenMr. G. Frinken, Manager, Automotive Engineering Europe, Uniroyal European Tire Development Center, Uniroyal GMBH, Postfach 410, 5100 Aachen 1, West Germany; Mr. G. Frinken Manager Automotive Engineering Europe Uniroyal European Tire Development Center Uniroyal GMBH Postfach 410 5100 Aachen 1 West Germany; Dear Mr. Frinken: This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1979, concerning th Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You ask whether it is permissible under the regulation to mold UTQG grades on only one sidewall of a tire and, in the case of a symmetrical black sidewall tire, whether the grades may be molded on the same sidewall as the tire identification number required by 49 CFR 574.5.; The UTQG Standards require that tire grades need be molded on only on sidewall of a tire. Since the regulation presently does not specify the sidewall on which tire grades must be molded, Uniroyal is legally permitted to mold UTQG grades on either sidewall of its tires. However, in order to facilitate consumer access to the grading information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) encourages manufacturers to mold tire grades on the sidewall intended to be visible when the tire is mounted on a vehicle. NHTSA will monitor the placement of tire grades to determine whether further action is necessary to assure the accessibility of the grading information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4256OpenMr. Koji Tokunaga, Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 21415 Civic Center Drive, Southfield, MI 48076- 3969; Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager Engineering Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield MI 48076- 3969; Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Part 541 *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Specifically, you indicated that you would like to mark the engines and transmissions of your high theft car lines by affixing metal plates with the vehicle identification number (VIN) inscribed thereon to the engines and transmissions. I will answer your questions in the order they were set forth in your letter.; 1. The VIN's are inscribed directly on parts in Isuzu's curren production. You do not think that a change from direct inscription to VIN plate affixation constitutes a violation of Part 541. Is this correct?; Yes. Section 541.5(d) specifies that required markings must 'be affixe by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section *or* inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.' Manufacturers are free to choose whether to affix or inscribe the required markings, and are free to change that choice at any time. The only limitation set by Part 541 on this choice is that the markings that appear on the parts must comply with the requirements of either S541.5(d)(1) or (d)(2).; 2. May the 17- digit VIN be expressed in two lines, for example nin digits on the top line and eight on the bottom line?; Yes. In a June 9, 1986 to Messrs. Waimey and Hansell, I addressed thi topic as follows:; >>>In the agency's view, S541.5(b)(1) requires that the ful 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN were placed on two lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.<<<; 3. As shown in the drawings attached to your letter, you are planing t affix the VIN plate carrying the inscribed VIN either by rivets or breakaway-head bolts. Part 541 specifies requirements which must be met when the VIN is affixed, in S541.5(d)(1), or when it is inscribed, in S541.5(d)(2).; 3.1 With which set of requirements should an affixed VIN plate wit inscribed markings comply?; We have stated in several past interpretations that the language o S541.5(d) means that *all* markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in S541.5(d)(1). Since your VIN plate would be affixed, it would be subject to the performance requirements for labels.; 3-2-1. Section 541.5(d)(1)(i) says that the number must be printe indelibly on a label. You believe that the number inscribed on a metal plate meets this requirement. Is this correct?; Your belief is correct. The requirement that the marking be printe indelibly on a label was included in Part 541 to ensure that the markings would remain legible to investigators for as long as the label was affixed to a part. *See* 50 FR 43166, at 43170-71, October 24, 1985. Inscribing a number on a metal plate ensures that the number will be legible for the life of the metal plate, and complies with the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(i).; 3-2-2. Since the number is inscribed on a metal plate, you believe tha subparagraphs (ii), (vii), and (viii) of paragraph 541.5(d)(1) are not applicable. Is this correct?; No, it is incorrect. *All* of the requirements of S541.5(d)(1) must b satisfied by any marking affixed to satisfy the requirements of S541.5.; 3-2-3. If this metal plate were removed from the engine o transmission, parts of the rivets or breakaway-head bolts will remain in the area where the plate was affixed. You think these pieces are 'residual parts of the label' within the meaning of S541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). Is this opinion correct?; It may be correct, but we do not have sufficient information to offe an opinion. Section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each *manufacturer* to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's marking system complies with the theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply with the standard if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter does not give us enough information to offer an opinion.; The regulatory language of S541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that removal o the label must 'discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present.' If we are to offer an opinion as to whether your marking system satisfies this requirement, we must be able to determine what remains on the part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove these labels and examine those areas of the metal section to which the labels were affixed to see what residual parts remained. If we are to offer an opinion on this topic, we at least need some means of determining what residual parts of these labels remain if they are removed, and whether such residual parts would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present. The drawings enclosed with your letter do not give us a means for making these determinations.; Your fourth question presented six alternative means for affixing th VIN plate. My response to these alternatives is the same as that set forth above in response to your question 3-2-3. Without additional information, I cannot offer an opinion as to whether any or all of these alternatives appears to comply with the requirements of S541.5(d)(1).; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need some additional information about our theft prevention standard.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3593OpenMr. Shizuo Suzuki, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Suite 707, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is to follow-up on your conversation with Stephen Oesch of m staff concerning the armrest requirement of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. Your specific question concerned the application of section 5.3.1(c) of the standard to an armrest attached to a door. The inboard side of the armrest consists of two vertical surfaces, an upper one and a lower one. The upper surface extends 3 mm closer to the center of the vehicle than does the lower surface. You stated that the two surfaces when viewed in side elevation, *i.e.*, from the vantage point of the door latch or door hinges, together provide more than 2 inches of vertical height within the pelvic impact area. You also asked if section 5.3.1(c) set any limits on the material used for armrests.; Section 5.3.1(c) of the standard provides that: >>>Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armres shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.<<<; Section 5.3.1(c) does not set any radius of curvature or heigh limitation on armrest surfaces. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. Section 5.3.1(c) also does not specify any limits on the materials that may be used in an armrest. Obviously, such surfaces must be designed carefully to ensure that the armrest does not concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.; If you have any further questions please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1404OpenMr. Rett F. Donnelly, Patrick, Anderson and McDonald, Suite 2310, American National Bank Building, South Bend, IN 46601; Mr. Rett F. Donnelly Patrick Anderson and McDonald Suite 2310 American National Bank Building South Bend IN 46601; Dear Mr. Donnelly: This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1974, requestin information concerning odometer disclosure requirements.; The Federal odometer disclosure regulation requires each transferor o a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written statement signed by the transferor containing the odometer reading at the time of transfer. If the transferor knows the registered mileage to be incorrect, he must include a statement in the disclosure document that the mileage is unknown.; In order for a transferor of a motor vehicle to be subject to th sanctions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the mileage must be incorrectly disclosed with the transferor's knowledge of the inaccuracy.; As you requested, I am enclosing the relevant portions of the Act an the regulation. You also might be interested in the enclosed consumer affairs fact sheet. Responding to your request concerning information that has been provided to the auto industry in general, the National Automobile Dealers Association has been involved in an active campaign to make the auto industry familiar with the Federal odometer requirements. They may be able to provide you with the information you desire.; We would be pleased to answer any further inquiries you may have. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3439OpenMr. Carol Fitzjohn, Quality Control Manager, C.J.B. Industries, Inc.,P. O. Box 779, Chanute, Kansas 66720; Mr. Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries Inc. P. O. Box 779 Chanute Kansas 66720; Dear Mr. Fitzjohn: This responds to your June 2, 1981, letter asking about th requirements for reservoir tanks for air brake systems. In particular, you ask whether section S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 are the only Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of the reservoirs.; The two sections that you referenced in your letter are the onl sections specifying requirements for the construction of reservoirs for air brake systems. For additional guidance in the construction of reservoir, you should refer to SAE standard J10b titled 'Automotive and Off Highway Air Brake Reservoir Performance and Identification Requirements.' This standard will provide you with the prevailing industry practice in the construction of reservoirs.; You should be aware that you would be responsible under the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if there were any defect relating to motor vehicle safety in your product.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4606OpenMr. Rod Willaredt President Diamond Cross Lights P.O. Box 3696 Rapid City, SD 57709; Mr. Rod Willaredt President Diamond Cross Lights P.O. Box 3696 Rapid City SD 57709; Dear Mr. Willaredt: This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson o this Office, received by FAX on May l7, l989. You have developed a 'safety light' that displays right and left turn signals, 'and when the caution light/emergency light appears, the formation of such lights indicate a diamond'. The device appears intended for installation on large trucks or trailers. The turn signal lamps are supplementary to a vehicle's original equipment turn signal lamps. I assume that the caution/emergency lamp to which you refer is what we call a hazard warning signal, sometimes known as a 4-way flasher. You have asked for written approval of this device. This agency has no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' any motor vehicle or item of equipment. We can, however, advise as to the relationship of equipment to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of representative letters covering other auxiliary rear lighting for large trucks, such as wide-turn and U-turn indicators, and their relationship to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and State law. These principles are applicable to your safety light as well. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam4313OpenMr. Jerry Flynn Tucker, Attorney at Law, P. O. Box 24, Courthouse Square, Ashville, Alabama 35953; Mr. Jerry Flynn Tucker Attorney at Law P. O. Box 24 Courthouse Square Ashville Alabama 35953; Dear Mr. Tucker: Your letter to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was referre to me for reply. Your letter informs SAE that a second trailer manufacturer, Nix Enterprises, Inc., is using the WMI Code designation SAE assigned to your client, Omni Trailers, Inc. You asked SAE to take whatever action it could to prevent the continued misuse of your client's WMI Code.; Under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115, 49 CFR 571.115 (Standard 115), a motor vehicle manufacturer must assign a 17-character Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to each vehicle it manufactures. The first three VIN characters must, among other things, uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer. Among the primary reasons for the VIN designation are to facilitate vehicle notice and recall campaigns where a vehicle proves to be defective, and to aid persons investigating motor vehicle thefts or accidents.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agenc of the United States Department of Transportation, is responsible for motor vehicle safety standards, and contracts with SAE to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. Under 49 CFR S565.5(b), *Reporting Requirements*, a manufacturer or its agent must submit its unique identifier to SAE at least 60 days before using its identifier. Apparently, Nix Enterprises failed to follow proper procedures for obtaining the WMI Code designation. NHTSA considers this failure to be the kind of error that can have adverse safety consequences because it could impair both Omni's and Nix's ability to conduct recall campaigns. I shall refer this matter to the NHTSA Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.