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: aiam2008OpenMr. Phillip A. Cole, Lommen and Cole P.A., 2850 Metro Drive, Suite 514, Minneapolis, MN 55420; Mr. Phillip A. Cole Lommen and Cole P.A. 2850 Metro Drive Suite 514 Minneapolis MN 55420; Dear Mr. Cole: This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1975, inquiring as t the existence of any Federal safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of trailer hitches.; There are currently no Federal safety standards that pertain to traile hitches. Thus, no prescribed testing or inspection need be performed before distribution of these items. You may be interested in knowing, however, that testing for compliance with the Federal bumper standard (Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*) permits the removal of any trailer hitches during the required test impacts.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0035OpenMr. William F. Knapp, 2358 Barksdale Boulevard, Bossier City, LA 71010; Mr. William F. Knapp 2358 Barksdale Boulevard Bossier City LA 71010; Dear Mr. Knapp: This letter confirms the discussion which took place during your visi to the Bureau on September 18, between yourself and Mr. Risteen of my staff, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 as related to aftermarket door lock installations.; Since Standard No. 206 does not apply to aftermarket installations, yo may continue to sell your special locking arrangement to State Police and private individuals without violating that Standard. It is suggested, however, that you check your State auto inspection laws to make sure there is no conflict with State regulations.; In response to your request, Mr. Risteen reviewed the test repor contained in your Automotive Safety Door Lock brochure. According to the report, the longitudinal and transverse loads which your locking assembly withstood were considerably higher than that required by Standard No. 206. However, the testing company did not certify that your locking device met the requirements of this Standard.; Sincerely, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5237OpenCONFIDENTIAL; CONFIDENTIAL; "Dear CONFIDENTIAL: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether 'embossing' is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol 'DOT' and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but 'DOT' may not appear on original parts. The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number 'affixed or inscribed' on each of fourteen specified original parts. Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter 'R' 'affixed or inscribed' on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol 'DOT,' that is 'inscribed or affixed.' In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be 'inscribed or affixed.' To determine whether embossing is a means of 'inscribing,' we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. 'Inscribe' means 'to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface.' (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of 'inscribing.' The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it 'has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria.' (See 50 FR 43166, at 43170, October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss. Your second question asked whether 'DOT' may be marked on original parts. The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes 'DOT,' the part would be dual marked. 'Dual marking' was discussed in Part 541's preamble: ... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of 'decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced.' (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179). It would also be inappropriate to mark 'DOT' on an original part because 'DOT' is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing 'DOT' on the original part. Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential. I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1274OpenHonorable Quentin N. Burdick, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Burdick: This is in further reply to your letter of September 7, 1973 concerning correspondence you received from Mr. Alton R. Rau of Linton, North Dakota. Mr. Rau objects to Federal regulations which require him to purchase trucks with stronger axles and tires than those trucks which he formerly purchased.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Certificatio regulations (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568) require manufacturers to establish gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings, and to equip new vehicles with components, including tires and axles, that are of sufficient capacity to carry intended loads. The regulations do not establish the relevant ratings, which are established solely by manufacturers. We feel the justification in terms of safety for such requirements is obvious.; We believe situations such as that experienced by Mr. Rau where according to manufacturer's figures, vehicles should have been equipped with stronger axles and tires, demonstrate the need for the Certification requirements rather than showing them to be unnecessary.; The regulations apply only to new motor vehicles, and not to vehicle already in use. For Mr. Rau's information I have enclosed a copy of these requirements.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3249OpenMr. Thomas A. Masterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Thomas A. Masterson Morgan Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Masterson: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation o Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials* (49 CFR 571.205). You ask whether the abrasion test for vehicle windshield glazing must be conducted on both the exterior and interior surfaces of the windshield.; Your letter states that the 'Securiflex Inner Guard Windshield' wit which you are concerned consists of typical windshield glazing with an added layer of clear plastic bonded to one surface, which protects occupants from contact with shattered glass from the outer surface. Apparently, this interior plastic surface cannot pass the abrasion test required for windshield glazing.; Section 4 of the 'ANS Z26' standard which is incorporated by referenc in Safety Standard No. 205 specified that glazing material for use as vehicle windshields must comply with the tests indicated for 'Item 1' glazing, which includes abrasion Test 18. Footnote number 3 under the specifications for 'Item 1' glazing provides that 'multiple glazed units shall be tested on both sides using separate specimens for each side.' Therefore, both the interior and exterior surface of a vehicle windshield must comply with abrasion Test 18. We believe that this is a necessary requirement, for both the abrasion test and the other tests specified for 'Item 1' glazing. While the 'Securiflex' windshield might have sufficient abrasion resistance on the interior surface to prevent distortion of a driver's vision, manufacturers would be allowed to develop interior surfaces which had absolutely no abrasion resistance if only the exterior surface of the windshield is required to be tested.; This is not to say that a somewhat less stringent abrasion resistanc requirement for the interior surface of a windshield like the 'Securiflex' is not in order, if the safety advantages of this type glazing outweigh the potential problems of abrasion. However, for this to be allowed Safety Standard No. 205 would have to be amended to specify separate abrasion resistance requirements for the exterior and interior surfaces of multiple glazed windshields. Therefore, I suggest that you submit a petition to amend the standard and supply all necessary supporting data and information. I realize that you are concerned with the amount of time this would require, but such a distinction in the requirements cannot be accomplished by interpretation. The agency would have to consider the disadvantages that might result from a reduction in the abrasion resistance requirements, as well as determine what increase on performance in other test would be required before such a reduction would be allowed.; This letter should in no way be considered a disapproval of th 'Securiflex' windshield. The information supplied in your letter certainly indicated that this windshield design is an advance in motor vehicle safety. If this is in fact the case, the agency will make every attempt to encourage the use of similar designs.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4076OpenMr. Ralph Trimarchi, President, Trimco International Sales, P.O. Box 322, Flushing NY 11358; Mr. Ralph Trimarchi President Trimco International Sales P.O. Box 322 Flushing NY 11358; Dear Mr. Trimarchi: This responds to your letter seeking information about the Federa requirements applicable to automotive wheels that are to be imported into the United States. There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to wheel rims, one for rims for passenger cars and the other for rims for other types of motor vehicles. It is not clear whether your reference to 'automotive wheels' is limited to passenger car wheels, so I have included a discussion of the requirements for both types of wheels.; None of our standards set requirements for the parts of the whee assembly other than the rim.; The two potentially applicable standards are No. 110, *Tire selectio and rims - passenger cars*, and No. 120, *Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars*. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards No. 109 and 119, which are applicable to tires and are referenced in the rim standards. For those passenger car rims you wish to import, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association or the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.; For those rims you import for use on vehicles other than passenge cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of any vehicle manufacturer that uses your rims as original equipment, since only it would know what size tires will be installed on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:; >>>1. A specified designation indicating the source of the rim' published nominal dimensions,; 2. The rim's size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, th rim type designation,; 3. The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the ri manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards,; 4. A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark o symbol, and; 5. The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.<<< You stated that you wanted to learn if the rims were subject to an tests by the Department of Transportation. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity test the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the Untied States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. The certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer as defined below is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings and if the rim size is listed in one of the standardization organization publications.; You should also be aware of the fact that section 102(5) of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) treats both the actual manufacturer *and* the importer of a wheel as its manufacturer. If either the manufacturer or this agency determines that the imported rims do not comply with the above- described safety standards or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with an applicable safety standards or contain a safety- related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect of noncompliance and must either:; >>>1. repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or 2. replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim tha does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bea the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacture satisfied an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be completely satisfied by either party.; Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which appl to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Thi regulation requires that actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agency for service of process in this county. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agency must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< This designation must be received by this agency before these wheel and rims are imported into the United States.; If you need further information, or a clarification of any of th information set forth herein, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0936OpenMr. J. Patrick Roney, Hatch Imports, Inc., P. O. Box 413, Van Nuys, CA 91408; Mr. J. Patrick Roney Hatch Imports Inc. P. O. Box 413 Van Nuys CA 91408; Dear Mr. Roney: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1972, concernin approvals required by the Federal Government regarding the sale of safety glazing materials.; No approval by the Federal Government is required. Certification o conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 and Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; If you are not aware of State approvals, you may want to contact Mr Armand Cardarelli, of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; |
|
ID: aiam1624OpenDavid J. Humphreys, Esq., Paulson and Humphreys, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; David J. Humphreys Esq. Paulson and Humphreys 1140 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr Humphreys: This responds to your October 8, 1974, requesting in behalf of Chinoo International that the NHTSA specify the requirements established for side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) which are designated seating positions. You also ask if the final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle would be solely responsible for compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and for any safety-related defect later found in the side-facing seats.; Standard No. 207, *Seating systems*, applies to MPV's but it specifie no requirements for the side-facing seats you describe unless they have a hinged or folding back. Section S4.2 specifically excludes side-facing seats from all seat strength requirements. Section S4.3 specifies requirements only for 'a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back.' Section S4.4 only requires labeling of 'seats not designated for occupancy.'; Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, applies to MPV's an requires MPV's manufactured during the period from January 1, 1972 to August 14, 1975, to have a Type I or Type II seat belt installed at each designated seating position. A Type I or II seat belt assembly means that the belt assembly must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*. Further requirements would apply to a designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area.; Standard No. 210, *Seat belt anchorages*, also applies to MPV's Paragraph S4.1 requires that seat belt anchorages be installed for each designated seating position, including side-facing seats. Paragraph S4.2 specifically excludes the anchorages provided at side-facing seats from any strength requirements. Paragraph S4.3 specifies certain location requirements for the placement of seat belt anchorages on side-facing seats.; Part 567, *Certification*, requires that, in the case of vehicl manufactured in two or more stages, the final-stage manufacturer (defined in Part 568 as a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle) must certify compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards by affixing a label to the vehicle (S 567.5), unless the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility. The fact that Toyota retains title to the vehicle does not affect a determination of legal responsibility. As described in your letter, Chinook would be the final-stage manufacturer responsible for compliance with all applicable safety standards. In discharging this responsibility, he may rely on data furnished by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.; We are unable to state flatly that Chinook, as the final-stag manufacturer, would be solely responsible for defects in side-facing seats. We have authority over a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and could therefore pursue any safety-related defect with the seating manufacturer (which may or may not be Chinook). As for seat strength, I cannot at present envision a situation in which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for safety- related defects in the side-facing seats built by Chinook.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3619OpenMr. Robert C. Craig, Quality Control Manager, Cosco, 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. Robert C. Craig Quality Control Manager Cosco 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Craig: This responds to your letter of August 13, 1982, concerning th application of the belt buckle requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, to child restraints meeting Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. As explained in the enclosed letters of interpretation of May 12, 1981, and May 21, 1981, the only requirements of Standard No. 209 that apply to child restraint belt buckles are the corrosion resistance requirement of S4.3(a) and the temperature resistance requirement of S4.3(b). The buckle release requirements of S4.3(d) and the buckle latch requirements of S4.3(g) do not apply to child restraints.; Because of reports of problems relating to difficulty in operatin child restraint buckles, the agency is considering issuance of a proposal to apply the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) and S4.3(g) to child restraint system belt buckles. Any such proposal would be published in the *Federal Register* to provide all interested parties with notice and opportunity to comment.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4426OpenWilliam J. Henrick, Esq. Assistant General Counsel General Tire One General Street Akron, Ohio 44329; William J. Henrick Esq. Assistant General Counsel General Tire One General Street Akron Ohio 44329; "Dear Mr. Henrick: This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988 seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same 'green' or 'uncured' tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will contain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes. 49 CFR /574.5 requires that 'Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.' The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number. If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, /574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly be considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture. On the other hand, /574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the 'manufacturer,' for purposes of /574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears. I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company. 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation, and 6. The full name and address of the designated agent. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. 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.