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: aiam4631OpenMr. Clifford Anglewicz Vice President Marketing Verne Corporation 50405 Patricia Drive Mount Clemens, MI 48045; Mr. Clifford Anglewicz Vice President Marketing Verne Corporation 50405 Patricia Drive Mount Clemens MI 48045; "Dear Mr. Anglewicz: This is in reply to your letter regarding th Dragoon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV), as amplified by a telephone call to you by Mr. Vinson of this Office. The ASV that your company produces is presently used 'by the U.S. Armed Forces'. You are now considering the possibility of selling the ASV 'to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and utility vehicle', and have asked 'to know the procedure for getting this vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle.' As Mr. Vinson explained to you, we have no category of 'special purpose vehicle'. If a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, it is a 'motor vehicle' subject to the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that it must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type and be certified as conforming to those standards, and that it is subject to remedial action upon the determination that it does not comply with one of those standards or that it contains a safety related defect. If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not required to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a motor vehicle is one that is designed to carry l0 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis, or with special features for occasional off-road operation, it is classified as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle'. A motor vehicle designed for carrying more than l0 persons is classified as a 'bus'. This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the Federal standards. As Mr. Vinson further explained to you, we provided the Border Patrol with a letter of interpretation under which we concluded that its mission was so similar to that of the armed forces that it could be considered a component of it, and that the 'Hummer' vehicle it wished to purchase in fulfilment of that mission need not be manufactured to meet Federal safety standards. I enclose a copy of that letter for your information. The ASV appears similar to the Hummer in configuration. Therefore, on the basis of the facts as presented in your letter, ASV's could be sold to the Border Patrol without the necessity of conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, we have not been contacted by the Drug Enforcement Administration or the U.S. Customs Service, nor by any police department. In the absence of any interpretation issued in response to these entities, ASVs sold to them must be manufactured to conform with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Technically, the ll and l2 passenger versions of the ASV would be 'buses', but the overall configuration of the ASV, with its high approach and departure angles, its capability of amphibious operation with special equipment, and its suitability for use on rough terrain support its classification as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for all passenger configurations. Obviously, the ASV is not a conventional motor vehicle subject to easy classification or, possibly, conformity with multipurpose passenger vehicle standards (e.g., we understand it uses a military specification brake fluid rather than DOT-3). Because of the facts that your annual production is around 60 units, and that your sales are not to the general public, you might wish to petition for temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal safety standards. If the petition is granted, you would be able to sell the ASV to entities other than the armed forces without conforming it to the Federal standards. Mr. Vinson has provided you with the citations to the Federal standards and to the exemption procedures, and you may consult him if you have any questions with respect to them (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1433OpenMessrs. Nebe and Gartner, Continental Gummi-Werke, Aktiengeselischaft, Postfach 169, 3 Hannover, Germany; Messrs. Nebe and Gartner Continental Gummi-Werke Aktiengeselischaft Postfach 169 3 Hannover Germany; Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1974, raising certai questions about the effective date (September 1, 1974) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. You pose two hypothetical questions, asking whether tires must be quality graded when they are to be placed on vehicles manufactured or imported after September 1, 1974. In the first situation, the tires are manufactured in July 1974, while the vehicle is manufactured in August 1974 and imported in October 1974. In the second, the tires are manufactured in August 1974, the vehicle is manufactured in September 1974 and imported in November 1974.; The Quality Grading regulation applies to tires rather than vehicles Its effective date of September 1, 1974, means that all passenger-car tires manufactured on or after that date must be graded in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement, however, that vehicle manufacturers must use tires manufactured after that date. In each hypothetical question you present, the tires are manufactured before September 1, 1974, and therefore are not required to be graded. The date of manufacture or importation of the vehicle is immaterial.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4261OpenCharles F. Tupper, Jr., Executive Vice President, NAIDA, 600 E. Colinas Boulevard, Suite 314, Irving, TX 750039 (sic); Charles F. Tupper Jr. Executive Vice President NAIDA 600 E. Colinas Boulevard Suite 314 Irving TX 750039 (sic); Dear Mr. Tupper: It has come to our attention that a recent Alabama Supreme Cour decision has led some dealers to question the appropriate certification to make when issuing an odometer disclosure statement. We have received an inquiry about this decision from the Oregon Independent Auto Dealers Association. Furthermore, I have enclosed a copy of an article which appeared in the November 1986 issue of *The California Dealer* and which was provided to us by the maryland Independent Auto Dealers Association. Based on the Alabama decision, the article instructs dealers who doubt the accuracy of the odometer reading to certify that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage and should not be relied upon. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position concerning the certifications to be made on odometer disclosure statements.; Congress found that purchasers rely on mileage as an indicator of th value and condition of vehicles and enacted Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S1981 *et seq*. Section 1988(a) of the Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure (1) of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer or (2) that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is know to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled. To carry out this mandate, Federal regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 580 was promulgated. Furthermore, Section 1988(a) states that no transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under the section or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rule.; A Senate report interprets Section 1988 as placing duty on auto dealer to alert purchasers of irregularities in odometers when, in the exercise of reasonable care, they would have reason to know the odometer reading is inaccurate. S. Rep. No. 92-413, (92nd Cong., 2nd Sess.), 1972 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3971-3972. If a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage and should not be relied upon, that purchaser, when selling the vehicle, should certify the same. However, if a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that to the best of his knowledge the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage the vehicle has been driven, and he has no reasonable suspicion that the reading is inaccurate, when selling the vehicle, he should not certify that the reading is inaccurate. If transferors certify the reading as inaccurate in the latter situation, it is the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that they violate the regulations prescribed under Section 1988, 49 C.F.R. S580.4.; The Federal regulations provide for the inclusion of two sets o certifications on odometer disclosure statements. If the dealers truly wish to insulate themselves from liability when they have a reasonable suspicion that the mileage on the odometer has been altered, they *should* certify that the reading is not accurate, and check the third statement in the first set of certifications. However, none of the three statements in the second set covers a situation where a transferor suspects that an odometer reading is inaccurate, but the odometer was not altered, set back or disconnected in his possession. The Agency allows a transferor to check the first statement and cross out the lines which read, 'and I have no knowledge of anyone else doing so' provided that though crossed out it can still be read. Alternatively, we have no objection to a transferor writing and checking a fourth statement which would read:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer of said vehicle was not altered set back, or disconnected while in my possession.; << |
|
ID: aiam1599OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1974, inquiring as t whether or not a vehicle with unitized construction, developed as a truck and converted to carry passengers may be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Your description of the vehicle in question indicates that it doe qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The reference to 'truck chassis' in the MPV definition was intended to include vehicles that were designed and developed as trucks but have been produced in a version for carrying passengers. Since the delivery van referenced in your letter was developed as a truck, its modification to enable the carrying of passengers places it in the MPV category.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1063OpenPaul K. Wilson, Staff Engineer, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20031; Paul K. Wilson Staff Engineer Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20031; Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1973, asking whether towbar dolly must be included in determining the overall length of semitrailers for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The answer is no. Standard No. 108 is a manufacturing standard, an semitrailers are not manufactured with dollies attached. 49 CFR S390.7, to which you refer, is a definition of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety which regulates the operation of certain motor vehicles, and since trailers often use converter dollies, it is understandable that that agency would deem a trailer with a dolly a 'full trailer.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5020OpenRobert S. McLean, Esq. King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303-1763; Robert S. McLean Esq. King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street Atlanta GA 30303-1763; "Dear Mr. McLean: This responds to your request for additiona information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts. In response to your March 9, 1992 letters, I sent you a March 30, 1992 letter explaining how our requirements apply to automatic belts. Specifically, I explained that an automatic shoulder belt is not a Type 2a belt, as defined in Standard No. 209, and that automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts. I noted that all the requirements applicable to automatic belts are set forth in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. On May 19, 1992, you sent a FAX to Steve Kratzke of this office asking for a further clarification of the requirements applicable to automatic belts. You followed the FAX up with a telephone call on May 27, 1992, during which you explained that you were seeking an opinion from me with respect to an interpretation that is being asserted in litigation in which you are involved. The issue involves the crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection and sets forth specific belt installation requirements for each option. However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This section provides that an automatic seat belt assembly may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required by that option. You explained that another party in your litigation is asserting that an automatic belt, which consists solely of a shoulder belt, could not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of any option in S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. This is so because, according to this argument, an automatic belt which consists solely of a shoulder belt is not a 'seat belt assembly.' The reason it is asserted that a shoulder belt alone cannot be a 'seat belt assembly' is that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 requires that 'a seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint.' Since an automatic belt that consists solely of a shoulder belt does not provide pelvic restraint, this argument concludes that automatic belts that do not provide pelvic restraint must not be 'seat belt assemblies' within the meaning of Standard No. 209. If these belts are not seat belt assemblies, they are not eligible to be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 in place of seat belt assemblies otherwise required by Standard No. 208. This argument is without merit. Contrary to the assertion in this argument, automatic belts which consist solely of a shoulder belt are 'seat belt assemblies' within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 209. That section defines a 'seat belt assembly' as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle.' An automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt falls squarely within this definition. Thus, an automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt may be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of the standard and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required. It may be that this argument was offered because the person was not aware that automatic belts are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to manual seat belt assemblies, as explained in my March 30, 1992 letter to you. Thus, S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 does not apply to automatic belts. In place of Standard No. 209's general requirements for manual seat belt assemblies, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth special requirements for automatic belts. No provision of S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 precludes the use of automatic belts that consist solely of a shoulder belt. I hope this information clarifies any lingering questions you may have had. As before, if you need any further information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0222OpenMr. G.W. Gardner, Manager-Engineering Liaison, British Leyland Motors, Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, New Jersey 07605; Mr. G.W. Gardner Manager-Engineering Liaison British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia New Jersey 07605; Dear Mr. Gardner: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1970, in which yo asked whether Standard 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, was based on monocular or ambinocular viewing by the driver. Please excuse the delay caused by a corresponding routing error.; Standard 111 is based on ambinocular viewing. There was no intent t change this by the use of the singular in the phrase 'driver's eye reference point,' in the interpretation of April 4, 1967.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Rodolfo Diaz, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Programs |
|
ID: aiam5470OpenMr. Forbes Howard Goodlife Motors Corporation Route 3, Box 250-5 Boone, North Carolina 28607; Mr. Forbes Howard Goodlife Motors Corporation Route 3 Box 250-5 Boone North Carolina 28607; "Dear Mr. Howard: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether the 'super golf car' your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusual configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle. In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars 'will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour.' You enclosed three photographs, each of 'one model of our vehicles.' One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of the man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars. The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straight sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mirror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile. Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your 'super golf cars' to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has registered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates. The FMVSS apply to 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). 'Motor vehicle' is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less. Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the 'super golf cars' do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your 'super golf cars' make them resemble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller. Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric 'super golf car' and 950 lbs. for the gas powered 'super golf car') is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle from being regarded as a 'motor vehicle.' At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule published May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808)(copy enclosed). Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a 'motor vehicle.' Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. For these reasons, we conclude that the 'super golf car' as described above is a 'motor vehicle' subject to all applicable FMVSS. As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 finalrule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0388OpenDr. Arnold J. Holland, Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd., King's Norton (sic) Birmingham B38 8SR, England; Dr. Arnold J. Holland Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd. King's Norton (sic) Birmingham B38 8SR England; Dear Doctor Holland: This is in reply to your letters of June 18 and 21, 1971, concernin the application of the proposed requirements for glazing materials (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) as they would apply to heated rear windows and mirrors.; In your letter of June 18 you state that the heating lines used in th rear window continue almost to the bottom of the glass at the ends. You propose putting an abbreviated mark at the bottom left hand corner, with the full trade mark appearing at the bottom center, and ask whether this would comply with the proposed requirements. The answer to this question is no. Paragraph S5.5 of the proposed amendment would require the complete mark to be placed in either the lower left or right hand corner of the rear window.; Your letter of June 21 asks whether it is likely that there will b further amendment to Standard No. 205. You mention that you were told that the proposed amendment should have referred to interior vanity mirrors and not the normal rear view mirror. Finally, you state that if the proposed requirements apply to the normal rear view mirror, you will need to do additional development work.; The proposed amendment to Standard No. 205 is still unde consideration, and no final determination has been made as to whether the proposal, or any part of it, will be issued as a final rule. With reference to your comments concerning the normal rear view mirror, S4.3 of the proposal clearly refers to glazing for use in all interior mirrors, including both the normal rear view mirror, and any other interior mirror, such as a vanity mirror. With reference to your comments concerning the need for additional development work, adequate lead times will be provided for in any final rule that is issued.; Copies of your letters will be placed in Docket No. 71-1. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0672OpenMr. George C. Nield, Engineering Advisor, Messrs. Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm, 816 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. George C. Nield Engineering Advisor Messrs. Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm 816 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Nield: In your letter of April 5, you ask whether certain items of lightin equipment that you listed must be certified as conforming to applicable Federal standards, even though the assemblies of which they are a part may require certification.; This will confirm your understanding that the listed items need not b certified. The items of lighting equipment requiring certification are those equipment items specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.