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: aiam3357OpenMr. C. Rodney Kuhns, 132 Frement Place, Los Angeles, CA 90005; Mr. C. Rodney Kuhns 132 Frement Place Los Angeles CA 90005; Dear Mr. Kuhns: This responds to your letter of August 10, 1980, in which you as whether your proposed urban transport vehicle would be classified as an automobile or a motorcycle.; The agency's definition of 'motorcycle' is given in 49 CFR S 571.3 which reads in part:; >>>'Motorcycle' means a motor vehicle with motive power having a sea or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.<<<; Based on our understanding of your drawings, your proposed vehicle ha more than three wheels. If our understanding is correct, your vehicle would be classified as a passenger car rather than as a motorcycle.; The requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than fo motorcycles. We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements and applicability of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (issued as of August 1978). However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. We have enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain up-to-date copies of our standards and other regulations.; This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use Licensing is handled by the States. We specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.; The agency will provide confidential treatment for your letter an accompanying drawings.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4492OpenMr. Takashi Ohdaira Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969; Mr. Takashi Ohdaira Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield MI 48076-3969; "Dear Mr. Ohdaira: This responds to your December 16, 1987 lette asking several questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to 'swivel type front seats' installed in new compact passenger vans. I regret the delay in responding. Swivel seats are not prohibited by Standard No 207. However, under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat in any position in which the seat would be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, including the rearward facing position. Your letter explains that Isuzu is interested in manufacturing some of its vehicles with swivel sets for the driver and front outboard passenger. The seats can be rotated in any direction and self-locked into either a forward- facing or a rearward-facing direction. A release control is provided allowing the seat to be rotated into a new position. You state that Isuzu tentatively plans to install lap and upper torso belt assemblies with emergency-locking retractors that 'meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat' since the capability of the seats to face rearward is 'just a secondary function.' You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 207 does not prohibit the installation of front outboard swivel seats. Your understanding is correct. Our standards do not require seats on vehicles other than large school buses to be forward-facing and thus do not thereby expressly prohibit installation of swivel seats. Your letter raises the issue of whether the swivel seat installed at the front outboard passenger seating position must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and thus provide lap and upper torso restraints only for the forward-facing position (as opposed to what you term the 'secondary' or rearward position). Paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard 208 states, in pertinent part: . . . T he lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 and S4.1.2 shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to 572.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male, with the seat in any position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. . . (Emphasis added.) The quoted reference to seat 'position' in the excerpt from S7.1.1 is not limited to the positions along the vehicle longitudinal centerline to which a seat can be adjusted while forward-facing. We interpret the term as referring also to seat orientation, including the rearward-facing position or any other direction the seat is capable of facing, provided that the seat can be placed in those positions while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, we believe that a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat while the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. Starting September 1, 1991, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with manual safety belts for the driver and front seat passenger seating position will have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 in a dynamic crash test. A front outboard swivel seat would have to comply with those requirements with the seat in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. We have limited our interpretation to positions in which a seat may be occupied while the vehicle is in motion for the following reasons. The purpose of requiring a seat belt assembly to meet the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 208 with the seat in any position is to ensure that adequate occupant crash protection would be provided to the occupant of the seat regardless of the position he or she chooses for the seat. However, the safety goal of ensuring adequate crash protection for vehicle occupants relates only to positions in which a seat may be occupied when a vehicle is involved in a crash, i.e., the positions in which a seat may be occupied while a vehicle is in motion, then it need meet Standard No. 208's requirements only at forward facing positions and need not conform with the standard's requirements at positions facing in other directions. In your letter, you suggested two possible ways to limit the rearward-facing capabilities of a front outboard swivel seat. First, you suggested that the vehicle could be manufactured with an interlock system that would prevent the vehicle from starting unless the front passenger seat faces forward. In our opinion, this system would be not sufficiently ensure that the swivel seat would be used only in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. An occupant of the seat could swivel his or her seat once the vehicle has started and could thus face rearward without the benefit of lap and upper torso restraints. Your second suggestion was to manufacture the vehicle such that the front passenger seat could swivel rearward only when the driver seat rotated rearward or when the vehicle was 'in park.' This would prevent the passenger's seat from facing in any direction other than forward while the vehicle was in motion since the driver must face forward to operate the vehicle. We believe that this alternative could satisfactorily ensure that the front outboard passenger seating position could not face in any direction other than forward while the vehicle is in motion. In addition to the requirements discussed above, we note also that Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would require the front outboard swivel seat to have seat belt anchorages for a Type II seat belt assembly. The anchorages would have to meet the standard's strength requirements (S4.2), and those for their location (S.3) provided that the safety belt will not be dynamically tested pursuant to Standard No. 208's requirements. Anchorages for a front outboard swivel seat that can be occupied in its rearward facing position while the vehicle is in motion could be tested to the requirements of S4.2 by the agency with the seat in either the forward or rearward facing position. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4538OpenMr. Frank Reynolds F.E. Reynolds Associates P.O. Box 703 Marysville, OH 43040; Mr. Frank Reynolds F.E. Reynolds Associates P.O. Box 703 Marysville OH 43040; "Dear Mr. Reynolds: This is in response to your telephone conversatio with Marvin Shaw of my staff, seeking a clarification of my June 16, 1988 letter concerning school bus mirrors under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17. Specifically, you asked about the meaning of the phrase, 'area in front of the bus,' as used in section S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). In your telephone conversation, you stated that a NHTSA staff person told you in a previous telephone conversation that NHTSA had defined this phrase to mean 'the area three feet in front of the bus.' NHTSA has never so interpreted this phrase in Standard No. 111. For your information, I am enclosing a June 20, 1980 letter to James Tydings that sets forth the agency's interpretation of S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111. This letter notes that the area of concern in S9.2(b) is the region in front of the bus where a driver is not able to see directly a school age child. As explained in the letter and an earlier notice (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975), the purpose of a crossview mirror is to 'address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation,' and this type of mirror 'allows the bus driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there before moving the bus.' This letter then explains: 'The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictionary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus.' This is still an accurate expression of the agency's interpretation of the purpose of a crossview mirror and this phrase. In your telephone conversation, you also expressed concern about the 'legal effect' of Standard No. 111. You should be aware of 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which states that No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. I hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions, or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0828OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1972, requesting a interpretation of S4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', and an opinion regarding the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your Model 15 convertible top cover.; You ask whether the basic burn rate of not more than 4 inches pe minute or the burn rate of 2 inches in less than 60 seconds should be applied to material which self-extinguishes after 55 seconds at a burn distance of 3 inches. The answer to this question is that the basic burn rate of not more than 4 inches per minute applies to this case. The basic burn rate requirement, calculated according to the formula given in S5.3(g), applies whenever the tested material burns more than 2 inches or more than 60 seconds. This 2-inch, 60-second burn rate provided in the second sentence of paragraph S4.3 is given to simplify the calculation of certain self-extinguishing materials, not for the purpose of imposing an additional requirement.; In regard to your graphic illustrations and you request for our opinio with respect to the validity of your Figure 3, you are correct in assuming that materials falling under the B-line are acceptable and that the portions of the shaded area under the B-line in Figure 2 represent an overlap that is in the acceptable area. The second burn rate was intended as a means for rapid qualification of test specimens that, because of their specified flammability limits, would be acceptable without further calculation to determine the burn rate. Any materials falling outside of the 2-inch or 60-second limits require calculation. It would, as you suggest, be a further simplification to say that material that self-extinguishes before burning 2 inches meets the performance requirement and is acceptable.; You ask further whether Standard No. 302 applies to your Model 1 convertible top cover. We consider for this purpose a convertible top cover, or boot, to be part of the convertible top itself and consequently subject to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2815OpenColonel James C. Crawford, Chief, Minnesota State Patrol, Department of Public Safety, Saint Paul, MN 53155; Colonel James C. Crawford Chief Minnesota State Patrol Department of Public Safety Saint Paul MN 53155; Dear Col. Crawford: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your lette of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.; The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you hav quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J574. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be 'motor driven cycles' as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3707OpenMr. William E. Meiter, Middletown Van Pool Association, 60 Wallace Road, Middletown, NJ 00748; Mr. William E. Meiter Middletown Van Pool Association 60 Wallace Road Middletown NJ 00748; Dear Mr. Meiter: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondenc between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate.; Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency' regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3):; >>>(3) 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' or 'GVWR', followed by th appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds.'<<<; Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15- passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0081OpenMr. Carl W. Ruegg, Selma Trailer & Manufacturing Company, P. O. Box 120, Selma, CA 93662; Mr. Carl W. Ruegg Selma Trailer & Manufacturing Company P. O. Box 120 Selma CA 93662; Dear Mr. Ruegg: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 1968, which included additiona information for certification under Public Law 89-563 and your comments.; You will note that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 does no restrict the height of the identification lamps from the roadway. You may find it suitable to mount these lights at a lower level than indicated in your illustrations.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.; I am enclosing a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966 which defines the vehicles to which it applies.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5283OpenMr. Matt Gerrity 7624 Rohrer Dr. Downers Grove, IL 60516; Mr. Matt Gerrity 7624 Rohrer Dr. Downers Grove IL 60516; "Dear Mr. Gerrity: This responds to your letter, forward to us o December 9, 1993, by Representative Harris W. Fawell, regarding the removal of the air bag in your 1990 Coupe de Ville. Because you have a physical handicap, you had your vehicle modified by the installation of a hand control system over the steering wheel. You are concerned that, in the event the air bag should activate, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. You also stated that dealers and other mechanics are reluctant to disconnect the air bag because of Federal law. As discussed below, in certain limited situations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exercised its discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowance when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. While the disconnection of an air bag by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business would ordinarily be a violation of Federal law, this is to advise you that this agency would not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer or repair business that disconnected the driver side air bag in your vehicle. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Removal or disconnection of an air bag by any of the named commercial entities would violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition, since air bags are installed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. However, in certain situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, NHTSA has been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need, and indicated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. We will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. For example, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After the air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. The readiness indicator should not be modified, so other drivers who may expect an air bag will be aware that the air bag is not functional. I would also like to caution your dealer or mechanic to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag disconnection as this procedure could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the 'render inoperative' provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners and users of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you would have the air bag reconnected before selling the car. I urge you to have this work performed so that future users of the vehicle will have the protection the air bag affords. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Representative Harris W. Fawell United States House of Representatives 2342 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-1313"; |
|
ID: aiam2546OpenMr. Dick Rechlicz, Executive Secretary, Wisconsin School Bus Association, Box 403, Brookfield, WI 53005; Mr. Dick Rechlicz Executive Secretary Wisconsin School Bus Association Box 403 Brookfield WI 53005; Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your March 5, 1977, letter asking for a interpretation concerning the definition of school bus. In particular you ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle which in turn determines whether that vehicle will be considered a school bus for purposes of our regulations.; You are correct in your interpretation that a van designed to carr fewer than 10 passengers may transport children to or from school and need not comply with the new school bus safety standards. The NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. The term 'designated seating position' is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations) to mean: '...any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.' Thus, as long as a van purchased for pupil transportation has fewer than 10 designated seating positions for passengers, it is not considered a school bus and need not comply with school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5329OpenMr. Perry McGlothan Quality Assurance Test Specialist Century Products Company 9600 Valley View Road Macedonia, OH 44056; Mr. Perry McGlothan Quality Assurance Test Specialist Century Products Company 9600 Valley View Road Macedonia OH 44056; Dear Mr. McGlothan: This responds to your letter to me about the hea impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000. You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4. As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and is subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control. You first inquire, 'Please advise as to compression deflection,' which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test. S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint. We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.