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: aiam5170OpenMr. Cleo Betts Director of Engineering Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Co. P.O. Box 30 Middlebury, IN 46540; Mr. Cleo Betts Director of Engineering Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Co. P.O. Box 30 Middlebury IN 46540; "Dear Mr. Betts: This responds to your letter of February 22, 1993 concerning free standing furniture in motor vehicles. Specifically, you asked whether a dinette table and its chairs must be secured to the floor in a motor home. You also asked whether the chairs would be considered designated seating positions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has not established any safety standards which would apply to the dinette table. With respect to the dinette chairs, NHTSA has used this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), which specifies strength requirements for occupant seats. An 'occupant seat' is defined in S3 of Standard No. 207 as 'a seat that provides at least one designated seating position.' NHTSA has also exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. These requirements are also directed toward the occupants of 'designated seating positions.' The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Attached dinette seats in motor homes are 'designated seating positions' under this definition and are therefore required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207. In addition, Standard No. 208 requires these seats to be equipped with seat belts. The type of seat belt required varies depending on the seating capacity and gross vehicle weight rating of the vehicle. Your letter raises the question of whether seats that are not attached to the vehicle would be considered 'auxiliary seating accommodations' and therefore not 'designated seating positions.' It is our opinion that attachment is not determinative. A manufacturer cannot escape the responsibilities of Standards Nos. 207 and 208 simply by not attaching the seat. We would look at all relevant factors in determining whether a particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation such as temporary or folding jump seat. I also note that S.4.4 of Standard No. 207 requires that seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect. I must emphasize, however, that the concept of free standing furniture in motor vehicles raises a potentially serious safety concern. Unattached items, including but not limited to furniture, could be very dangerous to vehicle occupants if these items are free to move inside the occupant compartment during sudden stops or in a crash. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are subject to the defect provisions of the Safety Act. If a vehicle manufacturer included unattached items that exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, it could constitute a safety related defect that could require the manufacturer to conduct a safety recall. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. 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"; |
|
ID: aiam0372OpenMr. Ray Thoman, President, 707 Tire Service, Inc., 5901 Courtesy Lane, Shreveport, LA (sic); Mr. Ray Thoman President 707 Tire Service Inc. 5901 Courtesy Lane Shreveport LA (sic); Dear Mr. Thoman: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1971, concerning the Tir Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR Part 574).; As stated in the interpretation published in the *Federal Register* o May 28, 1971, under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 'it is the tire manufacturer who has ultimate responsibility for maintaining the records of first purchasers'.; Under the Act and the Regulation, we have no authority to require tire manufacturer to choose someone as his designee. I have asked Goodyear's counsel for their position with regard to the possible use of tire dealers customer's lists and was forwarded a letter dated June 8, 1971, from the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company which sets forth the company's policy with regard to the prohibition in the regulation. I enclose the letter for your information.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4331OpenMr. Nobuyoshi Takechi, Technical Manager, MMC Services Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Takechi: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1987, with reference t the legality of a proposed concealed headlamp design.; As we understand the proposed design, the headlamp could be used in th 'concealed' position as a forward warning (which you believe 'is similar to the daytime running light principle' and 'is useful to avoid accidents') and in the unconcealed position as a headlamp to provide visibility of the roadway ahead. A portion of the vehicle body in front of the concealed headlamp would be clear, allowing the beam from the concealed lamp to shine through it. The steady burning forward warning signal would be given by pulling a spring-loaded switch. Releasing the switch would turn off the headlamp. Thus, the concealed headlamp would not, as a practical matter, be used for providing visibility of the roadway ahead but as an alternative to the vehicle's audible warning device, the horn. The proposed use would be a visual 'horn.' Finally, you state that the beam pattern and intensity of the lamp 'is corresponding to the headlamp's,' although you do not explain how this is possible, given the potential for interference from the vehicle's body.; Standard No.108 prohibits covers or other styling features in front o a required headlamp when it is being used for purposes such as illuminating the roadway ahead or increasing the visibility of the vehicle in conditions of reduced visibility. We do not consider this prohibition applicable when a headlamp is being used, in all likelihood momentarily, for forward signalling as described. Further, use in this manner would not appear to impair the lighting equipment required by the standard. Additionally, headlamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes, as you have proposed, however, we are unable to advise you whether operation of this device is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. Your letter does not indicate whether the beam utilized is the upper beam or the lower beam, some jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Virginia prohibit use of the upper beam for signaling purposes. Others may restrict use of headlamps or a portion of them during daylight hours, we expect to learn more about this in comments to the docket on the daytime running lamp proposal. In the meantime, I would advise you to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, for its views on State laws.; You have stated that this use 'is similar to the daytime running ligh principle.' However, as proposed by the Government of Canada, and by the U.S. Government in the Federal Register (52 FR 9316) such 'DRLs' would be automatically energized, and not energized at the driver's choice as is your device. Therefore, we do not view the operation of your device as similar to the daytime running light principle.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1133OpenMr. John L. Wilson, Jr., President, Help of Nebraska, Inc., 4601 South 90th Street, Suite No. 2, Omaha, NE 68127; Mr. John L. Wilson Jr. President Help of Nebraska Inc. 4601 South 90th Street Suite No. 2 Omaha NE 68127; Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, in which you as whether an 'infant car hammock' which you manufacture is required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. A picture of the hammock, which you enclosed, shows the hammock attached to both rear doors of a vehicle, and extending between them, with a child lying on it.; As pictured, the hammock is not subject to Standard No. 213. Th standard applies, at present, to devices for seating and restraining a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Effective November 1, 1973, it will apply to all devices for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle, irrespective of whether the device is used for restraint. Because the hammock is not designed to seat a child, it is not subject to the standard. A copy of the standard is enclosed.; We are presently developing proposed amendments to the standard tha would apply to all types of infant and child restraints, including devices in which children do not sit. These proposals will be published in the *Federal Register* when completed.; We are enclosing a copy of our consumer information booklet, 'What t Buy in Child Restraint Systems'. Our recommendations for infant carriers and car beds are found at the center pages of the booklet.; We hope the information we have provided answers your questions and w appreciate your concern for child restraint safety.; Sincerely yours, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1099OpenMr. Vic Horne, Plant & Equipment Manager, Habco, Inc. 2251 Armour Road, North Kansas City, MO 64116; Mr. Vic Horne Plant & Equipment Manager Habco Inc. 2251 Armour Road North Kansas City MO 64116; Dear Mr. Horne: This is in reply to your letters of January 29 and March 20, 1973 concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to trucks to which you add railroad wheels, enabling the trucks to be driven on railroad tracks. In response to our letter to you of February 26, 1973, you enclosed in your letter of March 20 a picture representative of these vehicles, and provided us with certain information. Among other things you state that the vehicles are used on public highways approximately 50 per cent of the time, and that they are licensed under State laws.; Based on our examination of this picture, and the information provide with it, we are of the opinion that these vehicles are motor vehicles, specifically trucks, and are required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trucks. This is true if the vehicles are new vehicles when you modify them, regardless of whether they are your own trucks or whether they are modified for customers.; The Certification requirement which you refer to is based on sectio 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403), and regulations issued by NHTSA (49 CFR Parts 567, 568, copy enclosed). Essentially, the regulations specify a means for manufacturers to certify their vehicles as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your responsibilities for Certification will depend upon whether you are an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, as these terms are defined in the regulations. While it is your responsibility to determine which category applies to you, it appears to us that you are most likely an intermediate manufacturer. We base this opinion on the fact that the truck pictured lacks a body, even though the railroad wheels have been added. It appears that some form of body will be added, as you state in your March 20 letter that the vehicles are intended to be 'spray trucks'. If this is correct, your responsibilities for Certification are found at Part 568, 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages'. Briefly, intermediate manufacturers are required to forward to the final- stage manufacturer the document the intermediate manufacturer received with the incomplete vehicle. If the intermediate manufacturer alters the vehicle so as to affect the validity of statements in the document, he is required to provide an addendum to the document indicating the changes he made.; If the vehicle is a completed vehicle before the rail wheels are added your responsibilities are contingent upon the extent of the modification you perform. Because these modifications are significant the respect to the vehicle's intended use, we would consider section 567.4, 'Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles,' the appropriate requirements for you to meet. The NHTSA has proposed requirements for vehicle alterers, which might apply to you in this case, but these requirements have not been issued in final form.; You may obtain copies of NHTSA requirements as specified on th enclosed form, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4761OpenMr. Michael O'Donnell P.O. Box 127 Skaneateles, NY 13152; Mr. Michael O'Donnell P.O. Box 127 Skaneateles NY 13152; "Dear Mr. O'Donnell: This is in response to your letter to this offic asking whether NHTSA's safety standards apply to vehicles in service on the public roads. Specifically, you were interested in the applicability of NHTSA requirements to a 1977 school bus that was converted to a 'recreational vehicle/house coach' that is now only for personal and family use. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) promulgated by this agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The requirement that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable FMVSS applies only until the product is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after a vehicle or item of equipment is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to that product are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . . If any of the commercial entities identified in section 108(a)(2)(A) were to make modifications that resulted in a 'render inoperative' violation, the violating commercial entity would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Please note also that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles within their borders. Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. You may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of New York to learn if the State has established any requirements applicable to your use or registration of this vehicle in New York. I hope you have found this information helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1563OpenMr. Jack R. Gilstrap, General Manager, Southern California Rapid Transit District, 1060 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA, 90015; Mr. Jack R. Gilstrap General Manager Southern California Rapid Transit District 1060 South Broadway Los Angeles CA 90015; Dear Mr. Gilstrap: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1974, asking whether S4. of Standard No. 108 prohibits a bus manufacturer from installing wiring that could later be connected by the purchaser to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress. The vehicle modifications here concerned are the installation both of certain wiring by General Motors and dual filament bulbs in each clearance lamp by the Southern California Rapid Transit District.; Paragraph S4.6 requires that signalling lamps specified in Standard No 108 shall flash when activated, and that 'all other lamps' shall be steady-burning. Paragraph S4.1.3 in part prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.; We construe the phrase 'all other lamps' in S4.6(b) to mean lamps tha are required by Standard No. 108. Supplemental lamps on ambulances and police cars, for example, that flash in normal use are not included in the standard. Similarly, it would appear that when the clearance lamp you discuss is operated as a warning lamp it becomes an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. Therefore the fact that it flashes when activated would not violate the intent of S4.6(b). Similarly, the wiring that is installed by GM is not considered additional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.; The modifications you described, therefore, are not prohibited b Standard 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0866OpenMr. Douglas MacGregor, TERRALAB, 5221 Major Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84104; Mr. Douglas MacGregor TERRALAB 5221 Major Street Salt Lake City UT 84104; Dear Mr. MacGregor: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1972, to Robert C O'Connell, Region VIII Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; 1. 'Does the standard apply to wood paneling used on the interior o campers, trailers, and mobile homes?'; The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses. This does not cover trailers, a vehicle class that includes mobile homes among its members, but it does cover campers which are mounted on new chassis. Accordingly, wood paneling used as a component or portion of a component described in Paragraph S4.1 of the standard and installed in campers mounted on new chassis would be subject to the requirements of the standard.; 2. You ask whether the standard applies to the studs used to fasten th wood paneling to the structural framework.; The studs used to fasten the wood paneling to the structural framewor of campers mounted on new chassis are not listed in Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, nor are they incorporated into a component listed in Paragraph S4.1. Consequently, the studs would not be subject to the requirements of the standard.; 3. 'Does the standard apply to plastic door molding?' Paragraph S4.1 does not list door molding as one of the interio components that must meet the requirements of the standard and, therefore, door molding is not covered.; 4. 'Does the standard apply to carpeting, and if so, if the carpetin is tacked to the flooring, does the flooring have to be tested for flammability?'; Paragraph S4.1 lists 'floor coverings' among the components required t meet the requirements of the standard. Since carpeting is a floor covering, it would have to meet the requirements of the standard. The flooring underneath the carpeting would not be considered a 'floor covering' and, accordingly, would not have to meet the requirements of the standard.; 5. 'If the paneling or flooring, either separately or as a subassembly has to be tested, is it tested by this procedure, or a more applicable procedure such as ASTM E251, etc.?'; The flooring, as stated above, is not subject to the requirements o the standard when it is covered by a floor covering such as carpeting. While a manufacturer may test for conformity to the standard as he thinks best, whether his product conforms to the standard will be determined by the NHTSA by means of the test procedures specified in the standard. Manufacturers who use procedures different from those in the standard should correlate the results obtained from such tests with those that would be obtained by the procedures recommended by the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel. |
|
ID: aiam3749OpenFrank B. Hill, Esq., Patent and Trademark Counsel, Bandag, Inc., Bandag Center, Muscatine, IA 52761; Frank B. Hill Esq. Patent and Trademark Counsel Bandag Inc. Bandag Center Muscatine IA 52761; Dear Mr. Hill: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin about marking requirements applicable to truck tires retreaded for non-highway use. You stated in your letter that the retreaded tires would be mounted only on vehicles used in shipyard areas to move cargo around. I will answer the three questions you raised in the order you presented them.; >>>1. *Is it required that a retreader put its DOT identification mar on truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; It is not possible to give a simple yes or no answer to this question 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirement in section 574.5 that a DOT identification mark be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded *tires for use on motor vehicles*. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if a retreader is required to put its DOT identification mark on a retreaded tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as 'any vehicle drive or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' If these retreaded tires are for use on forklifts or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the retreader would not be required to mold a DOT identification mark on the tires, because the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these types of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.; If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the retreaded tires ar mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used in a shipyard, the retreaders would be required to comply with the requirements of Part 574, because the tires are for use on motor vehicles. The determination of whether the retreaded tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the retreader, but it would be subject to review by this agency.; >>>2. *If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any othe notice that is required on the retreaded trucks tires, retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; If the retreaded truck tires are not subject to the Part 574 markin requirements, because they are not for use on motor vehicles, there are no other marking requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires.; >>>3. *If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is no required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as 'Not Retreaded for Highway Use' on the retreaded truck tire?*<<<; This sort of notice would be permitted, and would be a usefu disclosure for the retreader and the user of the tire, to show the intended use of the tire. Such a notice would not affect the retreader's duty to determine whether the tire was retreaded for use on motor vehicles, and mold its DOT identification mark on the sidewall of the tire if it were for use on motor vehicles.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1774OpenMr. H. W. Gerth, Assistant Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 75-0005) involving the front wheel bearings on certain Mercedes-Benz trucks, model L1113.; Since the notification was issued after the effective date of Publi Law 93-492, the provisions of this law apply to this notification. A copy of this law is enclosed for your information.; Specifically, the defect notification does not comply with sectio 153(a)(5) in that no specific date is given. Because remedy without charge is contingent upon actual dates, we believe the inclusion of a specific date is required. You must also include information that is responsive to section 153(a)(6). As the procedures referred to in that section have not been published, it is sufficient if you advise owners that they may write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590, if they find Mercedes- Benz to have failed or to have been unable to perform the repair satisfactorily.; In addition, we note from your defect report that you are notifyin first purchasers. Public law 93-492 has modified the statutory recipients of defect notification letters, and requires that notification be sent to the person who is registered under State law as the owner of the vehicle (section 153(c)(1)). First purchasers may also have to be notified under these requirements if registered owners cannot be found (153(c)(2)). We suggest you review these statutory changes and renotify owners, providing them with all required information. A letter containing the information in the notification letter forwarded to us plus the additional information referred to above will be considered to meet these statutory criteria.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
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.