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: aiam1455OpenMr. H. Tsukano, Submanager,Technical Divisions,Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.,Kojima-Building, 10-2, Nishishinjuku,1-Chome, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. H. Tsukano Submanager Technical Divisions Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. Ltd. Kojima-Building 10-2 Nishishinjuku 1-Chome Shinjuku-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Tsukano:#This is in response to your February 27, 1974 request concerning brake hose identifications codes and labeling, conflicts of Federal and State standards,and procedures for certifying hose, end fittings, and hose assemblies in compliance with Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*. This also responds to your March 25, 1974, (ref T-76) request for approval of your proposed hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling.#Notice 10 was published on February 26, 1974. It modified the labeling requirements,and a copy is enclosed. It is certain that another notice will be published shortly which may modify the marking requirements further. Therefore I advise that you not undertake modifications of your labeling in the near future.#In answer to your February 21 letter, if we require a code at a later date, the code will not relate to the MRA code. Concerning the marking of multi-piece fittings, the designation must appear on each part of a reusable end fitting, although this requirement is presently under reconsideration.#With regard to conflicting State regulations such as Pennsylvania's, our regulation as of September 1, 1974, preempts any State brake hose regulations which are not identical with respect to the same aspects of performance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides at S 103(d):#>>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard ...<<<#However, it is permissible, if a manufacturer wishes, for him to place Pennsylvania labeling on the reverse side of the hose.#It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that his products comply with Standard No. 106. You may conduct a test program, or you may hire an independent test laboratory to conduct the test program for you. One test laboratory in the United States which tests brake hose is VPI of Blacksburg, Virginia. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not conduct certification tests, but it dies conduct tests on manufacturer products to enforce compliance.#In answer to your March 25 letter, the hydraulic brake hose marking in 'Face A' appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter 'size' refers to letter height. Notice 10 permits the manufacturer designation to be other than block capital letters. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#With regard to the brake hose end fitting and brake hose assembly examples, they appear to conform to S5.2.3 and S5.2.4 if the letter 'size' refers to letter height. It should be noted that Notice 10 excludes labeling of two-piece fitting and certain assemblies and that the next notice may make further modifications.#With regard to vacuum brake hose, your 'Face A' example appears to conform to S5.2.2. if letter 'size' refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the strip is not required. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3192OpenMr. Sylvester P. Gagnon, 3919 Third Avenue, Sioux city, Iowa 51106; Mr. Sylvester P. Gagnon 3919 Third Avenue Sioux city Iowa 51106; Dear Mr. Gagnon: This responds to your October 22, 1979, letter which was referred to u by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. In that letter, you ask about your proposed emergency notification system that would use numbers to inform other drivers of a disabled car's mechanical problem.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not endors specified products. The agency has a safety standard that requires emergency warning devices to be of a uniform construction. That standard is located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.125. Emergency warning devices are devices that alert drivers to the presence of a disabled vehicle. Your device, however, is not used to warn drivers of the presence to a disabled vehicle. It would alert drivers to the nature if a vehicle's disability. the agency concludes, therefore, that you would not be prohibited from offering this device for sale as motor vehicle equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4657OpenMr. Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President Product Compliance Service and Parts Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645-0350; Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance Service and Parts Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645-0350; Dear Mr. Faber: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, wit respect to the interpretation of the word 'headlamp' as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with 'each headlamp' to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that 'headlamp' is not a defined term but 'replaceable bulb headlamp' is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2. The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. 108 will permit, as of December 1, l989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp body, but not on the light source. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /; |
|
ID: aiam3038OpenMr. Michael W. Brooks, Viking Truck Corporation, Dodge Center, MN 55921; Mr. Michael W. Brooks Viking Truck Corporation Dodge Center MN 55921; Dear Mr. Brooks: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1979, asking whether a rea lamp configuration that you described would meet the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Viking Truck would like to use a lighting module containing turn signa lamps, stop lamps, tail lamps, and back-up lamps mounted on its 'Bridgemaster' extendable axle. This 'axle' has the appearance of a small trailer and in either extended or unextended position covers about half of the rear of the concrete mixer truck to which it is attached. You stated that Viking has had problems connected with vibration and damageability when the lamps are placed on the tag axle fender, and that remounting them on the extendable axle would alleviate these problems.; Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signa lamps, and tail lamps be mounted 'as far apart as practicable.' Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a manufacturer self-certification scheme, the agency has traditionally deferred to a manufacturer's determination of what, in any given instance is 'practicable' except in such instances as appear to the agency to be a clear abuse of discretion. In our opinion, Viking has a reasonable basis for a determination that the location it wishes to use is practicable. In the absence of any investigation of the matter by NHTSA, or questioning of your practice, Viking's certification of compliance attached to the vehicle should ensure that the truck cannot be refused registration in any State simply because of the lighting configuration. This means, in our opinion and to answer your second question, Viking need not acquire State approval of the configuration before offering the truck for sale.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1005OpenMr. Konen, Johann und Konen, 53 Bonn-Beul 1, Rosenbach, Ortsteil Putachen, GERMANY; Mr. Konen Johann und Konen 53 Bonn-Beul 1 Rosenbach Ortsteil Putachen GERMANY; Dear Mr. Konen: Your letter of February 1, 1973, concerning warning devices, has bee forwarded to my office for review and response.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issu authorization for testing institutes to approve our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer must be responsible for assuring that his products meet the standard, and no submittals are to be made to this Administration. However, we are enclosing a list of foreign laboratories who are capable of determining whether warning devices meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 125.; The side length of the warning device should be interpreted as th direct length over the outside radii.; If any further information is necessary, please let us know. Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4207OpenThe Honorable Doug Bereuter, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, P.O. Box 82887, Lincoln, NE 68501; The Honorable Doug Bereuter Member U.S. House of Representatives P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln NE 68501; Dear Mr. Bereuter: Thank you for your July 18, 1986, correspondence enclosing a lette from your constituent, Ms. Dianna L. Prosser of Beatrice, who asked about Federal regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. I regret the delay in our response.; Ms. Prosser believes that the Federal government should encourag States to enact laws requiring passengers to use safety belts on school buses. She suggests that such a requirement would be consistent with State laws requiring the driver of a passenger car or school bus to use his or her safety belt. She asks also whether any states have enacted requirements for safety belt use in school buses.; I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your constituent' concerns. I would like to begin by clarifying that safety belts are not required by Federal law to be installed for passengers on large school buses. We have been carefully examining the issue of safety belts on large school buses. While NHTSA has often explained that States are free to order safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so, we believe that large school buses are very safe and that safety belts for passengers are not needed for safety.; Some background information on our school bus regulations might b helpful. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.; However, large school buses already offer substantial protection t passengers and a Federal endorsement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. As stated earlier, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.; Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed i a June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled 'Safety Belts in School Buses.' I have enclosed a copy of the report for Ms. Prosser's information.; Ms. Prosser also asked whether any State mandates the installation an use of safety belts in buses. New York has recently required installation of safety belts for passengers in large school buses. Requirements for the use of the belts would be set by the local board of education or board of trustees.; I would like to reiterate that the agency does not endorse installatio of safety belts for passengers on large school buses because we believe belts are not necessary to provide adequate crash protection. This contrasts with the data we have with regard to the use of safety belts by persons driving passenger cars. The Department's decision to promote effective State laws requiring the proper use of safety belts in passenger cars reflects our finding that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. If comparable data were available for school buses, our agency would not hesitate to take necessary and expeditious action.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4712OpenMr. Herbert E. Stoel 3772 Prairie Street Grandville, MI 49418; Mr. Herbert E. Stoel 3772 Prairie Street Grandville MI 49418; Dear Mr. Stoel: This is in reply to your letter to John Womack of thi Office, suggesting that the color of taillamps on motor vehicles be green. The agency is concerned about methods to effectively improve rear lighting and signaling. The issues involved include lamp size, location, operation, combinations and separation, and color. We are learning that changes in lamp function, operation, and color should be approached in a conservative fashion, so as not to confuse the operators of other vehicles. With specific respect to use of the color green on rear lighting equipment, we are aware that some research suggests a green/red color scheme may enhance driver performance. In such systems, a green lamp indicates that the accelerator pedal is applied, amber that the foot has been lifted from the accelerator pedal, and red, that the brake is being applied. Some years ago, an experiment was conducted with such a system using transit buses in the D.C. area. The results were inconclusive. Although some research suggests a possible improvement in driver performance with green/red lamps, there are no data addressing the possible driver confusion that might arise from multiple color lighting arrays. Thank you for your suggestion to enhance motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1510OpenMr. J.C. Vecchio,Assistant Counsel,Amerace Corporation,245 Park Avenue,New York, New York 10017; Mr. J.C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel Amerace Corporation 245 Park Avenue New York New York 10017; Dear Mr. Vecchio:#This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, wit questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.#Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR S571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, *Labeling*, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with 'The symbol DOT, constituting a certification' by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item 'conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.' Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by S114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a 'certificate' within the meaning of S108(b) (2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.#I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under S114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to 'dealers' and 'distributors' by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.#We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributer of brake hoses to whom S114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.#Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certification relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret S108(b) (2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.#You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of S111 and the notification provisions of S113. The repurchase provisions of S111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a S108(b) (2)certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended 'to pass the expense of recall from GM' to you when S111 is invoked. The S108(b) (2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under S111 or S113 is a contract matter between GM and you.#As for S113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under S113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a S113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a S113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a S113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.#Sincerely,Lawrence R. Schneider,Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4342OpenMs. Dianne Black, Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance, and Product Development, Jaguar Cars, Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, NJ 07650; Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Manager Legislation Compliance and Product Development Jaguar Cars Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07650; Dear Ms. Black: Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and Mr. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.; Standard 114, *Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject t it must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.; You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate tha 'for security reasons,' you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.; You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicl operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is , removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.; Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that you key- locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect of preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.; Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will no meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If Jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-mobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3487OpenMr. Roy Knoedler, Cosco, 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. Roy Knoedler Cosco 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Knoedler: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restrain a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.; Section 4 of the standard defines a 'child restraint system' as 'an device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.; You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed o movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.; Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head suppor surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint (sic) from the minimum head support surface requirement if, 'the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2.' Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.; You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Sectio 5.4.3.2 provides that:; >>>Each belt *that is a part of a child restraint system* and that i designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.); <<>>(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children ove 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:; (i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used t restrain the lower torso, or; (ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).<<< The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface desig that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restrain could be designed to prevent submarining.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.