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: aiam2116OpenHonorable Jamie L. Whitten, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; Honorable Jamie L. Whitten House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Whitten: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr Charles Russell of WJLJ,regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.; Pursuant to the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 49 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.; To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTS has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to present a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at a higher inflation pressures, and thus may even be more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expect to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.; For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.; Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr. |
|
ID: aiam2638OpenNoel C. Ice, Esq., Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn, & Collins, 1800 First National Bank Building, Fort Worth, TX 76102; Noel C. Ice Esq. Cantey Hanger Gooch Munn & Collins 1800 First National Bank Building Fort Worth TX 76102; Dear Mr. Ice: This responds to your March 1, 1977, letter asking whether your client a company that manufactures, distributes, and sometimes installs air conditioners and cruise control units on automobiles prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, must comply with the certification and other requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1403) requires that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers certify that each vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are no standards applicable to air conditioners or cruise controls. Thus, your client would not be required to certify the equipment he manufactures.; Your client may, however, have certification responsibilities a prescribed in the regulation issued under Section 114 (49 CFR Part 567, *Certification) in his capacity as installer of air conditioners or cruise controls if such installation places him within the status of 'alterer,' as that term is defined in Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the equipment, prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, either altered the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating or was the installation of a nonreadily attachable component.; It is unlikely that the installation of an air conditioning unit woul alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' The installation of air conditioners or cruise controls may, however, constitute an installation of equipment which is not readily attachable or may exceed the gross axle weight rating. If this is the case, your client would have to comply with the requirements of Part 567.7. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise or tools must be taken into consideration.; You ask whether your client would be required to comply with 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This part applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies. Since no safety standards apply to the equipment manufactured by your client, he would not be required to comply with this regulation in his capacity as an equipment manufacturer. Further, the NHTSA has determined by interpretation that vehicle alterers need not comply with Part 566. Similarly, 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, may not apply to your client, since the installation of an air conditioner or a cruise control would not make your client an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, an intermediate manufacturer, or a final stage manufacturer of vehicles as those terms are defined in the regulation (568.3). Your client might have responsibilities under Part 568.8 as a vehicle alterer, however.; You should note that if your client is considered an alterer, a defined in Part 567 or Part 568 he would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliances resulting from his installations (the Act, Section 151 *et seq.).; If we can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0605OpenMr. Louis Goldberg, Product Manager - Industrial Mastics, Daubert Chemical Company, 709 Enterprise Drive, Oak Brook, IL, 60521; Mr. Louis Goldberg Product Manager - Industrial Mastics Daubert Chemical Company 709 Enterprise Drive Oak Brook IL 60521; Dear Mr. Goldberg: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to industrial deadeners and underbody coatings that you manufacture for use in motor vehicles. You describe three uses of these products: as an undercoating, a deadener, and an adhesive, and enclose three brochures, each describing a different product.; Standard No. 302 applies to motor vehicles, and from a lega standpoint, manufacturers of component parts are not subject to its requirements. As the completed vehicle must comply with the standard, however, vehicle manufacturers, on whom the burden of compliance does rest, must ascertain that components they use in their vehicles do meet the standard's requirements.; In this context, and with reference to your products, paragraph S4.2 o the standard (copy enclosed), requires that certain portions of vehicle components, including composites consisting of both surface and underlying materials, meet the specified burn-rate requirements. (A notice of proposed rulemaking, published May 25, 1971, also enclosed, would modify to some degree this provision.) Where composites are involved, compounds used between the layers of the composite are required to meet the requirements as part of the composite. Thus, while we cannot make an exact determination from the general descriptions in your letter, it is quite possible that when your products are used as deadeners or adhesives they would appear in composites that are required to meet the standard. Whether the material actually comes into contact with passengers is not a criterion.; At the same time, under the standard only completed vehicles will b tested. We note from the brochures you have enclosed that your materials are not flammable after drying. If this is the case, you should not have a problem with conformity, as your material will be tested, where appropriate, in what we would assume would be its dry state.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1917OpenHonorable Alan Cranston, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; Honorable Alan Cranston United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510; Dear Senator Cranston: #I am writing in response to your letter o April 14, 1975, in which you requested information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 (49 CFR Part 571.106-74) and its relation to the enclosed letter you had received from Mr. Thomas Z. Marshall of San Francisco. #Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance and labeling requirements of motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. Because labeling applied to hose and end fittings cannot satisfactorily identify the manufacturer of an assembly made up of those components, S7.2 of the standard (by incorporating S5.2.4) requires certain assemblies to be labeled by means of a band. By identifying the manufacturer and the date of production, this permits both the enforcement of the standard's performance requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. #Mr. Marshall appears to have misunderstood some aspects of the standard. While each manufacturer of brake hose assemblies must initially inform the NHTSA of the identifying designation he intends to use on his bands, these is no requirement that he keep records of assemblies made or send such records to this agency. In addition, the bands need not be metallic, but may be of other materials which are less expensive to produce. Mr. Marshall has correctly pointed out, however, that the standard in its present form specifies the same requirements for large manufacturers, repair shops, and individual truck owners. In recognition of the burdens thus imposed on a person who manufactures only a small number of assemblies, the NHTSA proposed an amendment of the definition of brake hose assembly, to exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 Fr 8962, March 4, 1975, copy enclosed). We expect to act on that proposal in the near future. #Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5407OpenMr. Walter Lavis 2467 Rt. 10 Bldg. 3 Apt. 7B Morris Plains, NJ 07950; Mr. Walter Lavis 2467 Rt. 10 Bldg. 3 Apt. 7B Morris Plains NJ 07950; "Dear Mr. Lavis: We have received your letter of June 6, 1994, wit respect to your 'Saf-T-Flec' reflectors. You say that you have been informed by a NHTSA representative that 'using the standard DOT approved reflector tape would allow the use of my reflector for the trucking industry.' Judging from the red, white, and amber samples you have enclosed, your 'reflectors' appear to be retroreflective tape which adheres to a semicircular aluminum base and is intended for vertical mounting on the side and back of vehicles. Several potential customers have asked whether your concept was 'DOT approved', and you have asked for a reply. The Department of Transportation has no authority to 'approve' items of motor vehicle equipment. We advise inquirers whether manufacture or use of any particular item of equipment is prohibited or permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and associated regulations. However, if an item is deemed permissible, this must not be represented as 'approval' by DOT. Your letter is somewhat unclear as to the intended use and market for Saf-T- Flec. The fact that you have enclosed a highlighted copy of S5.1.1.4 leads us to believe that one application you envision for Saf-T-Flec is as a substitute for original equipment side reflex reflectors. This substitution is permitted if the reflective material conforms to Federal Specification L-S- 300 (September 7, 1965) and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors, January 1977. Accordingly, if your red and amber samples meet these two requirements, they may be used as the side front, intermediate, and rear reflex reflectors that Tables I and III require on trucks and trailers. However, Standard No. 108 does not allow sheeting material to be used on the rear of vehicles in lieu of reflex reflectors. What if your reflectors do not meet the two specifications listed above? In this instance, they may be used as supplementary side reflectors to the reflectors that are required by Standard No. 108, and you may employ amber devices for this use as well as red and white. As supplementary equipment, they are subject to the Federal restriction only that they not impair the effectiveness of the required reflex reflectors. We do not believe that additional reflectors would have this effect. Supplementary lighting equipment such as additional reflectors is subject to the laws of the individual states. We are not able to advise you as to their acceptability under state laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) provides opinions on state law. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. As you may know, S5.7 of Standard No. 108 requires red and white retroreflective material to be applied to the side and rear of large trailers that have been manufactured since November 30, 1993 (those whose overall width is 80 inches or more and whose GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds). This material may be retroreflective sheeting or reflectors. If sheeting is used, it must meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29. If reflectors are used, they must conform to SAE J594f, and provide specified minimum millicandela/lux at specified light entrance angles. Your initial question indicates that you may be interested in marketing Saf-T-Flec for use as a substitute for the conspicuity materials that conform to Standard No. 108. Manufacturers of conspicuity sheeting certify it with the material in a flat vertical plane (as evidenced by the DOT-C2 marking on your white sample). We have reservations whether the curved red and white Saf-T-Flec devices could meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29, for sheeting, or J594f and the millicandela/lux specifications of S5.7.2.1(b) or (c) for reflectors. Amber is not one of the specified colors for conspicuity treatment, and could not be used as a substitute. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5621OpenMr. Thomas K. O'Connor Chief of Maintenance and Operations Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 100 East Erie Street Chicago, Illinois 60611; Mr. Thomas K. O'Connor Chief of Maintenance and Operations Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 100 East Erie Street Chicago Illinois 60611; Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letter asking about seat bel requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to meet S4.3.2. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4933OpenMr. Joe S. Brito Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc. 4107 Kaufman County Road P.O. Box 0069 Crandall, TX 75114; Mr. Joe S. Brito Preferred Custom Concepts Inc. 4107 Kaufman County Road P.O. Box 0069 Crandall TX 75114; "Dear Mr. Brito: This responds to your letter asking about recen changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, 'The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle.' You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of 'the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, 'dynamic testing' of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. 'Dynamic testing' means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks. Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed. In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to independently certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case. Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0423OpenMr. Stephen C. Royer, Director of Governmental Relations, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 900 Spring Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Mr. Stephen C. Royer Director of Governmental Relations National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 900 Spring Street Silver Spring MD 20910; Dear Mr. Royer: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1971, concerning th applicability (S 573.3) of the Defect Reports regulations (Docket No. 69-31, Notice 2) published February 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 3064). In your letter you ask,; >>>'If a concrete truck mixer manufacturer is notified of a defect (o brakes, for example) and the concrete truck mixer manufacturer relays this information to the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer indicates that he will file the necessary defect reports with [the] Administration and then does not, would . . . [the] concrete truck mixer manufacturer be deemed in violation of Part 573?'<<<; The answer to this question is yes. Under the circumstances yo describe, both the concrete truck mixer and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in violation of the regulation. Neither manufacturer would be in compliance until one of them filed the report in question, which could be either the defect information report required pursuant to S 573.4 or the quarterly report required pursuant to S 573.5.; The NHTSA cannot become involved in disputes between complete an incomplete vehicle manufacturers as to which one of them will furnish the required reports, and the manufacturers concerned must bear the responsibility for deciding this question between themselves.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5271OpenMr. Jack McIntyre Vice President Tie Tech Inc. Post Office Box 5226 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226; Mr. Jack McIntyre Vice President Tie Tech Inc. Post Office Box 5226 Lynnwood WA 98046-5226; "Dear Mr. McIntyre: This responds to your letter in which you withdre your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead. You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair. Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, 'except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . .' That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards. I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0589OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of December 24, 1971, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.'; You ask whether the entire interior of a van-type vehicle that has n divider behind the driver would be considered the passenger compartment. The answer to this question is no. The cargo area of such a vehicle would not be considered a 'vehicle occupant compartment' under S4.1 of Standard No. 302, and materials used in the cargo area need not comply with the standard.; You ask further whether a metal compartment bin or rack such as thos used in a telephone truck for storage must be certified. If the bin is within the passenger compartment, and is installed in the truck before its sale to a consumer, it would be required under S4.1, as a 'compartment shelf' to meet the requirements of the standard. Certification would be the responsibility of the truck manufacturer, however, and not the manufacturer of the compartment. If the bin or rack is not within the passenger compartment, it need not meet the requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.