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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam0689OpenMrs. Janet P. Lannan, Office Manager, Coirtex, 4535 North Ravenswood Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60640; Mrs. Janet P. Lannan Office Manager Coirtex 4535 North Ravenswood Avenue Chicago IL 60640; Dear Mrs. Lannan: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials' to 'coco fibre' floor mats which you supply to distributors who resell them to dealers for optional placement in cars.; Standard No. 302 does not apply to floor coverings that are no provided with the vehicle by its manufacturer. Consequently, aftermarket floor mats are not subject to its requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5171OpenTrooper Bob Dittert Texas Department of Public Safety 10110 NW Freeway Houston, TX 77092; Trooper Bob Dittert Texas Department of Public Safety 10110 NW Freeway Houston TX 77092; "Dear Mr. Dittert: This responds to your inquiry about how the Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, 'Glazing Materials,' issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that: 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter. Question One: 'Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?' NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards. Question Two: 'Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?' The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the 'render inoperative' provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment. Question Three: 'Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?' We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law. Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... 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. Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205. As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law. Question 4: 'Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?' You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0373OpenMr. Richard I. Moss, Washington Representative, Trailer Coach Association, 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922, Arlington, VA 22209; Mr. Richard I. Moss Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street Suite 922 Arlington VA 22209; Dear Mr. Moss: This is in reply to your letter of June 7 requesting interpretations o Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.; First, with respect to Standard No. 207, you have asked whethe designated seating positions must be labeled as such. Our response is that the labeling section requires labels on seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion but does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.; With respect to the nature and content of the label on a seat no designated for occupancy, the standard states that the seat must be 'conspicuously labeled to that effect.' There are thus two general requirements: that the label be conspicuous and that it indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The requirement for conspicuousness relates to the location of the label and the prominence of its lettering. Generally speaking, it would have to be located so that it could be seen by a person preparing to occupy the seat and of a size that could be read by the occupant-in the normal motion of sitting. The statement on the label must clearly indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, but the exact wording is left to the manufacturer.; Standard No. 208 requires that MPV's and trucks with a GVWR of les than 10,000 pounds, manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1975, must elect either a passive protection system or a seat belt system that requires Type 2 seat belt assemblies at outboard designated seating positions that include the windshield header within the head impact area. A similar requirement, without the passive option, goes into effect July 1, 1971, for these vehicles. Your question is whether, if a seating position does not have the windshield header within the head impact area, it is permitted to have a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Our response is that the standard permits a Type 1 belt for such a position.; Please advise us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4330OpenClarence M. Ditlow III, Esq., Center for Auto Safety, 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 410, Washington, DC 20009; Clarence M. Ditlow III Esq. Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street N.W. Suite 410 Washington DC 20009; Dear Mr. Ditlow: Thank you for your letter concerning how the provisions of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to the displaying, test driving, and delivery of a passenger car with an automatic safety belt. The agency has recently issued the enclosed Federal Register notice that addresses the issues you raised.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1132OpenMr. Lawrence D. Beshore, Femco, Inc., P.O. Box 687, 500 North Bypass, McPherson, KS 67460; Mr. Lawrence D. Beshore Femco Inc. P.O. Box 687 500 North Bypass McPherson KS 67460; Dear Mr. Beshore: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1973, inquiring whethe any Federal laws apply to your building and installation of a man-lift (pictures of which you enclose) in a completed pick-up truck. You state you understand that if the man-lift is installed on a completed vehicle, you are not considered the final-stage manufacturer.; Based on the information you have provided us, we believe you interpretation to be correct. It does not appear that you have altered the pick-up truck in a way that would make your company responsible for conformity with Federal safety standards or regulations.; The NHTSA has proposed certain requirements for vehicle alterers (cop enclosed). These requirements would very likely apply to you, when effective, if the addition of the man-lift occurs before the purchase of the pick-up truck for a purpose other than resale.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1098OpenMr. R. W. Lillie, R. W. Lillie & Company, 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1449, Los Angeles, CA 90024; Mr. R. W. Lillie R. W. Lillie & Company 1100 Glendon Avenue Suite 1449 Los Angeles CA 90024; Dear Mr. Lillie: Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1973, and your further inquir concerning silicone brake fluids and plastic fuel tanks. Although performance characteristics for silicone brake fluids have not yet been proposed by this agency, we have adopted regulations covering labelling of containers for these fluids. The copy of Standard No. 116 enclosed with your last letter may not have included this latest amendment, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. This constitutes all the information we are presently able to supply concerning silicon brake fluids. However, future rule making action concerning these fluids is scheduled for the near future.; Regarding further actions concerning plastic fuel tanks, we woul advise, as stated in our last letter dated March 29, 1973, that you contact the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for further information at the following address:; >>>Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Department o Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4760OpenDelbert N. Pier Legislation and Compliance Coordinator Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108; Delbert N. Pier Legislation and Compliance Coordinator Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor MI 48108; "Dear Mr. Pier: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. (49 CFR 571.107). I apologize for the delay in our response. You explained that Hyundai is planning to test the surface of a windshield wiper blade rail spring by using several rail springs gathered together because one spring would have a limited amount of area to reflect the light source. You asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to confirm your view that this method of compliance testing is a satisfactory method of complying with section S4 of Standard No. 107. By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Vehicle Safety Act') makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Each safety standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures used by the agency in its compliance testing to evaluate a vehicle or item of equipment. For instance, section S4 of Standard No. 107 specifies specular gloss requirements for certain vehicle components, including windshield wiper arms and blades. That provision requires that the specular gloss of the specified components must not exceed 40 units when measured by the 20 degree method of ASTM Standard D523-62T. While the agency would follow ASTM Standard D523-62T for purposes of compliance testing, the Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products in the manner specified in a motor vehicle safety standard or even to test the product at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of that standard, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal requirements when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show that its chosen means of evaluating compliance is a reasonable surrogate for the test procedure specified by the standard. In the event that the agency determines an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment tested in the agency's compliance program, the manufacturer must show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies. The manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised due care in its designing and manufacturing of the product and in its checking (through actual testing, computer simulation or otherwise) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply. Of course, notwithstanding the exercise of due care, the manufacturer would still be subject to the recall responsibilities of the Vehicle Safety Act for any noncomplying vehicles or equipment. With these considerations in mind, you appear, based on the statements in your letter, merely to be testing a group of identical components with identical specular gloss levels at one time rather than separately. If this is the case, it appears that your intended method of testing is consistent with the testing procedures in Standard No. 107. I hope this information answers your questions. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992, if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1562OpenRobert Markowitz, Esq., Lieberman, Tratras & Markowitz, Shepherd Law Plaza Building, 1300 Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77007; Robert Markowitz Esq. Lieberman Tratras & Markowitz Shepherd Law Plaza Building 1300 Shepherd Drive Houston TX 77007; Dear Mr. Markowitz: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1974, forwarding to us second sample defect notification letter regarding the failure of certain trailers manufactured by Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company to conform to Standard No. 108.; Your notification letter still fails to conform to applicabl requirements (49 CFR Part 577, copy enclosed for your further reference). Particularly, Part 577 requires a specific opening statement, which you have omitted, and a specific second statement, which you have altered. We refer you to the regulation regarding the opening statement. With respect to the second, it must state, following the regulatory format, that the manufacturer, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company, has determined that a safety related defect exists. We also prefer, in the case of a defect resulting from a noncompliance, that, in addition to describing the equipment that is missing and that will be installed (as you have done), the notification include a statement that the defect results from the failure to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This information could come at the end of the second sentence of your first paragraph, which we assume will be rewritten to conform to this letter. In other respects your letter does conform to Part 577.; For your information, any future defect reports should be sent to th Office of Defects Investigation rather than to this office.; NHTSA has discontinued its mailing list concerning new regulations. enclose a copy of an information sheet on how to obtain our standards and other regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5258OpenMr. Toshi Tanaka General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept. Sensor Technology Co., Ltd. 1-3-3 Yaesu, Chuo-ku Tokyo, 103, JAPAN; Mr. Toshi Tanaka General Manager Sales & Marketing Dept. Sensor Technology Co. Ltd. 1-3-3 Yaesu Chuo-ku Tokyo 103 JAPAN; "Dear Mr. Tanaka: This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows. Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law? The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform 'Roll Over Test'? Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies. A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot. 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 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2067OpenMr. Eugene D. Sambucetti, Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales, P.O. Box 626, Woodland, CA 95695; Mr. Eugene D. Sambucetti Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales P.O. Box 626 Woodland CA 95695; Dear Mr. Sambucetti: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of wha constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; The use of components in combination with used components to assemble complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used 'chassis' that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers hav had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used 'chassis' which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used 'chassis'. However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the 'main frame'.; In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls whic constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes (sic the main load- bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run th length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose o and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.; Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetri capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.; In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulation may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.