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: nht94-3.92OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 9, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Lawrence Farhat -- President/CEO, Neon Riders of America, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/5/94 from Lawrence Farhat to John Womack (OCC 10172) TEXT: Dear Mr. Farhat: We have received your letter of July 5, 1994, with respect to the legality of neon lighting that your company manufactures for installation on the undercarriage of motor vehicles. You report that some users have been cited by local law enforcement autho rities, and state that there has been some confusion as to the legality of this lighting. You ask for our views. This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Standard No. 108 specifies the lighting equipment that is required when vehicles are manufactured. Lighting equipment that is not required is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The initial determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. NHTSA will not question this determination unless it is clearly erroneous. If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "knowingly make inoperative any part" of a lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law. State laws may vary a nd this is the reason for the confusion. 2 With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations of neon lights on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn sign als in use, we would consider that an impairment and a partially making inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on the underside of vehicles, and suggest that you write fo r an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. NHTSA would like manufacturers of this equipment to be aware that devices such as neon light systems which use high voltage may provide an ignition source for vehicle fires in the event of a crash. The agency would be concerned if undercarriage lighting in use causes or contributes to the severity of post-crash vehicle fires. |
||
ID: 0172Open Mr. Lawrence Farhat Dear Mr. Farhat: We have received your letter of July 5, 1994, with respect to the legality of neon lighting that your company manufactures for installation on the undercarriage of motor vehicles. You report that some users have been cited by local law enforcement authorities, and state that there has been some confusion as to the legality of this lighting. You ask for our views. This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Standard No. 108 specifies the lighting equipment that is required when vehicles are manufactured. Lighting equipment that is not required is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The initial determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. NHTSA will not question this determination unless it is clearly erroneous. If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "knowingly make inoperative any part" of a lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law. State laws may vary and this is the reason for the confusion. With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations of neon lights on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn signals in use, we would consider that an impairment and a partially making inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on the underside of vehicles, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. NHTSA would like manufacturers of this equipment to be aware that devices such as neon light systems which use high voltage may provide an ignition source for vehicle fires in the event of a crash. The agency would be concerned if undercarriage lighting in use causes or contributes to the severity of post-crash vehicle fires. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/9/94
|
1994 | |
ID: 18617-5OpenMr. David R. Button Dear Mr. Button: This responds to your request that we reevaluate a February 2, 1988, interpretation from this office that log splitters are motor vehicles subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We apologize for the delay in responding. Based on the new information you have given us, we conclude that the log splitters are not motor vehicles. Our 1988 interpretation letter had responded to an inquiry from Mr. John V. McFadden, former President of MTD Products, Inc. (MTD), which manufactures a line of log splitters. He had described the log splitter as "mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch." We concluded from the product literature, and from the provision of highway speed tires with the product, that the log splitters were motor vehicles, in that they would likely make frequent use of the highway and would likely stay at one particular "job site" for a limited amount of time. We also concluded that the log splitters were "trailers," a type of motor vehicle defined in our regulations and subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your new letter gives substantially more background on the log splitters than was provided us in 1988, and asks us to reconsider. You state that the MTD's log splitters are manufactured and sold to consumers through retail establishments such as Sears and Home Depot, in their power tools departments. The log splitter is sold in a box, and the trailer hitch and wheels must be assembled by the consumer. You state that the product is unsuitable for commercial use. You also state that consumer would likely use the log splitter only incidentally, if at all, on the public roadways, and that the MTD's owner's guide indicates that the product is not designed to be used frequently on the public roads. You further state that the product would spend most of its life in storage in a barn or shed, and that the use of the product is seasonal, amounting to only a few weekends a year. Our statute, at 49 USC 30102(a)(6), defines "motor vehicle" as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." "Trailer"is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." Based on the new information you provided, we have reconsidered our 1988 interpretation. We conclude that MTD's line of log splitters are normally purchased for use by an individual consumer, since the product is sold in the power tools section of department stores and other retail stores, requires final assembly by the purchasing consumer, and appears to be unsuitable for high-volume commercial use. Assuming you are correct that these log splitters, sold to individual consumers, are likely used on the public roads infrequently, if at all, we conclude that the log splitters are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads and are thus not motor vehicles under our statute. If we discover that these vehicles are being used on the road more frequently than you have represented to us, then we might reach a different conclusion. Since the log splitters are not motor vehicles under our statute, they do not have to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that the Federal government in the United States does not regulate them. Our conclusion has no effect on the status of these vehicles in other countries. Moreover, we encourage you to check State regulations, because they may require MTD's product to have certain equipment (e.g., lights and tires) to maximize the safe operation of the product on the highways. If you have further questions, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 | |
ID: nht70-2.4OpenDATE: 04/27/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA TO: E. D. Entyre and Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1970, to the Director, Office of Performance Analysis, now changed to the Office of Compliance, in which you pose the following question: "In the case of a body mounted on a chassis-cab which chassis-cab has had previous service as a completed vehicle, is it permissible to omit certification as required under Part 367, 49 C.F.R., since it is beyond the knowledge of the body manufacturer to ascertain compliance with the pertinent chassis-cab standards? The vehicle manufacturer will perform his work in compliance with current standards(Illegible Word) as practicable." The answer to your question is yes. At this time it is permissible to omit certification in the case you have described in your question, since the motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to domestic used vehicles. In the event, however, that you use an item of automotive equipment for which there is an applicable standard, such as glazing material, you are required to certify in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as it applies to items of motor vehicle equipment. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Thank you for your letter and your interest in the programs of the National Highway Safety Bureau. |
||
ID: 24516.ztvOpenMr. James A. Haigh Dear Mr. Haigh: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 2002, addressed to John Womack of this Office. You related that Transpec has developed an LED sign that mounts on the rear of a school bus. The device is wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping." When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass" (the photograph you enclosed depicts this mode of the device as it operates). You also related that you have searched both Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 108 and 131, and have found nothing in either that would prohibit use of your device. You asked for confirmation of your findings. Your letter did not relate whether your device will be installed by a school bus manufacturer as part of the vehicles original lighting package, or purchased by school districts to be installed on buses already procured. Generally, we allow local school bus jurisdictions to exercise considerable discretion in prescribing lighting specifications that they deem desirable for their vehicles under local conditions. Further, even if the installation of a supplementary lighting device on vehicles in use might be prohibited by Federal law, the prohibition is nullified if the installation is performed by the owner of the vehicle (e.g., if the modification of the school bus is performed in the school districts own repair shops). Thus, our general answer to your question is that your device is not prohibited under Federal law. However, we think it important to explain to you our views on electronic message boards and school bus lighting. The eight-lamp school bus warning system you reference is a required lighting system under S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 (as an alternative to a four-lamp system). Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the addition of lighting equipment not required by FMVSS 108 (or any other motor vehicle equipment), prior to a vehicles initial sale, if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS 108. The issue of whether lighted messages have an impairing effect has been the subject of frequent interpretations from this Office. For a comprehensive understanding of the issue, you may access these interpretations on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations website, www.nhtsa.gov, using the search word "message." I am enclosing two representative letters, one of mid-1995 to K. Howard Sharp and the other, dated August 4, 1997, to Alan Robinson. The letter to Mr. Sharp indicates that message-board interpretations as late as 1995 had been "cautionary in tone, rather than prohibitive." The later letter to Mr. Robinson flatly states that "electronic message boards are not permitted on motor vehicles that have been manufactured to conform to Standard No. 108." However, we are willing to make an exception in those instances where school districts have concluded that, under local conditions, an electronic message board with the messages that you described would enhance the safety of school bus passengers. We informed Mr. Sharp that "there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously." In the case of your device, "Caution-Stopping" appears simultaneously with the flashing of the amber lamps which are generally used with the stop lamps to indicate the school bus is stopping. The messages of "Stop" and "Do not Pass," appear only when the red lamps are flashing and the school bus is stopped. Thus, we do not see that the device you describe would create an impairment within the meaning of S5.1.3. Although FMVSS No. 131 "establishes requirements for devices that can be installed on school buses to improve the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of stopped school buses," (paragraph S1), in fact only one such device has been specified, the stop arm. You are correct that nothing in FMVSS No. 131 would prohibit the installation of your LED sign.
Enclosures ref:108 d.8/2/02 |
2002 | |
ID: gasketsOpen
Mr. Kim Jensen Dear Mr. Jensen: This is in response to your October 19, 2000, fax requesting information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations governing asbestos-containing gaskets in renovated engines for classic European cars. Specifically, you ask this office to confirm that the gaskets may contain asbestos. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, NHTSA has the authority to regulate motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as: Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the U.S., any motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with NHTSA standards. In addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Gaskets in renovated engines meet the definition of "motor vehicle equipment," and thus are under NHTSA's jurisdiction. To date, however, NHTSA has not promulgated any Federal motor vehicle safety standards on gaskets. Nevertheless, other federal agencies do regulate asbestos and may maintain regulations governing the use of asbestos in gaskets. For example, the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration classifies asbestos as a hazardous material and maintains regulations governing the shipment of asbestos-containing material (49 C.F.R. 172.101). Also, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulates asbestos as a hazardous substance and maintains rules governing occupational exposures to asbestos (29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 and 29 C.F.R. 1926.1101(g)(8)(iv), which governs the removal of gaskets containing asbestos). Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency maintains effluent standards for asbestos (40 C.F.R. 427.10, et seq.). You should contact these agencies to determine the regulations an importer must follow before importing engines with asbestos-containing gaskets. Because you ask about importing motor vehicle equipment, I direct your attention to 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules" (copy enclosed). Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:
In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. Enclosure ref:VSA |
2000 | |
ID: nht87-3.43OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/10/87 FROM: THOMAS H. JAHNKE -- OASIS INDUSTRIES, INC. TO: CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO THOMAS H. JAHNKE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32C4, STANDARD 205 TEXT: Dear Sirs, Oasis Industries, Inc. is a Fiberglass manufacture, located in the Midwest. We are in the process of coming out with a new product line of hardtops for convertable cars. I would like to find out, through the Dept. of Transportation, if their are any spec. we need to comply with for safety and or standards. In a conversation I had today with a Mr. Hunter, of the Dept. of Transportation, he explained that their were not any regulations of specs. on this type of product. Even though Mr. Hunter has verbally made this statement, we feel that it is necessary to get this commitment in writing. I would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation on the above matter. Sincerely, |
||
ID: nht72-1.19OpenDATE: 02/11/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Salt Lake Auto Auction TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1972, inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a narrow strip of black rubber around the tire is buffed or ground off and replaced with a strip of whitewall which is bonded or vulcanized to the tire in its place. Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires," which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed. If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard. |
||
ID: nht73-1.16OpenDATE: 02/27/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA TO: American Automobile Association TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of January 26, 1973, regarding performance of studded tires and the legal implications of installing studs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not tested studded tires as part of its regular compliance program However, a special test of studded tires outside of the regular compliance program was conducted. The results of this program are presently being prepared for release to the public through NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Briefly, in this program, snow tires manufactured and studded by the major tire manufacturers, were tested in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 109 and to conditions that exceed the requirements of Standard No. 109. Unstudded tires of the same type were tested concurrently for direct comparison. To summarize the data from this program, both the studded and the unstudded tires passed both the endurance and high speed performance tests, the studded tires without loss of studs. In extension of the high speed test to 1/2 hour at 90 mph and 1/2 hour at 95 mph, some of the studs came out during the 1/2 hour at 95 mph. Some studded tires were run to 103 mph before tread chunking occurred. In extension of the endurance test for three hours with 10 percent increased load each hour, no studs were lost. As a result of this program, it would appear that studded tires do not present special problems when tested to the laboratory wheel tests of Standard No. 109. We understand that major tire manufacturers in the industry have also run similar tests and determined that studded tires will meet the requirements of Standard No. 109. We recommend that tire and stud manufacturers be contacted directly for additional information concerning studded tire performance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, persons who properly install appropriate studs in snow tires designed to be used with studs would not be responsible if the tire failed to conform to Federal standards. Because the installation of studs is clearly contemplated by the tire manufacturers, we would consider the conformity of such a tire to be his responsibility. On the other hand, a person who willfully used improper studs, improper installation procedures or who attempted to stud a tire not designed for studs would be responsible for conformity. Whether proper stud installation was used would depend upon a variety of factors, such as accepted practice, and the tire and stud manufacturers' recommended procedures. Sincerely, January 26, 1973 General Benjamin O. Davis -- Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Safety and Consumer Affairs, Department of Transportation Dear General Davis: We would like to have all the information now available as to what safety performance compliance testing under MVSS No. 109 and No. 110 for studded tires have been performed by or for the Department of Transportation, and the availability of any related test reports. Since tire studs may be installed by tire manufacturers' retail outlets as well as independent tire dealers, information is also needed as to the legal implications of modifying a tire by installing tire studs, subsequent to the time it is "DOT" certified by the original tire manufacturer. Any help you can give would be most appreciated. Yours sincerely, John de Lorenzi -- Managing Director, Public & Government Relations |
||
ID: 1983-2.29OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/12/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mr. Richard London TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Richard London Ferme de la Ferrage 06620 Gourdon France
Dear Mr. London:
We understand that you recently asked the agency about the permissibility of importing a used motor vehicle, such as a Mercedes 280SL, which would be trailered to various auto meets, and which would not be licensed for use or used on the public roads. You have asked whether the vehicle would qualify, under these facts, as one imported "solely for the purpose of show...." within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).
The agency considers several factors in determining whether to accept a declaration that a vehicle is imported solely for "show". One of these is the nature of the vehicle itself. If it is a unique machine generally considered to be of technological or historical significance, it is more likely to be admitted under the exception than if it were a mass-produced vehicle similar to many that were manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The smaller the production run, the greater the likelihood that it will be considered to be unique. Mechanical components that differ substantially from those commonly in use at the time of manufacture are evidence of its technological significance. Association with historical personages that would create a desire in the public to see the car is also considered relevant in the agency's interpretation of the word "show". Another factor is the nature of "show". If the vehicle is intended for display as part of a collection of vehicles open to the public on a continuing basis, it is more likely to be admitted than if it were the importer's sole vehicle and garaged. The fact that an importer intends to transport a vehicle by trailer to display sites is consistent with the general declaration that the car is imported for purposes of show and will not be operated on the public roads. In interpreting the word "show" and thereby exercising its discretion whether to allow importation of nonconforming motor vehicles for this purpose, the agency must balance the harm to the public likely to occur through use of the vehicle on the public roads, with the benefit to the public of importation of a nonconforming vehicle for show purposes. The agency has no control over disposition or use of a nonconforming vehicle once it has been imported for "show", and NHTSA's intent is to assure itself that a "show" vehicle is unlikely to be sold at some time in the future for use on the public roads. Therefore, the statement by the importer that he does not intend to use it on the roads is not necessarily dispositive of the matter because there is no assurance that a subsequent owner would have the same intent. Thus, the agency believes it is less likely that a rare or unique vehicle, part of a collection available to the public will be sold for use on the public roads than a vehicle such as the 1968-72 Mercedes 280SL that has been imported in numerous quantities as a conforming motor vehicle. Of course, any vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, such as the Mercedes 230 SL or 250 SL need not meet any Federal safety or emission requirements.
If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.
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.