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: aiam5539OpenMr. Takashi Adachi Manager Ichikoh Industries, Ltd. North American Liaison Office 555 Briarwood Circle, Suite 190 Ann Arbor, MI 48108; Mr. Takashi Adachi Manager Ichikoh Industries Ltd. North American Liaison Office 555 Briarwood Circle Suite 190 Ann Arbor MI 48108; Dear Mr. Adachi: This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1995, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a reflex reflector design that you attached. This design shows a single reflector 2 inches in height mounted behind a clear outer lens which is bisected horizontally by an opaque strip 6mm (.25 in.) wide, giving the impression from the exterior of two reflectors, one .75 in. high above the divider, and one that is 1.00 in. in height, below the divider. You have asked whether the 'structure of the reflex reflector conforms to FMVSS 108,' and whether photometric conformance is judged with respect to the single reflector crossed by the opaque strip, or whether both the upper and lower portions of the bisected reflector must meet the photometric specification. Standard No. 108 is a performance standard, not a design standard. The standard does not specify any requirements concerning the structure of reflectors. The applicable requirements for reflex reflectors are those of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977, which Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Your reflector should be tested as a single reflector according to the procedures set forth in J594f. If the reflector does not meet the photometric performance requirements of that standard, you may add sufficient reflective elements to the reflector design until conformance is achieved. There is no need to test the upper and lower portions as separate reflectors. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202) 366-5263 of this Office. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2706OpenMr. Howard Gould, Gould, Reichert & Strauss, 2613-20 Carew Tower, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Howard Gould Gould Reichert & Strauss 2613-20 Carew Tower Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Gould: This confirms the substance of your November 2, 1977, meeting wit Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus safety standards to common carriers used in urban and rural transportation.; You indicated in that meeting that you thought that the effect of th Urban Mass Transportation Administration's grant program to rural transit authorities would be to phase out the standard yellow school bus in favor of transporting children on rural transit buses. This situation would result in the avoidance of the Federal school bus regulations.; It is the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) that buses used by rural transportation districts to transport school children do not qualify for the limited exception from the school bus safety standards accorded to urban transportation common carriers.; The agency has traditionally excluded urban common carrier buses fro the school bus requirements to allow transportation of school children on existing urban transportation facilities. The agency has never extended this exclusion to rural common carrier buses. In our notice on the redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033) the NHTSA indicated that only urban transit buses would fall within the ambit of this limited exception. By that action, the agency intended to avoid the artificial development of rural transportation authorities that would result in the avoidance of the Federal school bus regulations.; In another comment you criticized the agency's adoption of a 'us definition' for the applicability of the school bus regulations since the application of such definition depends upon the sales transaction to establish the intended use of the vehicle. You allege that enforcement of regulations dependent upon the sales transaction cannot be achieved.; The agency adopted the 'use definition' for the regulation of schoo buses as a result of a Congressional directive in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress defined school bus in a manner that requires the use of a vehicle to be considered. Accordingly, the agency must employ the 'use definition' in regulating school buses. The NHTSA does not agree that the new regulations are unenforceable as a result of this regulatory approach. Enforcement of these regulations will be as vigorous as the enforcement of any other NHTSA regulation.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1829OpenHonorable Mark Andrews, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Mark Andrews House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Andrews: This responds to your February 18, 1975, request for information i behalf of a constituent, concerning any Federal regulation which might require bulk oil trucks to have a 120-inch wheelbase and be equipped with certain wheels, tires, and axles.; Neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) no the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued a safety standard which requires a certain wheelbase or the components listed by your constituent.; NHTSA has issued Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, whic establishes minimum performance requirements for air-braked vehicles. A major requirement is that an air-braked vehicle must be capable of stopping within a distance that is comparable to average passenger car performance. This requirement is intended to reduce the incompatibility in braking performance between heavy trucks and passenger cars which must share the nation's highways.; Manufacturers are free to choose any design which permits thei vehicles to stop in the required distance. It is possible that the manufacturer of your constituent's vehicle has found that a longer wheelbase and stronger axles, brakes, wheels, and tires are necessary to insure that the vehicle is capable of consistently stopping without loss of control in a distance comparable to the average passenger car. We consider the modification of vehicles in this fashion to be a significant contribution to motor vehicle safety.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3814OpenMr. Seiroku Miyauchi, Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div., Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., 1-2, Marunouchi, 2-Chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100, Japan; Mr. Seiroku Miyauchi Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div. Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. 1-2 Marunouchi 2-Chome Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100 Japan; Dear Mr. Miyauchi: This responds to your letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong asking severa questions about Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; Your first question concerned the requirements of Weathering Test No 16 of American National Standard Institute Z-26. The version of ANSI Z-26 currently incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 is ANSI Z-26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1a, July 3, 1980, rather than ANSI Z-26.1- 1977 as cited in your letter. Your question has to do with the language of section 5.16.3 of ANSI Z-26, which states that after the weathering test, 'the decrease in regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimen shall not exceed 5 percent.' You ask whether the permissible decrease is an absolute 5 percentage points (defined as A-B, where A is the luminous transmittance before the test and B is the luminous transmittance after the test) or is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A). The permissible decrease is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B/A), or stated another way, the irradiated specimen must have 95 percent of its original transmittance after the test.; You also asked if Weathering Test No. 16 applies to AS-7 glazin materials. As required by Table 1 of ANSI Z-26, the weathering test does apply to AS-7 glazing materials.; Finally, you asked which DOT number, yours or the resin maker's, shoul be applied to a motorcycle windshield you make with an injection machine from polycarbonate resin pellets. Your DOT number must be used, since you fabricate the actual item of glazing material that will be placed in a vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5169OpenMr. Lawrence Hufstedler Mr. Raymond Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD. 5508 Cahuenga Boulevard North Hollywood, CA 91601; Mr. Lawrence Hufstedler Mr. Raymond Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises LTD. 5508 Cahuenga Boulevard North Hollywood CA 91601; "Dear Messrs. Hufstedler and Kesler: This responds to your lette inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as 'passenger vehicles' weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror. If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of- view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror. Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A). In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0691OpenMr. Richard M. Leek, President, Western Contractors Equipment, Inc., 4825 Lake Street, Melrose Park, IL 60161; Mr. Richard M. Leek President Western Contractors Equipment Inc. 4825 Lake Street Melrose Park IL 60161; Dear Mr. Leek: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1972, concerning problem you are having in certifying certain vehicles on which you install a boom-loading device. You state that the chassis on which you are to install this device has been altered by a person who added a tag axle but did not furnish you a GAWR for it. It was also altered by the owner, who partially installed a flat bed but did not install clearance lights or reflectors. You say that you cannot certify the vehicle because (1) you have no GAWR figures for the tag axle, and (2) the vehicle does not have appropriate lights or reflectors.; You can solve the problem you describe in either of two ways. First you may be able to install the boom-loading device as an intermediate manufacturer under the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568, S 568.5, copy enclosed). You may do so if the vehicle, after the completion of your work, is still an incomplete vehicle as defined in section 568.3 of the regulations. The fact that lighting equipment has been omitted and a flat bed is still to be installed indicate that this would be a reasonable position for you to take. If you proceed in this manner you must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document, as provided in section 568.5, to the person to whom you deliver the vehicle.; Your other option is to provide the owner with a completed vehicle. I this case you must provide a GAWR for the tag axle, install the necessary lighting equipment, and certify the vehicle. You should seemingly be able to obtain the GAWR from the axle manufacturer, but we recommend you request that this information be furnished to you in writing, and that you retain it after you complete the vehicle. The requirements for proper lighting and reflective equipment are contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a copy of which is also enclosed. According to your letter, once you have made these modifications there should be no obstacle to your properly certifying the vehicle.; We have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standard Enforcement for appropriate action regarding the failure of Reliable Spring Company to furnish you with the GAWR for the axle they installed, and we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1983OpenMr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of July 3, 1975, forwarding a cop of an earlier letter that evidently was never received by us. You asked whether a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls, needs to have a seat at the auxiliary position, and whether access to such controls as the heater, wipers, and lights from this position is required.; We consider the standards relating to the driver's position as relatin to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position. The answer is no, therefore, to both of the above questions.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2356OpenMr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activites (sic) Staff, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48093; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activites (sic) Staff General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48093; Dear Mr. Martin: It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration that General Motors corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*:; >>>Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by th design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.<<<; The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568 *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W.J. Owen of the Cadilla Motor Car Division to Mr. R.B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to the ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.; I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fue system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body, and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.; The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to includ a--; >>>[l]isting by number of each standard...followed in each case by on of the following three types of statements, as applicable:; (i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to th standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. ...; (ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture unde which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. ...; (iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is no substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.<<<; There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may no be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicle, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, and designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.; The above discussion also applies to any other commercial chassi manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5493OpenMr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Manager, Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 3800 Hamlin Road Auburn Hills, MI 48326; Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Manager Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America Inc. 3800 Hamlin Road Auburn Hills MI 48326; "Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your follow up request for a interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. I apologize for the delay in our response. We reiterate our position in a July 1, 1994 letter to you, that Volkswagen is required to continue marking replacement parts of the Corrado line, in model year 1995 and thereafter. The reason for this position follows. In your earlier request for an interpretation, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years (MYs) 1990 through 1994. For MY 1995, NHTSA granted a part 543 exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995. In a July 1, 1994 interpretation letter to you, we determined that since Volkswagen will not sell the exempted MY 1995 Corrado line with the antitheft device, in the United States, the part 543 exemption would not apply, and Volkswagen must continue to mark the replacement parts for the Corrado line. In your follow up letter, you wrote that the MY 1994 Corrado line has, as standard equipment, the antitheft device that was the subject of the part 543 exemption for MY 1995. You state that since the Corrado line with the approved antitheft device was sold in the United States, replacement parts for the Corrado line should not be subject to marking in MY 1995 and thereafter. We do not agree with your position. 49 CFR 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that: (1) are the subject of the grant, and (2) are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. The MY 1994 Corrado line does not meet the first condition, i.e., it is not the subject of a grant of an exemption from parts marking. The part 543 exemption for the Corrado line begins with MY 1995. (See 58 FR 28434). You have earlier written that no MY 1995 Corrado line with the exempted device, will be sold in the U.S. As stated in our July 1, 1994 letter, since no exempted line, equipped with the antitheft device will be sold in the U.S., Volkswagen must continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, as long as the replacement parts are offered for sale in the U.S. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5186OpenMr. Shawn Shieh Ventures International USA 1141 N. Columbus Ave., Suite 303 Glendale, CA 91202; Mr. Shawn Shieh Ventures International USA 1141 N. Columbus Ave. Suite 303 Glendale CA 91202; Dear Mr. Shieh: This replies to your undated letter to the Office o Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read. I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps. In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The 'restriction' on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
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.