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: aiam1033OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 1973, requesting severa interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', as it applies to motor homes and campers.; We find the interpretations as to the use of item 3 glazing containe in your letter to be correct. Your interpretation of 'levels not requisite for driving visibility' as meaning that other windows are available and more suited for driving visibility is reasonable, and acceptable for purposes of Standard No. 205.; We also find your interpretations on the use of items 4, 5, 8, and glazing materials to be correct. We do not agree, however, with your suggestion of allowing items 5 and 9 glazing to be used in camper windows adjacent to the truck cab rear window without regard to driving visibility. We agree it is unlikely with respect to most vehicles that such windows will be requisite for driving visibility, and will accept a good-faith, reasonable judgment decision on the question by a camper manufacturer. Consequently we do not believe that the remaining 'degree of uncertainty' will result in compliance problems for camper manufacturers.; Your conclusions regarding the application of items 6 and 7 glazing ar correct. We do not agree, however, that it is necessary or desirable to use such materials in any forward-facing windows, including those adjacent to the rear window of the truck cab. We believe the possibility of impact into these windows precludes the safe use in them of these glazing items, and item 13 glazing as well.; Your conclusions regarding the application of item 12 and item 1 glazing are correct. We appreciate your pointing out the lack of continuity in subparagraph designations for items 6, 7, 8, and 9. This was unintentional on our part, and your conclusion that the added subparagraphs should be read as following immediately those existing, regardless of letter designation, is correct. Finally, you are correct in your conclusion that the amendments to Standard No. 205 should be seen as overriding the headings for the various glazing items in the ANS Z26 standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4661OpenMr. Wolfred Freeman Freeman & Company P.O. Box 5062 San Marcos, CA 92069; Mr. Wolfred Freeman Freeman & Company P.O. Box 5062 San Marcos CA 92069; "Dear Mr. Freeman: This is in reply to your letter to June 22, l989, t the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you 'petition...for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles.' You have designed 'a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road.' We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of motor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it. However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. l08, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. l08, we regard the auxiliary light as having rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act. Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the accelerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment. You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device. We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1199OpenMr. Charles J. Calvin, Managing Director, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Charles J. Calvin Managing Director Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Calvin: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1973, requesting a unifor location for trailer certifications labels required by both the Hazardous Materials regulations (49 CFR S 178.340-10) and NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). You request that location be specified as the 'forward half of the left side of the trailer.'; NHTSA Certification regulations, as you note, presently provide tha the certification label for trailers must be placed on the 'forward half of the left side of the vehicle' (49 CFR S 567.4(d)). This requirement does not distinguish between the frame and the tank shell, and the reference to 'vehicle' in the language of the provision is considered inclusion of both. The Certification regulations therefore appear to permit the location of the label that you request.; I note, however, the drawings in your letter, those titled 'Acceptabl Locations of Certification Labels' and 'Suggested Locations for Certification Labels', picture as an appropriate label location the front of the vehicle.; This location is not permitted by the NHTSA Certification regulations which clearly call for the label to be affixed to the vehicle 'left side'. While it is not clear whether you intended to request that the label be permitted to be affixed to the vehicle front, we do not find sufficient justification in your letter to depart from the existing requirements in this regard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1463OpenMr. Ronald N. Granning, Vice President, Granning Suspensions, Inc., 3040 Wyoming, Dearborn, MI 48120; Mr. Ronald N. Granning Vice President Granning Suspensions Inc. 3040 Wyoming Dearborn MI 48120; Dear Mr. Granning: This responds to your March 21, 1974, request for an explanation o your certification responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as a manufacturer of liftable and 'additional' axles which are installed on completed vehicles by an independent truck equipment dealer or, in some cases, by the vehicle manufacturer at the factory.; Your responsibilities under Standard 121, *Air brake systems*, ar largely the same as your responsibility for certification of the GAWR of an axle under 49 CFR Part 567, although somewhat more complicated. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard 121 (49 CFR Part 567.4), and if the completed vehicle is altered, it is the responsibility of the vehicle alterer (49 CFR Part 567.7). The addition of an axle will change the GAWR-GVWR and the brake performance of the altered vehicle and will require recertification by the dealer who undertakes alteration.; A dealer is normally not equipped to recertify an altered vehicle except on the basis of certification information supplied to him by the manufacturer of the component that is being added. A component manufacturer like yourself might issue a performance guaranty which relies on the information that is supplied to him by the manufacturer of the basic parts (e.g. brakes, axles in your case) and which is conditioned on the observance of certain limits on installation. For instance, the reservoir volume requirement (S5.1.2.1) might be exceeded if the liftable axle manufacturer did not qualify his information by stating that a certain tank volume must be provided to serve the air chambers on his axle system. Another qualification could refer to brake actuation and release time as complying only if it did not reduce the brake actuation and release timing of the vehicle as a whole. The effect of your axle on each of the requirements would have to be determined.; We do not require certification of the axle by you as its manufacturer. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1709OpenMr. Peter N. Lalos, Mason, Fenwick & Lawrence, 310 O F C Building, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Peter N. Lalos Mason Fenwick & Lawrence 310 O F C Building 1730 Rhode Island Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Lalos: This responds to your November 15, 1974, request for a discussion o the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and in particular, Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S. 1391 et seq.) provides:; >>>S 108. (a) No person shall -- (1) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce i interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.<<<; Thus, the manufacture or sale of any vehicle which does not meet ever requirement of Standard No. 121 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is a violation of Federal law subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 per violation (S 109). Each vehicle which does not comply with the dynamometer requirements you listed could constitute a separate violation of the act.; You suggested the standard of 'reasonable or due care' as the sol responsibility of a vehicle manufactured under the Safety Act. Section 108(b)(2) in part provides that S 108(a)(1) 'shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care' that a vehicle did not comply with an applicable standard. In order to comply with the Safety Act each manufacturer must design his vehicles and test program so as to exercise due care in assuring that each of his vehicles complies with the standard. Calculations based on principles of engineering could constitute an element in the exercise of 'due care'. I enclose a discussion of 'due care' which appeared in the preamble to a recent rulemaking on Standard No. 121.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3734OpenMr. M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shizuoka Works, 500, Kitawaki, Shimuzu-shi, Shizuoka-ken, 424, Japan; Mr. M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi Shizuoka-ken 424 Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1983, to Mr. Medlin of thi agency asking for an interpretation of the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allowing use of replaceable bulb headlamp systems.; Regarding plastic lens materials, you have asked the limits o luminance transmittance loss and presence of haze after outdoor exposure test. These values are those specified by the referenced SAE standard, J576c.; You have also asked whether an accelerated weathering test i acceptable, such as ASTM E 838. Our reply is that you are free to conduct any accelerated weathering test you deem appropriate to support certification of compliance to Standard No. 108. We have not adopted any such test and will perform our compliance tests according to the 3-year test in SAE J576c.; Regarding the structural configuration of headlamps, you have aske about methods that may be acceptable to joining the lens and reflector, such as glue or welding. Standard No. 108 specifies no method for joining components, and any method is acceptable which results in an indivisible lens-reflector unit. Use of clips to supplement glue is permissible but use of clips alone would not result in an indivisible lens-reflector assembly. There is no objection to use of an additional rubber boot behind the reflector and bulb in the manner depicted in your letter. Drain holes, etc. may be provided as long as the headlamp complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 108. We shall publish in the near future a clearer indication of the headlamp terminal arrangement, as well as the dimensional specifications of the connector to the terminals of the bulb socket. We do not understand your request about the specific dimension and shape of each terminal 'blade' as the length, thickness, and width are already specified in the amendment (Figure 3-3). You have asked also whether the wattage values of 65 for the upper beam and 45 for the lower beam are maximum or nominal values. These values are maximum values.; Finally, concerning patent matters, you have asked whether certai aspects of the bulb and socket assembly are the subjects of patent claims. Ford has indicated in a letter of March 2, 1983, that, 'To facilitate compliance with the standard by all who wish to make or use replaceable bulb headlamps or their components, Ford Motor Company offers to grant royalty-free non-exclusive licenses to all manufacturers of motor vehicles, headlamps, or headlamp components that request such licenses, under U.S. patents and U.S. patent applications which claim these inventions to the extent that their use is needed to employ the proposed optional headlamp system.' If you have further questions on this issue you should write to Ford Motor Company.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1359OpenMr. David E. Martin, Manager, General Motors Corporation, Automotive Safety Engineering, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Manager General Motors Corporation Automotive Safety Engineering Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in reply to your letter of December 3, 1973, requestin clarification of paragraph S5.1(c) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.' Your letter, and attached photograph of a push-out window, suggest that the words window frame' in S5.1(c) refer not to the window sash', the structure immediately surrounding the glazing material, but to the side of the bus.; We do not agree. The words window frame' in S5.1(c), with respect t the push out window, refer to the component that interfaces with the glazing.; The intent of S5.1 is to require a window retention system to be stron enough to retain occupants in a crash, at least up to the strength limit of the glazing itself. Since there are no limits on the movement of the window sash' relative to the bus structure, the interpretation you suggest would allow a window system that provides no retentive properties at all, thus defeating one of the main purposes of the standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3364OpenJay A. Herbst, Esq., Messrs. Cross, Wrock, Miller & Vieson, 400 Renaissance Center, Suite 1900, Detroit, MI 48243; Jay A. Herbst Esq. Messrs. Cross Wrock Miller & Vieson 400 Renaissance Center Suite 1900 Detroit MI 48243; >>>Re: Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., *NHTS Exemption No. 79-01*<<<, Dear Mr. Herbst, This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1980. In it you described the plan of your client, Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., to offer a modification of its Model A replica passenger car, currently produced under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, and you asked several questions regarding this modification.; Specifically, Model A wishes to offer a modification in which the rea section of the vehicle (rumble seat) is removed and replaced by a flat bed with sides. The seating capacity of the vehicle would be reduced to two passengers and the 'modification will result in a vehicle configuration with the appearance of a Model A pickup truck.' You have asked:; >>>'1. As the modification will occur before complete manufacture o the vehicle, please confirm that the Company will not be considered as 'a person who alters certified vehicles' within the meaning of 49 CFR S568.8.'<<<; Since a vehicle cannot be said to comply until its manufacture i completed, and because certification is not legally required until the vehicle is delivered to a distributor, an alterer's statement is not required when modifications are made upon the assembly line by the certifying party itself, even if the certification label has been attached earlier in the manufacturing process.; You have also asked: >>>'2. Should the Company, for purposes of the certification require under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, treat the modified vehicle as a passenger car, or, in the alternative should the Company certify the vehicle as a truck, relying on the same waivers granted the Company under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01 (and to the extent necessary, the exemption granted for Safety Standard 109 (new pneumatic tires) and and (sic) Safety Standard 110 (tire and rim combinations) for the comparable non-passenger vehicle Safety Standards 119 and 120).'<<<; The question of whether a vehicle is a 'passenger car' or 'truck' fo purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be answered by a manufacturer on the basis of the definitions contained in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Certainly the modification could be viewed as a 'vehicle...designed for carrying 10 persons or less' (passenger car). But if it is 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment' it becomes a truck. Your letter does not indicate whether the 'flat bed with sides' is intended to be load-bearing or merely decorative, or otherwise state the purpose for which its manufacturer intends it. If it is certified as a 'passenger car,' the exemptions in effect will apply to it.; We surmise, however, that the vehicle is intended as an alternative t the Model A passenger car, as a truck for carrying light loads. Certification as such would require compliance with Standards Nos. 119 and 120. Because the requirements differ from Standards Nos. 109 and 110, Exemption 79-01 would not cover the truck tire and rim standards, and Model A would either have to conform or apply for a temporary exemption.; We would however, consider the vehicle as one covered by the origina exemption if the modification results in no increase in the present gross vehicle weight rating stated on Model A's certification plate. An example of this would be if the modified vehicle's unloaded weight remains the same and its rated cargo load did not exceed 300 pounds (the equivalent of the reduction by two of the number of designated seats). This would insure that the modified vehicle's tires would bear no greater load than that of vehicles presently exempted and permit use of the exemptions currently in effect from the tire and rim standards.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5463OpenMr. John Sheppard Sales and Marketing Manager Reflexite Canada, Inc. 6790 Kitimat Road, Unit 18 Mississauga Ontario L5N 5L9 Canada; Mr. John Sheppard Sales and Marketing Manager Reflexite Canada Inc. 6790 Kitimat Road Unit 18 Mississauga Ontario L5N 5L9 Canada; "Dear Mr. Sheppard: We have received your letter of November 2, 1994 asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material. The material alternates red and white stripes 'oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll.' Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and 'will not have DOT-C2 marking.' In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could 'be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2' 'block pattern' material currently being used?' Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future. Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Further, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5199OpenMr. K. Aubrey Hottell Smith and Robson, Inc. Suite 200 354 North Prince St. Lancaster, PA 17603; Mr. K. Aubrey Hottell Smith and Robson Inc. Suite 200 354 North Prince St. Lancaster PA 17603; "Dear Mr. Hottell: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993 requesting information on 'air bag replacement, air bag indicator light functioning, and any requirements or recommendations for indicator lights to be functional upon resale of a vehicle.' With regard to air bag replacement, I am enclosing a letter, dated January 19, 1990, to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. As explained in this letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. With regard to air bag indicator lights, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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. As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty to replace equipment damaged in a crash. Hence, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag indicator that is inoperable because of damage in a crash. However, the named commercial entities are prohibited from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' a functional indicator. Any violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. As noted in the Conrad letter enclosed, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. This recommendation would also include repair or replacement of a non-functioning indicator light. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the Conrad letter. 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 Enclosures"; |
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.