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: aiam1353OpenMr. Patrick C. Ross, President, B. F. Goodrich Tire Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44318; Mr. Patrick C. Ross President B. F. Goodrich Tire Company 500 South Main Street Akron OH 44318; Dear Mr. Ross: This is in reply to your petition, dated May 18, 1973, for amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). You request that the standard be amended to except tires having an 'unusual configuration and construction,' from that part of S4.3 which requires safety information to be labeled between each tire's maximum section width and bead. You request a similar exception in Part 574 for the tire identification number. Goodrich has experienced difficulties in placing this information in the proper location in tire molds used to manufacture Goodrich's Space Saver Spare tire. You indicate this is caused by the thinness of the mold, which is apparently necessitated by the folding sidewall characteristics of the tire.; In the case of the Space Saver Spare, Goodrich wants to be able t place the labeling information and the identification number in the shoulder area of the tire. Your request is supported with pictures of a Space Saver Spare that has been run to wear-out yet still retains legible labeling in this area. In your view it is unlikely that this tire will be retreaded. You argue that the location you desire to use, while not between the maximum section width and bead, has the advantage of making the information and identification number visible both when the tire is inflated and deflated. The latter condition is important in this case in that this tire is generally carried in a deflated, folded condition when it is not in use.; We do not believe the facts you present justify an amendment to th standard, and have therefore determined that your petition should be denied. The purpose of requiring safety information and the tire identification number to be placed between each tire's maximum section width and the bead is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that the information will remain on the tire throughout its useful life, including a retreading process if the tire is retreaded. In our view, it is not all clear that the alternative location you suggest will still meet this objective. The justification which you provide does not show that labeled information cannot be removed in service or that these tires will not, in fact, be retreaded. We certainly would not object if Goodrich were to place identifying information in separate location in addition to that required by the standard.; With respect to the difficulty you have encountered in placing th information in the specified area, we do not find on the basis of the information you have supplied that the alternative possibilities are impracticable. For example, your letter does not mention whether you have attempted to engrave the safety information and that part of the identification number that is constant into the tire molds. While we understand engraving is generally more expensive and somewhat more inconvenient than branding the mold or using metal plates, we do not believe the added expense and inconvenience, particularly as it is amortized over the life of the mold, to be unreasonable in terms of the safety benefit achieved. It also appears that this labeling, in letters 0.078 inches in height, can be placed just above the rim centering rib, which from the sample submitted with your petition, does not appear to have been damaged upon removal. This location would allow removal of the tire from the mold without deformation of the lettering and would place the required information between the tire's maximum section width and bead. With respect to date codes, for which engraving is unsuited, it appears that the code stamp could be recessed so as to be flush with the mold surface, thus eliminating or substantially reducing the destruction of the lettering during removal.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam1541OpenMr. A. Deane, Flyer Industries Limited, 6 Otter Street, Winnipeg, Canada R3T OM6; Mr. A. Deane Flyer Industries Limited 6 Otter Street Winnipeg Canada R3T OM6; Dear Mr. Deane: This responds to your June 5, 1974, question whether electric trackles trolley coaches are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966, and if so, whether Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, or any other special requirements must be met by this type of vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle:; >>>'Motor vehicle' means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanica power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; An electric trackless trolley coach is a motor vehicle under thi definition, and Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, applies to a coach equipped with an air brake system. No special requirements apply to trackless trolley coaches. Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, requires stopping distance performance which must be met by any bus equipped with air brakes, whether or not it is equipped with supplementary dynamic braking means. In evaluating a vehicle's compliance with the stopping distance performance requirements of S5.3 and S5.7.2.3, auxiliary braking devices may be utilized in making the stops provided such devices are engaged by means of the same service brake pedal or parking brake control that operates the air brakes. It should be noted, however, that these stops must be made with the transmission selector control in neutral or the clutch disengaged (S6.1.3).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4491OpenMr. Richard J. Matysiak President Auto Chek, Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain, GA 30086-0258; Mr. Richard J. Matysiak President Auto Chek Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain GA 30086-0258; "Dear Mr. Matysiak: This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephrai of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541, copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you asked how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of 'clipping' body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention standard, as explained below. The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle, see 18 U.S.C. 511. These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of 'clipping' described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the 'clipped' section that were not damaged in the 'clipping' process. As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was 'clipped.' The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would naturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them. You also asked how the 'clipping' process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Kelly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, '... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the vehicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titling requirements and designations such as 'salvage' and 'rebuilt' vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5563OpenK. Olsen 8577 South State Spanish Fork, UT 84660; K. Olsen 8577 South State Spanish Fork UT 84660; "Dear Ms. Olsen: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995 requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation. This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability. I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. In that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers. This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency. I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manufacturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5287OpenMr. Richard J. Dessert Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company 1550 Armacost Avenue #201 West Los Angeles, CA 90025; Mr. Richard J. Dessert Proprietor Sun Cycle Company 1550 Armacost Avenue #201 West Los Angeles CA 90025; "Dear Mr. Dessert: This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, t the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that 'As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.' Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action. There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not forbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that the Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low- emission vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards. As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standard for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general statement you have made that the first prototypes will 'substantially comply with all the safety standards.' Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we have received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain photographs or descriptive literature illustrating it. Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not 'obtain' certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicles after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety. If you have any questions about this matter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Jeffrey S. Silverstone Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Attn: Electric Vehicle RFP P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100"; |
|
ID: aiam1372OpenMr. Stanley J. Marx, President, Gillig Brothers, P. O. Box 330, Hayward, CA 94543; Mr. Stanley J. Marx President Gillig Brothers P. O. Box 330 Hayward CA 94543; Dear Mr. Marx: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, i accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.; The Defect Information Report involves: 1600 coaches manufacture during a period dating from January 1, 1972, through December 13, 1973, with Ross HPS71 and HF64 power steering gear boxes. Possibility that the lower steering shaft bearing has failed due to a lack of lubricating and/or the failure to maintain proper alignment with the gear box.; The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA identification number has been assigned to the campaign *73- 0247*. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1974.; Please refer to the above number in all future correspondenc concerning this campaign.; In addition, the letter which you have sent to first purchasers doe not meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification.' Specifically, it does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety in the manner set forth in section 577.4(d). (If vehicle crash is the potential result of steering loss, as appears likely, your letter should reflect the requirements of 577.4(d)(1).) The letter also fails to conform to section 577.4(e)(3), requiring a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect when the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair. Specifically, it is not clear from the drawing you enclose which parts may have to be replaced. For each part section 577.4(e)(3)(i) required the name, part number, and suggested list price to be included. You are also required to specify the day after which parts will be generally available (section 577.4(e)(3)(iii). If parts are presently available, the letter should so state.; For your information, your December 1973 quarterly report which yo sent this office does not meet the requirements of Part 573 (49 CFR). This regulation requires the submission of quarterly reports not more than 25 working days after the close of each calendar quarter, that is, the end of March, June, September, and December. Also, each report shall contain the total number of manufacturer's vehicles by make, model, and model year produced or imported during the quarter whether or not they are involved in a recall campaign. Therefore, the NHTSA requests that in the future quarterly reports be composed in accordance with Part 573.; Failure to comply with this regulation can result in the imposition o civil penalties and injunctive sanctions.; If you desire further information please contact Messrs. James Murra or Marx Elliott of this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3545OpenMr. S. Robson, Executive Engineer, Vehicle Regulations, Engineering Division, Mack Trucks, Inc., P. O. Box 1761, Allentown, PA 18105; Mr. S. Robson Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Engineering Division Mack Trucks Inc. P. O. Box 1761 Allentown PA 18105; Dear Mr. Robson This responds to your January 19, 1982, letter asking whether the hos that connects the air pressure gauge to the service reservoir system must comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hoses.* You also ask whether the air pressure gauge is part of the Standard No. 121, *Air Brake System*.; The air pressure gauge to which you refer is required by S5.1.4 o Standard No. 121. Accordingly, it is considered as part of the air brake system. With respect to whether the tubing connecting that gauge to the air supply reservoir must comply with Standard No. 106, that standard defines brake hoses as:; >>>a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.<<<; The agency has previously determined that hoses connected to the ai pressure gauges need not comply with Standard No. 106 if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle s brakes. To determine whether your system transmits or contains the pressure, you must determine whether a failure of the hose to the gauge would result in a loss of air pressure in the system. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106. This answer would also apply to other air pressure gauges that you may install to monitor other portions of the brake system performance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3225OpenMr. Ronald A. Irvine, Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz & Brewer, 915 Oak Street, Suite 200, Eugene, Oregon 97401; Mr. Ronald A. Irvine Lombard Gardner Honsowetz & Brewer 915 Oak Street Suite 200 Eugene Oregon 97401; Dear Mr. Irvine: This responds to your letter of February 8, 1980, on behalf of you client, Ideal Welding and Machine Company. That company intends to market a one-piece unit coupling device for the connection of electrical and air-brake lines on tractor- trailers. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (49 CFR 571.106-74), would be applicable to this device.; The device described in your letter would not be considered a brak hose assembly or a brake hose end fitting. Rather, according to the drawings enclosed in your letter, a completed brake hose assembly with its own end fitting would be attached to the coupling device, similar to the attachment of a completed assembly to a manifold. Therefore, certification of compliance with Safety Standard No. 106-74 would not be required. This answer dispenses with your remaining questions concerning certification.; Although there are no Federal safety standards applicable to a devic such as you describe, it is a piece of motor vehicle equipment. Under the national traffic and motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381), a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any safety related defects that may exist in its products. The manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of any such safety related defects and remedy the defects at its own expense (15 U.S.C. 1411, *et seq.*). Therefore, your client should ascertain through testing or other means that there are no safety problems with its coupling device. Obviously, this is particularly important with any system involving vehicle braking.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1545OpenMr. R. W. Hilderbrandt, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, Bendix Corporation, 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, OH 44035; Mr. R. W. Hilderbrandt Heavy Vehicle Systems Group Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria OH 44035; Dear Mr. Hilderbrandt: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for interpetation (sic) o the volume requirements for service brake chambers in S5.2.1.2 and S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems:*; >>>S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and suppl reservoirs shall be at least twelve times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.<<<; You also requested that reservoir volume be based on manufacture 'rated volume' based on the designed volume of the reservoir.; In testing for compliance with S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2, the NHTSA wil accept a manufacturer's published 'rated volume' of the brake chamber with the piston or diaphragm at maximum travel. This means that the manufacturer may specify the full stroke of the piston or diaphragm and compute the 'rated volume' based on the designed volume of the chamber and the full stroke he has established. This volume may be somewhat larger than 'nominal brake chamber displacement' which does not necessarily account for the void ahead of the relaxed diaphragm or piston, the so-called 'pre-fill volume.' This volume must be included because it must be pressurized along with the displaced volume.; In the absence of manufacturer's published ratings, the NHTSA wil measure the brake chamber volume with the push rod at maximum stroke.; With regard to air reservoir volumes, the NHTSA will determine th volume of reservoirs by actual measurement. As a practical matter, air reservoirs are simple structures whose volumes are relatively easy to measure.; Sincerely yours, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5012OpenThe Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-2301; The Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510-2301; "Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992 concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product. The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information. There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366- 2683. I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry 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.