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: aiam2470OpenMr. J.L. Hollis, Vice President/ Engineering, Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company, P.O. Box 99, Carlisle, Pa. 17013; Mr. J.L. Hollis Vice President/ Engineering Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company P.O. Box 99 Carlisle Pa. 17013; Dear Mr. Hollis: This responds to Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company's May 7, 1976 request for assurance that certain of its tires are in Compliance with Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, and your request for a meeting on the issue of reduced performance requirements for tires used on motor0driven cycles with a maximum speed capability of 30 mph or less. I regret that we have not responded sooner.; The National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C S1391, *et seq.*) does not permit the assurance of compliance with Standard No. 119 that you request. The act requires 'self-certification' by the manufacturer that each of its products actually complies with all applicable standards (15 U.S.C. SS1397(a)(1)(A), 1403). The NHTSA does not issue 'approvals' for this reason.; With regard to your request for a meeting on the subject of performanc standards for tires used on low-speed motor-driven cycles, I would like to advise you that the NHTSA has decided to reduce some of the performance requirements for these tires. If you believe that a meeting would be desirable before we have issued a specific proposal, please contact Mr. Elwood Driver at the above address (tel. (202) 426-1740) to meet on the technical aspects of this issue.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5413OpenMr. Richard J. Quigley 5886-b Fernflat Road Aptos, CA 95003; Mr. Richard J. Quigley 5886-b Fernflat Road Aptos CA 95003; Dear Mr. Quigley: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of whether a drawing you provided would meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets, that specifies motorcycle helmets be labeled with the symbol DOT. The answer is no. Your drawing, approximately 2 cm. high, consists of three figures that you believe are the symbol 'DOT.' For the letter 'D,' the right side of the letter is not curved, but is formed by a series of jagged lines at the top and bottom of the letter that meet in a straight line parallel to the line that forms the left side of the 'D'. In lieu of the letter 'O,' your drawing depicts what appears to be a corporate logo, with a cartoon eagle inside a circle, and the name of a company written on the circle. The letter 'T' is formed like a conventional 'T,' with straight sides. S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218 specifies the symbol DOT: (e) ... This symbol shall appear on the outer surface, ... in letters at least 3/8 inch (1 cm) high, ... (Emphasis added.) Because the symbol DOT constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to Standard No. 218, there must be no ambiguity in the symbol. In your drawing, the corporate logo is clearly not the letter 'O'. Using the corporate logo in lieu of the letter 'O' may confuse consumers and others as to whether the manufacturer has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218. Thus, the drawing you have provided does not meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. If you have any questions, please contact Ken Weinstein of my staff at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5009OpenMr. C. Scott Thiss Chairman & CEO S&W Plastics, Inc. 10206 Crosstown Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55344; Mr. C. Scott Thiss Chairman & CEO S&W Plastics Inc. 10206 Crosstown Circle Eden Prairie MN 55344; "Dear Mr. Thiss: This responds to your letter of April 23, 1992 requesting a re-interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as it applies to your after market product, 'High Light.' This request is occasioned by the modifications you have made pursuant to my letter of January 23, 1992, to Terry Semprini, and after a meeting with NHTSA personnel on April 16. Initially, we advised that it appeared that 'High Light' had the potential to render inoperative the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. There were three reasons for this advisory. First, the placement of 'High Light' to the left of the vertical centerline did not fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to required equipment on new motor vehicles that lamps be located one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable, and thus 'High Light's' signals could be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, the hazard warning portion of 'High Light' operated through the stop lamp portion of the device rather than through the turn signal system, which meant an observer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of a trailer, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, the stop lamp portion of the device comprised a combination of a 'V' and an inverted 'V', a lighting array unlike any currently in use, which could create a momentary delay by a following driver in taking appropriate action. To address these concerns, you have modified 'High Light' to eliminate the hazard warning portion, and have changed the stop lamp so that it now appears as horizontal lights across the center of the device. While it is not possible to change the intended location of 'High Light' due to the configuration of trailer doors, you believe that its placement in the direct line of vision of a following driver adds to its visibility. Although you have not fully described the revised configuration of 'High Light', we believe that it can now be described as follows. It is a diamond- shape lamp, the left side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a left turn signal, and the right side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a right turn signal. In addition, two red lamps in the center form a stop signal. We understand that the amber lamps flash when they are in use, and that the red lamps are steady burning. In this configuration, it would appear that the lamps can serve as auxiliary turn signal and stop lamps without impairing the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires on the rear of trailers. Assuming that our understanding is correct, 'High Light' would not appear to render inoperative, either in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2833OpenRichard A. Brandeis, Esq., Investigative Services, Department of Public Safety, P.O. Box 1456, Atlanta, GA 30301; Richard A. Brandeis Esq. Investigative Services Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 1456 Atlanta GA 30301; Dear Mr. Brandeis: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1978, to Ms. Claybrook o moped helmets. You have informed us of Ga. L. 1978, Act 1476, which allows the Commissioner of the Deparment of Public Safety to develop a standard for 'moped' helmets different than that for a motorcycle helmet. You have asked whether NHTSA considers mopeds as motor vehicles 'as they relate to helmet use'. If so, must a moped helmet comply with Standard No. 218. Finally, if a separate State standard is allowable, you have asked whether Georgia could develop and implement its own standard for 'moped' helmets.; As defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) a 'motorcycle' is 'a motor vehicle .. having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground'. We have no other definitions applicable to two-wheeled vehicles and, for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a 'moped' is a 'motorcycle'. Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 218 states that Federal requirements apply to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users'. We view a moped operator as a 'motorcyclist' within the meaning of S2 and a helmet designed for use by a moped operator would have to comply with Standard No. 218. However, S2 continues by stating that Standard No. 218 applies only to 'helmets that fit headform size C' and that other sizes 'will not be covered by this standard until it is extended to those sizes by further amendment.'; Section 103(c) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1342(d)) prohibits a State from establishing a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as an existing Federal safety standard if the state standard differs from it. In our view, this means that Georgia could not establish 'moped' helmet requirements for helmets that fit size C headformns, unless they were identical to the requirements of Standard No. 218, but it could issue and implement 'moped' helmet requirements for helmets that fit other size headforms, such as A, B, and D.; While this represents an interpretation under existing Federa regulations, Georgia could petition NHTSA for rulemaking to adopt a different headgear standard for moped helmets that fit size C headform if the State, pursuant to its legislature's authorization, developed what it believed to be a more appropriate requirement. I enclose a copy of our rulemaking procedures, 49 CFR Part 552.; If you have any further questions, we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2832OpenRichard A. Brandeis, Esq., Investigative Services, Department of Public Safety, P.O. Box 1456, Atlanta, GA 30301; Richard A. Brandeis Esq. Investigative Services Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 1456 Atlanta GA 30301; Dear Mr. Brandeis: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1978, to Ms. Claybrook o moped helmets. You have informed us of Ga. L. 1978, Act 1476, which allows the Commissioner of the Deparment of Public Safety to develop a standard for 'moped' helmets different than that for a motorcycle helmet. You have asked whether NHTSA considers mopeds as motor vehicles 'as they relate to helmet use'. If so, must a moped helmet comply with Standard No. 218. Finally, if a separate State standard is allowable, you have asked whether Georgia could develop and implement its own standard for 'moped' helmets.; As defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) a 'motorcycle' is 'a motor vehicle .. having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground'. We have no other definitions applicable to two-wheeled vehicles and, for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a 'moped' is a 'motorcycle'. Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 218 states that Federal requirements apply to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users'. We view a moped operator as a 'motorcyclist' within the meaning of S2 and a helmet designed for use by a moped operator would have to comply with Standard No. 218. However, S2 continues by stating that Standard No. 218 applies only to 'helmets that fit headform size C' and that other sizes 'will not be covered by this standard until it is extended to those sizes by further amendment.'; Section 103(c) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1342(d)) prohibits a State from establishing a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as an existing Federal safety standard if the state standard differs from it. In our view, this means that Georgia could not establish 'moped' helmet requirements for helmets that fit size C headformns, unless they were identical to the requirements of Standard No. 218, but it could issue and implement 'moped' helmet requirements for helmets that fit other size headforms, such as A, B, and D.; While this represents an interpretation under existing Federa regulations, Georgia could petition NHTSA for rulemaking to adopt a different headgear standard for moped helmets that fit size C headform if the State, pursuant to its legislature's authorization, developed what it believed to be a more appropriate requirement. I enclose a copy of our rulemaking procedures, 49 CFR Part 552.; If you have any further questions, we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5264OpenMr. Larry Grabsky VML and Colonna Corp. 2122 - 65th St. Brooklyn, NY 11204; Mr. Larry Grabsky VML and Colonna Corp. 2122 - 65th St. Brooklyn NY 11204; Dear Mr. Grabasky: This is reply to your recent letter asking our view on the use of decorative neon lamps, or of oscillating or revolving ones. This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. If this determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will question it. In addition, all lighting equipment added before the vehicle's first sale must be steady burning when it is used. If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not 'render inoperative, in whole or in part' any lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law. With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn signals in use, we would consider that an impairment and a partially rendering inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on vehicles, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We are unsure what you mean by 'oscillating' but Standard No. 108, in general, requires lamps added before a vehicle's initial sale to be steady burning in use, unless otherwise permitted (such as turn signals and hazard warning signals, and automatic flashing of headlamps for signalling purposes). Installation of a non steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after initial sale could be viewed as a rendering inoperative depending upon the circumstances. Standard No. 108 does allow a motorcycle to be equipped with a modulating headlamp for daytime use. The modulation permitted is 240 +/- 40 cycles per minute. When NHTSA proposed to allow the modulating headlamp, some commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. We believe that the reaction is most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Thus, care should be taken in the use of supplementary lamps that are not steady burning. As for revolving lamps, we believe that these are generally found on police and emergency vehicles such as ambulances and tow trucks. Whether it is permissible to equip a vehicle with these lamps and to use them is a question to be answered under State law. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1383OpenMr. H. W. Gerth, Assistant Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: Subject:>>>Recall Campaign - Mercedes-Benz Model 450SE/SEL wit Possible Incorrect Routing of the Brake Line<<<; The letter which you have sent to first purchasers does not meet th requirements of 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification,' (copy enclosed) in the following respects. Section 577.4(b) requires a specific statement to be made, concluded with the identifying criteria of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment found to contain the defect. In this case, therefore, the sentence should read substantially as follows: 'Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the model 450 SE and 450 SEL Mercedes-Benz automobile.' Your letter also fails to evaluate the risk to traffic safety related to the defect in accordance with section 577.4(d). Finally, your letter does not estimate the day that parts will be supplied to dealers (577.4(e)(1)(ii)). If parts are presently available the letter should so state.; It is necessary for you to revise this letter as we have indicated an to provide this office and the owners who have not already responded to this campaign with a copy of the revised letter.; 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 (202) 426- 2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5429OpenMr. Gene Byrd Anderson Technology 17 Ross St. Jamestown, NY 14702-0759; Mr. Gene Byrd Anderson Technology 17 Ross St. Jamestown NY 14702-0759; Dear Mr. Byrd: This responds to your letter to former Chief Counse Paul Jackson Rice asking about the requirements of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses, for reusable air brake hose end fittings. You indicate that you intend to produce these end fittings for use with SAE J844 plastic tubing. You also state that you have filed a manufacturer's designation with NHTSA, in accordance with S7.2.2(b) of Standard 106. You asked for confirmation that seven requirements in FMVSS 106 apply to reusable end fittings. The requirements you listed were: S7.2.2 (labeling), 7.3.1 (constriction), 7.3.8 (air pressure), 7.3.9 (burst strength), 7.3.10 (tensile strength), 7.3.11 (water absorption and tensile strength), and 7.3.13 (end fitting corrosion). Your understanding is essentially correct, with the following clarification. You are correct that each of these sections specifies a level of performance which is dependent on the performance of the end fitting. However, other than for S7.2.2 and 7.3.13, these requirements apply to air brake hose assemblies, and not to end fittings. This is relevant for purposes of determining the requirements for which an end fitting manufacturer would have to certify compliance. If you were only manufacturing and selling the end fitting, you would be responsible for certifying only to S7.2.2 and 7.3.13, since these requirements apply to end fittings (and not to 'assemblies'). As a practical matter, however, the assembly manufacturer would probably seek assurances from you that your end fitting will perform in a manner that will enable the manufacturer's assembly to meet the air brake hose assembly requirements of the standard. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's regulation for 'Manufacturer Identification' (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hose end fittings) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have also enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes other responsibilities for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. I hope this answers your question. If you need other assistance, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam1644OpenMr. D. D. Evenson, President, Hawaiian Motors Corporation, 22121 South Vermont, Torrance, CA 90502; Mr. D. D. Evenson President Hawaiian Motors Corporation 22121 South Vermont Torrance CA 90502; Dear Mr. Evenson: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1974, forwarding draft defect notification letter regarding the noncompliance of certain Cony vehicles with several Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your letters (sic) fails in the following respects to conform to 49 CF 577, 'Defect Notification' (copy enclosed):; 1. Section 577.4(a) requires the following statement as the *first sentence of your letter: 'This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.'; 2. Section 577.4(b) requires your second sentence to read:'Hawaiia Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the Cony utility vehicle(s) you purchased from HMC.' If there is any possibility of confusion you should give more precise vehicle identification. Moreover, in cases such as this where the safety defect results from the failure to conform to applicable standards we prefer that that information be conveyed as well. Therefore you should also state, as you have done, that the vehicles do not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for windshield wipers and washers and windshield and side window glazing materials.; 3. Your letter must include a clear, brief description of the defect(s which incorporates the four elements listed in section 577.4(c).; 4. Your letter does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety reasonabl related to the defect as required by section 577.4(d).; 5. Your letter also does not include measures to be taken to repair th defect as required by section 577(e). We had assumed that HMC would bring the vehicles into conformity with each of the standards free of charge. If so, the letter should conform to section 577.4(e)(1). If you plan some other course of action regarding repairs the letter must contain language meeting either section 577.4(e)(2) or (e)(3) as appropriate.; 6. Your letter contains several references to an understanding that th vehicles were purchased for highway use and that the NHTSA's interest is directed at potential future highway use. This is not true. The vehicles are motor vehicles (trucks) under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and are required to conform to all applicable safety standards regardless of their intended use by the University of California or any other purchaser. Conformity to applicable standards cannot, therefore, be deferred until the sale of these vehicles to other purchasers, but must be accomplished immediately.; We have two other concerns. First, our decision letter of July 2, 1974 states that 52 Cony vehicles were imported in violation of the Act. Since only 32 of these vehicles were purchased by the University of California, defect notification letters must also be sent to the purchasers of the other 20 vehicles. Section 113(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(f)) requires you to keep records of first purchasers.; Second, 49 CFR 573 (copy enclosed) requires you to file a Defec Information Report as well as Quarterly Reports on the progress of your notification campaign. Please comply with section 573.4 within 5 working days after receipt of this letter. Prompt submission of both a Defect Report and a complying defect notification letter is necessary to keep our compromise offer in effect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4258OpenMr. William Tackett, 859 South Main, Plymouth, MI 48170; Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth MI 48170; Dear Mr. Tackett: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986 with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel syste spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a *new* car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.; The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercia business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.; In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.