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: aiam0477OpenMr. Donald R. Meton, Systems Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Donald R. Meton Systems Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Meton: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1971, concerning step you plan to take to comply with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), which were amended on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19593). You indicate that you plan to affix, in addition to the required Certification label containing the vehicle's gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings, an additional 'vehicle identification data plate' which would be attached to the driver's door panel inside the cab. This plate will specify an axle capacity for each axle and an additional gross vehicle weight rating, but here the figures will reflect the vehicle's maximum potential capability. The axle capacities on the vehicle identification plate will be the axle manufacturer's ratings, and added together will be the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight rating. It appears from your letter that you intend using the maximum potential capability of the vehicle as a substitute for listing gross axle and vehicle weight ratings for all available tire and wheel combinations, which was proposed as an option for manufacturers in a notice published on October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19617). Your question is whether, under the Certification regulations, you may affix the vehicle identification plate in addition to the required Certification label.; While we agree that a legitimate purpose may be served by th information you wish to provide on the vehicle identification plate, we consider that the manner in which you have chosen to furnish this information is inconsistent with the Certification regulations. Specifically, the inclusion of two different figures under the heading 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' conflicts with the requirement that a single figure be provided. The figure on the vehicle identification plate may be frequently higher than that on the Certification label, and if followed might result in vehicle overload. Also, the summing of the axle manufacturer's ratings to arrive at a 'gross vehicle weight rating' is not wholly consistent with the definition of that term in 49 CFR S 568.3, which calls for a manufacturer's figure based on the capacity limitations of the vehicle's tires, rims, suspension system and other components, as well as its axles.; If you wish to provide information based on the vehicle's axl capability, we prefer that it not be represented as a vehicle or axle weight rating, but that it be described as the axle manufacturer's rating of the axles.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3737OpenMr. H. Le Guen, Laboratory Director, Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motorcycle et du Cycle, Autodrome de Linas- Montlhery, Linas, 91310 Montlhery, France; Mr. H. Le Guen Laboratory Director Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motorcycle et du Cycle Autodrome de Linas- Montlhery Linas 91310 Montlhery France; Dear Mr. Le Guen: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of thi office asking several questions with respect to the amendment of Standard No. 108, June 2, 1983, which permits semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamps.; First, you mention certain sealing specifications, contrasting the with references to designed openings, and ask for our comments on this. Although the design that Ford intends to use is not a vented system, the amendment does not specify or prohibit either vented or unvented systems. A vented system using the standardized replaceable light source and the O-ring seal is permissable (sic) if the headlamp passes all the recently adopted environmental tests.; With reference to your further questions, there are no tolerances o the dust test. You have also asked whether, assuming that a European type headlamp using the new light source 'passes all tests mentioned in the amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval?' If the lens- reflector unit is bonded, and if with the light source inserted the lamp meets U.S. photometric requirements and all environmental tests specified in the amendment, then the manufacturer of the lamp may apply the D.O.T. symbol to it. This is the certification that the lamp meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under this self- certification process, the manufacturer, rather than D.O.T., approves the lamp for sale.; Finally, you have asked who will manufacture the new bulb and where yo might be able to obtain test samples. Ford's initial supplier will be Sylvania/GTE, and you may write GTE Products Corp., West Main Street, Hillsboro, NH 03249, Attn: Mr. Richardson.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4181OpenMr. Harry H. Kazakian, President, Corleone International Traders, Inc., P.O. Box 3417, Los Angeles, CA 90028; Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles CA 90028; Dear Mr. Kazakian: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986, to which wa attached a 'Magic Eyes Brake Light'. This device consists of two small lamps whose primary functions are to flash automatically 'upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use'. The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork on the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment or for the aftermarket.; I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device b required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions is the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the agency now requires that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for aftermarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.; We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions o the importation and sale of 'Magic Eyes'. However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws before selling the device.; As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states 'T comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use'. Please delete the reference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparison, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.; As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subjec to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in th (sic) lamp, the manufacturer or importer is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.; Sincerely, Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking |
|
ID: aiam4724OpenMr. Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, Illinois 62764; Mr. Larry F. Wort Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield Illinois 62764; Dear Mr. Wort: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, l990, t Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses 'the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements', and that they satisfy photometry and all other Federal requirements. You have asked whether 'the top of the cab clearance light may be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles.' The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optically combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. 108, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, there is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located 'as far to the front as practicable', and the agency generally defers to the manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford's decision to locate the lamp there. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0623OpenMr. William C. McCamant, Washington Representative, Automotive Service Industry Association, 1725 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. William C. McCamant Washington Representative Automotive Service Industry Association 1725 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. McCamant: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, concerning th requirements of section 573.6 (Owner lists) of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).; In your letter you describe a situation where manufacturers perfor modifications to heavy duty vehicles for dealers and may have difficulty, for competitive reasons, in obtaining the name of the ultimate purchaser. You ask that in this situation, these manufacturers be permitted, in meeting the requirements of section 573.6, to list the dealer as the 'first purchaser,' '. . . so that if a defect arises, the owners of record will be notified -- and, where applicable, the owners of record could notify the ultimate owners (usually warranty holders) of the defective vehicles.'; The requirement that an owner list be maintained under section 573. does not arise until a defect notification campaign is undertaken. The compilation of such a list at that time, however, would of necessity be based on some existing source of all owner names. One such source could be, and probably will be in most situations, a list compiled at the time of sale for warranty purposes. This is apparently the situation you have in mind.; If a manufacturer has only the name of his dealer as the firs purchaser, then we would consider using that name in his compilation as meeting the owner list requirement. The manufacturer would still be responsible for maintaining and updating the list as specified in section 573.6, and for obtaining the updated information from the dealer if it is the latter who is correcting the vehicles in question. If the manufacturer is making the corrections, of course, the updated information will be readily available to him.; With regard to your assumption, '. . . so that if a defect arises, th owners of record will be notified -- and, where applicable, the owners of record could notify the ultimate owners (usually warranty holders) of the defective vehicles,' the requirement for notification of owners (Section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) is separate from the requirement for compiling owners lists, and specifically excludes notification of dealers. While manufacturers may make arrangements with dealers and distributors for conducting notification campaigns, the ultimate responsibility for conducting the campaign lies with the manufacturer, and he does not meet this responsibility by merely notifying dealers.; At the same time, we would expect to be notified at once should dealer both insist on keeping his customer list confidential from the manufacturer and refuse otherwise to cooperate with the manufacturer, so that notification letters cannot be sent.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2851OpenRolan B. Senior, Utah State Tax Commission, Motor Vehicle Division, 1095 Motor Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84116; Rolan B. Senior Utah State Tax Commission Motor Vehicle Division 1095 Motor Avenue Salt Lake City UT 84116; Dear Mr. Senior: Thank you for your letter of August 10, 1978, requesting approval t use Utah's proposed Certificate of Title as a substitute for the Federal odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.; The proposed Certificate of Title which you enclosed with your lette differs from the Federal odometer disclosure form in the following ways:; (1) The Utah Certificate of Title contains no reference to State o Federal law,; (2) the set of certifications relating to the distance the vehicle ha travelled are shortened by adopting the format recommended by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,; (3) the certifications relating to alteration of the odometer ar deleted, and; (4) the transferee is not required to sign the statement. The only suggestions that we have are that you include a reference t either State or Federal law and the signature of the transferee (buyer). The purpose of the reference to the law is to alert the purchaser to the fact that the odometer information is a legal requirement, the violation of which is punishable. The purpose of the transferee's signature is to ensure that he or she has seen the disclosure statement and to prevent him or her from later claiming that no statement was received. With these changes Utah's Certificate of Title will be in substantive conformity with the Federal odometer law, despite its differences from the Federal form. Therefore, pursuant to 49 CFR 580.4(f)(2), I hereby grant your request to use Utah's Certificate of Title, with the changes noted above, as a substitute for the Federal form.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4188OpenMr. Charles J. Newman, Vice-President, Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company, 2600 Lanier Drive, Madison IN 47250; Mr. Charles J. Newman Vice-President Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company 2600 Lanier Drive Madison IN 47250; Dear Mr. Newman: This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, asking for a interpretation regarding two proposed locations for clearance lamps. As you know, our response has been delayed because the original letter lacked one of the two drawings necessary for us to reply to your questions.; You have paraphrased S4.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 as stating 'in par that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard.' That is not exactly what that section permits. It states that 'Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard.' Your first request for an interpretation concerns a 'fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box,' and depicts clearance lamps that are mounted on the front of a structure behind the cab, and yet are not visible at 45 degrees inboard. You have asked whether this meets the intent of S4.3.1.1.1. The plan view diagram in your letter indicates that the clearance lamps if mounted on the front (i.e., the cab) would not be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. But when mounted on the structure behind the cab, they appear located so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. You have not mentioned mounting height, but we assume that they are 'as close to the top as practicable' in accordance with the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. Therefore the exception permitted by S4.3.1.1.1 would apply.; Your second request covers a 'side mounted clearance lamp, and state that 'Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location.' In this location, the inboard visibility requirements would not be met. You asked whether this would meet the intent of S4.3.1.1.1.; The intent of S4.3.1.1.1 is that the alternate location indicate th overall width of the vehicle. If we judge compliance by the plan view of the diagram, then the location on the second diagram is acceptable. But in this location the inboard angle of visibility would be even less than in the first diagram, and the overall width of the vehicle would be less apparent to an incoming (sic) driver. Given the fact that you have presented us with alternative means by which you may meet S4.3.1.1.1 we cannot conclude that the location shown in the second diagram complies with Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1905OpenMr. Steven W. Tarta, 274 LaFayette Avenue, Hawthorne, NJ 07506; Mr. Steven W. Tarta 274 LaFayette Avenue Hawthorne NJ 07506; Dear Mr. Tarta: This is in response to your letter of April 5, 1975, asking whethe your client is an 'alterer, intermediate manufacturer, or final manufacturer or all of the aforesaid.' You described several different types of operations your client performs.; Several distinctions must be drawn to answer the questions you hav asked. These are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; 1. An alterer differs from an intermediate manufacturer or a final stage manufacturer in that the alterer does his work on a completed, previously certified vehicle, while the other two categories work on incomplete vehicles. ('Incomplete vehicle' is defined in Part 568.); 2. An intermediate manufacturer differs from a final-stage manufacture in that the former does not complete the vehicle, while the latter does, and certifies it. An intermediate manufacturer typically adds axles, lengthens or reinforces frames, and/or extends air brake lines as necessary in conjunction with these operations. The final-stage manufacturer typically builds a body and mounts it on a chassis-cab, chassis- cowl, or bare chassis to make a truck, bus, or motor home. He also might add a fifth wheel to a chassis-cab to make a truck tractor.; 3. Repair and refinishing of existing bodies (*i.e.*, those already i use) normally do not bring a person into our regulatory scheme at all, since it generally applies to the manufacture of new vehicles. Under the 1974 Amendments to the Vehicle Safety Act, however, the rendering inoperative of devices or elements of design installed in conformity with a safety standard, even on a used vehicle, is prohibited.; 4. With respect to 'transferring bodies to and from new and use vehicles,' our interpretive rule generally has been that the chassis determines whether a vehicle is new or used. Thus, an old body put onto a new chassis constitutes a new vehicle for purposes of the standards and associated regulations (including certification), while a new body put onto a used chassis is considered a used vehicle (made at the time the chassis was completed).; 5. Alterers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturer share the characteristic of doing work that is more than the installation of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or work that alters the weight ratings of the vehicles. Other persons who do more minor operations (possibly 'installing grill guards' on your list would fit this description) are outside the direct regulatory scheme. Of course, any vehicle must end up certified by someone, and any manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses (probably anyone except the owner, in practice) are under the ban against rendering mandated safety equipment inoperative.; With these distinctions in mind, you should be able to determine th application of the standards and regulations to your client. If after studying this and the regulations you still need help, please let me know.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4243OpenRichard E. Bond, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Richard E. Bond Esq. Assistant General Counsel Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Bond: This responds to your letter for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565 *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly-owned subsidiary.; In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, yo stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety-related defects for these trailers.; Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year, therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.; This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under th circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer *uniquely* identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.; Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identifier*, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4241OpenRichard E. Bond, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Richard E. Bond Esq. Assistant General Counsel Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Bond: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CF Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly-owned subsidiary.; In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, yo stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety-related defects for these trailers.; Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year, therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.; This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under th circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer *uniquely* identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.; Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identifier*, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566, *Certification*.; I hope this information is helpful to you. 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.