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: aiam1200OpenMr. Stan Haransky, Associate Director, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Stan Haransky Associate Director Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Haransky: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, forwarding to us letter from Mr. Jim Finley of the Hughes Tool Company. Mr. Finley describes two situations, requesting an opinion on the applicability of NHTSA requirements to each of them.; The first question is whether an earth auger body that is mounted o crane carrier will conform to the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) if the vehicle exceeds its stated weight ratings when a derrick is mounted on the vehicle but a permanent metal plate is also affixed to the vehicle which states: 'The GVWR and GAWR require that the derrick be removed before operating this vehicle upon a public highway.'; We do not believe such a label may be used to bring a vehicle int conformity with the Certification regulations. Both 'gross vehicle weight rating' and 'gross axle weight rating' call for a rating set by the manufacturer, but each is intended to reflect a fully-loaded vehicle or axle condition as vehicle is likely to be used. Although your letter is not explicit in this regard, if it is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways with the derrick mounted on it (but for the label), even though the derrick is 'removable', we would not consider the weight ratings to be consistent with the regulations if they do not take into account the weight of the derrick.; Similarly, the components used in the manufacture of the vehicle shoul be of sufficient strength to carry the derrick when the vehicle is in motion. On the other hand, if it is unreasonable to expect the derrick to be attached to the crane carrier when the carrier is operated on the highway, the weight ratings need not take into account the weight of the derrick. In neither case, however, would the label you illustrate affect the conformity of the vehicle to the regulations, in the former case the label does not correct the incorrect weight ratings, and in the latter case, the label is unnecessary,; Your second question is whether Federal regulations regarding lightin may be met if the rear lights of a truck-mounted earth auger utilize hinged covers that are intended to protect the lights during boring operations. You state that when the vehicle is operated, the cover is secured to expose the lights. You ask if we recommend the use of a warning sticker in the cab to remind the driver to open the covers.; The use of these covers is not prohibited by the Federal lightin standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lights, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment' (49 CFR 571.108). We thInk the idea of a warning sticker in the cab is nonetheless a good one.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3936OpenThe Honorable Herbert Kramer, Acting Supreme Court Justice, Justices' Chambers, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; The Honorable Herbert Kramer Acting Supreme Court Justice Justices' Chambers 360 Adams Street Brooklyn NY 11201; Dear Justice Kramer: Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1985, concerning a case pendin before you that involves tinted side windows in a 1980 BMW. You asked us to provide you with information concerning the marking that appeared on the windows. I hope the following discussion of our glazing standard and the significance of the window markings is of assistance to you.; NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.), to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance and other requirements for different items of glazing used in new motor vehicles. (I have enclosed a copy of the standard that was in effect for 1980 model year cars. Also enclosed is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard No. Z-26 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205).; The standard requires that glazing used in locations requisite fo driving visibility have a luminous transmittance of 70 percent. The agency has considered all windows in a passenger car requisite for driving visibility. Thus, the side windows of a new 1980 BMW imported into the U.S. would have had to comply with the 70 percent luminous transmittance requirement.; Section S6 of Standard No. 205 requires glazing to have four items o identifying information on it. The four items are: a manufacturer's identification code assigned by our agency, the model number of the glazing assigned by the glazing manufacturer, the manufacturer's trademark or distinctive designation and an 'AS' number indicating that it meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number.; The markings you provided us from the side windows of a 1980 BM indicate the following. The marking 'DOT 25' and 'DOT 28' are code numbers assigned by this agency to prime glazing manufacturers. DOT 25 is the code number assigned to Flachglas AG of Bayern, Federal Republic of Germany. DOT 28 is the code number assigned to Vereinigte Glaswerke of Porz, Federal Republic of Germany. The markings 'M202' and 'MIOZ' (based on our experience with manufacturer's model number, we believe that 'MIOZ' is a transcription error and should read 'M102') are model numbers assigned by the glazing manufacturers. The markings 'AS 2' signify that the glazing meets the requirement set in ANSI Z-26 for AS 2 glazing materials. The requirements for AS 2 glazing materials include a requirement in section 4.2 of ANSI Z-26 that AS 2 glazing meet the 70 percent luminous transmittance test of section 5.2. We believe the marking 'Delodur - 1F Liz Sekurit' and 'Duro-Glas - 1F Liz Sekurit' are the trademarks or other distinctive designations assigned by the manufacturers. We do not know what the markings 'BS 5282T', D-295' and (sic)MD-291' represent, but we believe the latter two represent European manufacturer identification codes.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0844OpenMr. Robert J. Webster, Executive Vice President, Denman Rubber Manufacturing Company, Warren, Ohio 44482; Mr. Robert J. Webster Executive Vice President Denman Rubber Manufacturing Company Warren Ohio 44482; Dear Mr. Webster: This is in reply to your letter of August 14, 1972, requestin information as to whether you may sell tires to a Mr. Harvey Livingston, who is in the business of repairing tires with correctable defects. You ask what assurances you should obtain that the tires are actually repaired and rebranded by Mr.Livingston before their sale by him.; The sale of passenger car tires is subject to the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 'New Pneumatic Tires' (49 CFR 571.109). Under these provisions tire manufacturers may sell passenger car tires only in the following circumstances: They may sell tires which conform to the performance and labeling requirements of Standard and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574), or, they may sell until October 1, 1972, (See our notice of August17, 1972, 37 F.R. 16604) tires which have been reclassified pursuant to paragraph S6 of Standard No. 109. This requires the removal of original labeling and the affixing of new labels which warn against the use of such tires in public highways. These restrictions apply to the sale of passenger car tires to any purchasers including persons such as Mr. Livingston, who wish to repair the tires and resell them.; If you sell *conforming* tires to Mr. Livingston, he would not b required by Federal regulations to remove Denman labeling and to affix his own. Whether or not he did this would depend upon whatever agreement you reach with him. A satisfactory assurance, should you agree with him to follow this procedure, would be a written agreement to that effect, but you should also record the serial numbers of tires which you sell to him. Denman, however, is not permitted to remove its own labeling before sale.; Even if Mr. Livingston affixes the DOT symbol and his ow identification number to the tires, the NHTSA would not necessarily find him responsible should the tire fail to conform to Standard No. 109. Mr. Livingston would be entitled to show that the reason for the nonconformity is not attributable to the work he performed. If he could demonstrate this,Denman could then be found responsible for the nonconformity.; If you sell Mr. Livingston 'reclassified tires', Mr. Livingston woul be required to label the tires as required by Standard No. 109, and to certify their conformity to the Standard before he could sell them as passenger car tires. In this situation, Mr. Livingston would be responsible if the tires failed to conform to Standard No. 109.; We have sent Mr. Livingston a copy of our response. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2489OpenMr. Salvatore Messina, The Govmark Organization, Inc., P.O. Box 807, Bellmore, NY, 11710; Mr. Salvatore Messina The Govmark Organization Inc. P.O. Box 807 Bellmore NY 11710; Dear Mr. Messina: This responds to your December 10, 1976, letter asking whether Standar No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to the living area of motor homes and mobile homes.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) no longe regulates mobile homes. The National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) ('the Mobile Home Act') established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development a comprehensive program for the regulation of mobile homes. We have concluded that one result of that statute's enactment was the implied repeal of the NHTSA's authority with respect to mobile homes. Accordingly, we consider that the enactment had the effect of amending the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of 'motor vehicle' to exclude 'mobile homes' as the latter term is defined in the Mobile Home Act.; A motor home, on the other hand, is classified as a multipurpos passenger vehicle (or a bus if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons) and is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 302. The standard mandates that certain enumerated components located within the vehicle occupant compartment meet specified burn test requirements. The living area of a motor home constitutes part of the vehicle occupant compartment, and therefore, any component listed in S4.1 of the standard and situated within the living area must comply with the standard.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4449OpenMr. A.J. Ackley Martek Corp. Box 229 Barrington, RI 02806; Mr. A.J. Ackley Martek Corp. Box 229 Barrington RI 02806; "Dear Mr. Ackley: This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1988 in which you asked whether this agency anticipated any legal problems with the design of your proposed safety triangle. You noted in your letter and in an accompanying diagram that the design of your product might differ from the typical design of a warning triangle because you intended to include a company's logo (the letter 'T' in a star) within the safety triangle. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your proposed product would be subject to Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, Copy enclosed). This standard establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. Paragraph S5.2.6 states that The device shall consist entirely of the triangular portion and attachments necessary for its support and enclosure, without additional visible shapes or attachments. (emphasis added) The standard's express prohibition against 'additional visible shapes or attachments' indicates that your proposal to include a logo in the center of the warning device would violate the safety standard. As a result, you could not legally market this product. The Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4672OpenMr. Jeffrey Donaldson Human Factors Engineer Arcad l2025 Tech Center Dr. Livonia, MI 48l50; Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson Human Factors Engineer Arcad l2025 Tech Center Dr. Livonia MI 48l50; "Dear Mr. Donaldson: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the requirements of sections S5.l and S5.3.3(a) in connection with an instrument panel illumination intensity control. Your question is addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. As noted by your letter, section S5.l of Standard No. l0l reads as follows: S5.l Location. Under the conditions of S6, each of the following controls that is furnished shall be operable by the driver, and each of the following displays that is furnished shall be visible to the driver. . . . One of the controls listed under section S5.l is a hand-operated control for illumination intensity. Thus, under section S5.l, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be in a location where it is operable by the driver. You also noted that section S5.3.3(a) requires that '(m)earns shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions.' You asked whether, under this section, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be 'visible to the driver.' As discussed below, section S5.3.3(a) does not apply to an instrument panel illumination intensity control. Section S5.3.3(a) is one of a number of sections which appear under the heading 'Illumination.' See section S5.3. Standard No. l0l does not require that all controls be illuminated. Section S5.3.l sets forth requirements concerning which controls must be illuminated. Section S5.3.3(a) then sets forth additional illumination requirements for the controls which must be illuminated and their identification (as well as for gauges and their identification). In order to determine whether section S5.3.3(a) applies to a particular control, the first question is thus whether Standard No. l0l requires illumination for that control. As indicated above, this is covered in section S5.3.l. It provides that, with certain exceptions, the identification required by S5.2.l or S5.2.2 for any control listed in column l of Table l and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. (Column 4 of Table l includes the heading 'Illumination.') Thus, Standard No. l0l requires illumination only for those controls which are listed in Table l and have the word 'yes' in the column for illumination. Since an instrument panel illumination intensity control is not listed at all in Table l, no illumination is required by Standard No. l0l for that control. Given that section S5.3.3(a)'s additional illumination requirements only apply to controls which Standard No. l0l requires to be illuminated, and since no illumination is required for an instrument panel illumination intensity control, the section's requirements do not apply to that control. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1952OpenMr. Walter Potoroka, General Counsel, Holley Carburetor Division, P. O. Box 749, Warren MI 48090; Mr. Walter Potoroka General Counsel Holley Carburetor Division P. O. Box 749 Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Potoroka: This is in reference to your defect notification and remedy campaig involving some chrome reverse wheels which may have insufficient welds between the center disc and the rim. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification number *75E-022* has been assigned to this campaign. Please refer to that number in any future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you have submitted as the letter to be sent to retai purchasers of the subject wheels does not meet the requirement of Part 577(49 CFR) as well as the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Part 577, the Defect Notification regulation, is presently still in effect except for those sections which conflict with the 1974 amendment. Your notification letter therefore should have had the opening statements specified by Part 577.4(a) and (b).; The letter also does not notify owners that they may inform th Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to receive remedy without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment. The fact that your company has set up a procedure intended to insure that all owners will receive remedy without charge does not eliminate that requirement. This office knows of numerous instances where an individual owner of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was not able to have a defect corrected. This may be due to a parts' supply problem, an uncooperative dealer, or some other problem which may not be known to the manufacturer. In any event, NHTSA does not have the authority to delete a requirement imposed by an act of Congress and must therefore insist that all manufacturers respond to Section 153(a)(6) in their owner notification letters. To comply, owners may be told that they may write to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590.; Although the letter does imply that dealers are prepared to remedy th defect, it does not give the earliest date on which the defect will be remedied without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(5) of the 1974 amendment.; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification lette to conform with Part 577, as well as Section 153 of the 1974 amendment. A copy of the revised letter should be sent to all owners who have not yet had their wheels inspected or replaced, and also to this office. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murray or W. Reinhart of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5285OpenThomas D. Price, President Strait-Stop ABAS Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 5644 Norman, OK 73070; Thomas D. Price President Strait-Stop ABAS Marketing Inc. P.O. Box 5644 Norman OK 73070; "Dear Mr. Price: This responds to your letter concerning this agency' notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). You noted that the proposed definition for 'antilock brake system' incorporates the terminology 'rate of angular wheel rotation,' and requested a definition of this terminology. You also suggested that there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the word 'performance,' apparently with respect to the way that word is used in the preamble. Accordingly, you requested a definition of that word as well. By way of background information, the purpose of publishing NPRM's is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. If an interested person believes that the proposed regulatory text and/or the agency's explanation in a preamble concerning a proposed regulation are unclear, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. If a person believes that a portion of the proposed regulation should be clarified in a particular manner, that recommendation also should be included in a comment. Similarly, if a person believes the agency's explanation for the proposed rule is unclear, the person can identify in comments the portion of the explanation at issue and explain the implications his or her concern has on the agency's decision concerning a possible final rule. Since the questions and views in your letter are in the nature of comments on the pending NPRM, we are placing a copy of your letter in the public docket for that NPRM. I want to assure you that your comments will be considered at the same time all the other public comments are considered. Only after considering the comments will NHTSA reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule. NHTSA does not issue separate letters or documents responding to individual public comments in a rulemaking. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA provides its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking. While we cannot provide specific responses to your questions, we note that pages 50742 and 50743 of the NPRM provide an extensive discussion about how the agency derived its definition for antilock braking system. This discussion explains that the definitions were derived in large part from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J656, 'Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature' (1988), and the Economic Commission for Europe's Regulation 13 (1988). We have enclosed for your information a copy of that SAE Recommended Practice, which uses the terminology 'rate of angular rotation of the wheel(s).' With respect to your question about the meaning of 'performance,' we note generally that each of this agency's safety standards specifies those requirements that are deemed necessary to obtain the desired safety performance from a particular vehicle system or item of equipment. Any design that will satisfy the requirements may be used for the system or item of equipment. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1125OpenMr. A. N. Schuppert, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., 1331 S. Washington, Lansing, MI 48920; Mr. A. N. Schuppert Diamond Reo Trucks Inc. 1331 S. Washington Lansing MI 48920; Dear Mr. Schuppert: By petition of March 16, 1973, Diamond Reo requested the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration to delay implementation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, with respect to certain categories of large capacity trucks with high centers of gravity.; We are uncertain from your petition as to the defining characteristic of the vehicles that you would have us temporarily exempt from the standard. We are also uncertain as to the magnitude of the problem that is being encountered by the vehicles in question: there would seem to be a problem with high speed stops, but there are no indications as to whether the parking brakes and other required systems also present difficulties.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the March 16 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2882OpenMr. Richard H. Attenhofer, Manager - Tire Technical Relations, Dunlop Tire Company, P. O. Box 1109, Buffalo, New York 14240; Mr. Richard H. Attenhofer Manager - Tire Technical Relations Dunlop Tire Company P. O. Box 1109 Buffalo New York 14240; Dear Mr. Attenhofer: This responds to your July 10, 1978, letter asking whether it i permissible to label motorcycle tires with alternate speeds and load ratings appropriate for those speeds. You suggest that your tires be labeled with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding load ratings. The labeling of motor cycle (sic) tires is regulated by Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars.*; Standard No. 119 requires that tires be marked with, among othe things, the maximum inflation pressure of the tire and the load rating applicable to that inflation pressure. Speed qualifications are permitted on tires when, for example, the tires are speed restricted. Otherwise, tires are not marked with speed criteria although they may be marked with the symbols S, H, or V as part of the tire identification number. These symbols, established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), indicate that the tire is an acceptable high-speed tire.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers i appropriate to permit the symbols S, H, or V to be marked on tires to indicate that such tires are appropriate for high-speed use. This permits, for example, a sophisticated purchaser of tires for emergency vehicles to know that the tires are suitable for the higher operational speeds necessary for those vehicles. The NHTSA, however, considers it inappropriate to mark motorcycle tires with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding safe load ratings. Such markings would appear to sanction the use of he tires at these speeds which far exceed the national speed limit.; Since Standard No. 119 regulates the permissible uses of spee designations on nonpassenger car tires, the agency interprets the standard to prohibit the marking of any other speed designations on a tire. The NHTSA considers the only appropriate speed designation on tires to be one that reflects a speed restricted tire or one that uses the symbols established by the ETRTO for tires that have been tested and can be operated at higher speeds.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.