ID: 2969yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l

ID: nht91-2.49

DATE: March 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jessie M. Flautt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Jessie M. Flautt to Steven Kratzske (OCC 5813)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, S108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute

enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-90 from D.T. Johnston to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that ther efore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR S5 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as par ts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the tr unk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understand ing that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated. Aft er reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relie s on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to S 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

ID: 11856-2.PJA

Mr. R. Karbowski
Ford Motor Company
Fairlane Plaza South, Ste. 500
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48124

Dear Mr. Karbowski:

This responds to your May 3, 1996, facsimile asking whether New York=s proposed law requiring blind spot mirrors would be Aprohibited@ by our statute. Our answer is that the proposed State requirement would be preempted.

According to your letter, New York=s proposed law (9376--A, March 5, 1996) states, in relevant part:

[e]very motor vehicle sold after September first . . . shall be equipped with a blind spot mirror which is a convex mirror, circular in shape and 1.25 to 2.5 inches in diameter, that attaches directly on the standard side view mirror for cars, or of circular or rectangular shape, four inches to six inches in diameter or four inches by six inches, and is installed for trucks.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), prescribes performance requirements for side view mirrors on new cars and trucks. S5.2.1 of the standard specifies field of view requirements for the driver=s outside mirror on passenger cars and also specifies that the mirror shall be of Aunit magnification@ (i.e., flat). S5.3 provides the option of using a convex mirror in certain circumstances on the passenger side of a vehicle, and S5.4 specifies radius of curvature and other requirements for the convex mirror. S6, S7, and S8 specify requirements for truck rear view mirrors, including size. These sections require mirrors to be of unit magnification (with the exception of an option in S6 for mirrors complying with S5).

Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. ''30101 et seq. (formerly '103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) states:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

New York=s Ablind spot mirror@ requirement appears to be preempted by Federal law. New York would be regulating the same aspect of performance (rear/side field of view) regulated by Standard No. 111. The state requirement would not be identical to the requirements of Standard 111. You state that complying with New York=s law would take some vehicles out of compliance with Standard No. 111. To the extent that New York=s requirement is inconsistent, it would be preempted.

It should be noted that NHTSA was petitioned to require convex rear view mirrors on the side mirrors, but denied this request. I have enclosed a copy of the denial for your information. (53 FR 45128)

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Keith Cuddy Assembly Programming Counsel Rm. 513, The Capitol Albany, NY 12248

NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:OCC# 11856:5/17/96 ref: FMVSS 111 cc: NCC-20 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 PJA, NPS-01, NSA-01 Interp.: 111, Redbook (2)

2

U:\NCC20\INTERP\111\11856-2.PJA

ID: nht76-3.37

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Beachcomber Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 31, 1975, letter concerning certification of the travel trailer that you manufacture.

This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The Canadian and U.S. motor vehicle safety standards are not identical, so you must ensure that your travel trailers do in fact comply with all of the latter that are applicable. A pamphlet summarizing the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Beachcomber Industries Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Beachcomber Industries Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Beachcomber Industries Ltd.;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Beachcomber Industries Ltd. that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Beachcomber Industries Ltd.;

(5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Please note further that you are required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after your vehicles begin to be imported into the United States. Copies of this regulation and the procedural regulations for designation of agent are also enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht91-4.18

DATE: June 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen Mamakas -- AIR Inc.

TITLE: None

TEXT:

In a telephone conversation with Stephen Kratzke of my staff, you asked for a clarification of my May 13, 1991 letter to you. My May 13 letter explained that Federal law would not affect any plans to repair air bags, but that a host of safety concerns and potential product liability issues under State law would arise in connection with any planned operation to repair air bags.

You explained in your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke that the last paragraph of my May 13 letter to you suggests that I did not fully understand your company's plans. In that last paragraph, I referred to repacking a deployed air bag. In your telephone conversation, you explained that your company would not reuse any used equipment. Instead, you plan on installing the new air bags and new sensors recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. After your company completes its work on the vehicle, you are prepared to certify that the air bag will work as intended by the vehicle manufacturer. You asked how this difference would change the answer in my May 13 letter.

This new information would not affect my previous advice that Federal law does not affect your planned repair operations. However, the safety concerns I expressed in my previous letter would be addressed if your company's repairs used only the replacement parts for the air bag system recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and installed those parts in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions.

ID: nht79-3.18

DATE: 07/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 8, 1979, requesting an exemption from the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), Federal motor vehicle safety standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574) for several lines of "antique" tires.

Dunlop's petition for exemption does not qualify as a petition for temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards under Part 555 (49 CFR Part 555), since that part applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. However, the regulations you refer to apply only to tires for use on vehicles manufactured after 1948 (49 CFR 575.104(c)); 49 CFR 571.109, S2; 49 CFR 574.4), and therefore, many of the tires listed in your letter are not within the scope of these regulations. Also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to issue in the near future a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude limited production tires from the application of the UTQG Standards, regardless of the tire's intended use.

You also asked that some form of labeling system be adopted for tires which are not required to be graded under the UTQG regulation, to facilitate processing of such tires by United States customs authorities. Regulations governing importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80) only require compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Any tire marked with the DOT symbol as required by Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109, S4.3.1) or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119, S6.5(a)), as applicable, or which is not required to comply with such standards, will be processed expeditiously by customs authorities, and the question of compliance with the UTQG regulation should not arise. While NHTSA does not consider it necessary to impose a labeling system for tires excluded from the UTQG Standard, the agency has no objection to voluntary labeling by manufacturers or importers.

ID: nht73-2.49

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crisp & Henderson, Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 19, 1973, inquiring whether there are Federal or State regulations that contain labeling requirements for rubber used in retreaded tires.

There are to our knowledge no Federal regulations that either establish quality levels or require labeling for rubber used in retreaded tires.

Yours Truly,

CRISP & HENDERSON GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

November 19, 1973

Federal Department of Transportation Consumer Affairs

RE: Tire rubber specifications for recapping tires

I have a client with a special problem for which I need your assistance. I would like to briefly outline the problem.

A manufactures tire rubber in sheets which he sells to B in a small town in Eastern North Carolina. B wanted one quality of rubber for recapping, but did not want to pay the asking price. A deal was made so that B got what he thought was the higher quality rubber because the sheets of rubber were stamped with a higher quality label. Actually A was supplying B with lower quality sheets of rubber, but with a higher quality label. This means that B might be putting a quality made for farm tires or passenger car tires into truck tires. B now realizes that a substitution has been made in the quality of rubber he has been receiving.

I would like to know what state and federal regulations apply to labeling rubber which is used for recapping tires. Both A & B in my problem are located in North Carolina. I would appreciate your assistance in advising me of this information or of the appropriate agency for me to write.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Deborah A. Henderson Attorney at Law

ID: 77-5.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: W. G. Milby

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 14, 1977, letter asking about the applicability of the requirements of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to roof exits which use lexan or other glazing materials as part of their structure.

You first ask whether these exits would be required to comply with the standard's window retention test. Section S5.1 of the standard requires that each piece of window glazing and each surrounding window frame comply with the requirements of the window retention test. Since the lexan to which you refer is glazing material, a structure using such material would be required to comply with the window retention test.

In a second question, you ask whether this type of exit can employ a release mechanism that consists of a gasket filler strip. This gasket releases the exit when pulled, by a single force, in a direction perpendicular to the exit. Since the application of force required to release the exit is in the proper direction as established by S5.3.2 of the standard, the exit would appear to comply with the exit release requirements as long as the release mechanism is within the correct force application zone and requires the proper amount of energy to effect its release.

ID: 21978ogm

Dear:

This is in response to your recent letter regarding a new product being produced by your company and the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your letter describes your company's product as a supplemental pump/booster unit that is automatically activated to provide power-assist to a vehicle brake system if the primary power source for brake assist fails. You ask the agency to confirm that your system, which uses an electrically driven pump to provide vacuum boost to a conventional vacuum assisted brake booster, would meet the failed power-assist requirement of Standard No. 135.

After examining the information provided by your company, we agree that your company's design appears, in concept, to meet the failed power-assist requirements of Standard No. 135.

Paragraph S7.11.4 establishes the performance requirements for failed power-assist as follows:

The service brakes on a vehicle equipped with one or more brake power-assist units or brake power units, with one such unit inoperative and depleted of all reserve capability, shall stop the vehicle as specified in S7.11.4(a) or S7.11.4(b).

(a) Stopping distance from 100 km/h test speed: 168m (551 ft).

(b) Stopping distance for reduced test speed: S0.10V + 0.0158V.

In testing for this requirement, subparagraph S7.11.3(g) provides:

Disconnect the primary source of power for one brake power-assist unit or brake power unit, or one of the brake power unit or brake power-assist unit subsystems if two or more subsystems are provided.

Subparagraph S7.11.3(h) provides:

If the brake power unit or power-assist unit operates in conjunction with a backup system and the backup system is automatically activated in the event of a primary power service failure, the backup system is operative during this test.

In a vacuum-assisted brake system, the power or medium used to operate the brake power-assist system is vacuum, the primary source of which is the engine. Thus, the "primary source of power" of a vacuum-operated brake power-assist system is the engine intake manifold, which provides vacuum to the power-assist unit. Loss of vacuum generated by the engine constitutes a loss of the primary power source. The failed power-assist test of S7.11 seeks to replicate this loss and ensure that the driver will still be able to bring the vehicle to a stop in the required distance of 168 meters (551 feet) with the prescribed maximum brake pedal force of 500 Newtons. Therefore, in this test, the primary booster unit is disconnected and the system is depleted of all vacuum. The stopping tests are then conducted without reconnecting the brake power-assist unit to the vacuum source.

Under S7.11.3(h), a separate electric or vacuum accumulator that automatically activates in the event of failure of the primary power source would be a "backup system" that remained operative during the test. The system you describe in your letter, in which an electrically driven pump provides a source of vacuum, provides such a function. Thus, the electrically driven vacuum pump you described in your letter could be used to meet the failed power-assist requirement of Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:135
d.11/17/00