ID: nht90-4.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dean A. Palius -- Program Manager, Via Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-2-90 from D.A. Palius to S. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidel ines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and Sll. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied.

You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject.

ID: nht90-4.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Ben Blaz -- Congressman

TITLE: Re Ref: C-3J0039

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson R ice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of October 4th. I fully understand the need for you to communicate with Governor Guerrero and Representative Juan Babauta about your assistance with FMVSS and FMCSR regulations.

I believe they are working on this problem at this very moment. Just yesterday, I received a call from Governor Guerrero's legal counsel Tim Bruce Esq. I believe they will develop a position that the DOT regulations should not apply to the CNMI. I agr ee with this position which has been consistent with past administrations. This, in my view, would be the best outcome for all concerned. These regulations cost 3 to 4 hundred dollars extra per vehicle in specialized equipment.

The DOT regulations are great in areas like Los Angeles, where there is a real smog problem and where the average speed limit is 50 to 60 miles per hour on the freeways. I doubt that the people in the CNMI, or of any Island in Micronesia get their monie s worth for these regulations. As you know, most speed limits are 25 to 35 miles per hour and smog is the least of their problems.

Congressman, the bottom line however, is that the CNMI position and the Federal Governments position should be consistent if we are to solve our problems. If the Federal Government insists on taking a different position than the CNMI Government, then th e Federal Government should do their job and enforce their own position.

Then, and only then, will all the Distributors and Dealers of Automobiles and the people of the CNMI know what the ground rules are.

ID: nht90-4.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signature by K.M. Weinstein)

TO: C.D. Black -- Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance, Jaguar Cars Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to copy of 49 CFR Part 571.114 and May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868) (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-23-90 from C.D. Black to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 501)

TEXT:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpretin g the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to t he agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. 114's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, 1990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements o f section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not app rove any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 pe r violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical i nterlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift w ith the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. 114, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "pa rk" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht91-2.43

DATE: March 22, 1991

FROM: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) Seat Belt Technical Committee

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Dan Cohen -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; Clarke Harper -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; S.R. Kratzke -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel; Alfred J. Fisher, III -- Chairman, AORC Board of Directors; Charles H. Pulley -- President, AORC; Donald P. Reed -- Reed Technical Relations

TITLE: Subject: Request for Interpretation; Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies - S4.1(b)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to H. George Johannessen, P.E. (A38; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

The primary purpose of the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (formerly the American Seat Belt Council, organized in 1961) is to reduce highway traffic accident fatalities and injuries by providing the motoring public with the most reliable and effective occupant crash protection systems; and beyond this, by conducting a continuous education program, to promote public acceptance and use of such systems. The membership of the AORC represents 90% of the total domestic seat belt industry and domestic inflatable restraints industry.

Member companies of AORC supply seat belt assemblies produced in compliance with applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies. A portion of Paragraph S4.1 (b) of FMVSS 209 states that ". . . the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle."

The cited statement first appeared in SAE Standard J4c developed by the SAE Seat Belt Committee and issued in 1965. This SAE standard served as the basis for seat belt standards issued subsequently by the Department of Commerce (National Bureau of Standards) in 15 CFR 9 in 1966 and FMVSS No. 209, issued by the National Highway Safety Bureau in 1967. The SAE Committee included the cited statement as a design goal to alert seat belt designers to give full consideration to this aspect of performance. The committee members were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal. Also, they were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field. The writer was an active member of the cognizant SAE committee and agreed with the committee's decision to include the cited statement as a design goal despite the lack of an objective test protocol to confirm compliance and the recognition that the design goal would not be realized in some collision events. Furthermore, the committee members were aware that there could be no guarantee that the goal would not be thwarted by the vehicle occupant by non-use or misuse of the seat belt or by abnormal position of the belted occupant.

Unfortunately, positioning of the seat belt off the pelvis, for whatever reason, has been cited in recent litigation as prima facie evidence that the seat belt does not comply with the federal standard and the seat belt design is defective. The need to refute the allegations of design defect and non-compliance with applicable standards leads to unnecessary expenditure of time and effort and unconscionable societal costs.

The AORC requests the NHTSA to provide an interpretation that recognizes that off-pelvis location of a Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly before, during or after a real world collision does not per se constitute noncompliance of the seat belt with the federal standard nor does this render the seat belt design defective. Such a formal interpretation is necessary to mitigate unnecessary costs in litigation and the resultant societal costs.

The AORC considers that time is of the essence and requests NHTSA to act as quickly as possible on this request. Personnel from the AORC staff or member companies will be pleased to provide any additional available information that the agency may need.

ID: nht91-2.44

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nancy J. Hunt -- Bankston & McDowell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-24-91 from Nancy J. Hunt to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about test conditions in Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (49 CFR 571.301; copy enclosed). In particular, you asked whether the spare tire must be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing. You also asked whether the spare tire must be in the vehicle during other types of vehicle testing. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures and are available through the NHTSA Technical Reference Library. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 301 when they are tested in accordance with the test conditions set forth in section S7 of the standard. This section specifies the general test conditions under Standard No. 301. However, this section does not specify whether a spare tire must be included during the testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 301 may be based on tests with or without the spare tire, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 301 are

satisfied.

You should be aware that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that if the spare tire is standard equipment, it should be inflated to the vehicle manufacturer's specifications and be in the vehicle during the agency's compliance testing (see page 27 of the "OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures," copy enclosed). Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to include a spare tire that is standard equipment, absence of a spare tire might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the requirements of Standard No. 301.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you should feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-2.45

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Saburo Inui to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20.

Standard No. 108 defines an "integral beam headlamp" as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a "headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source." You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are "integral beam headlamps" as defined by Standard No. 108.

These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a "starter" affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a "converter," which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a "hard wire" while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by "hard wires" that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are "integral beam headlamps."

The phrase "optical assembly" in the definition of "integral beam headlamp", in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an "optical assembly includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered "indivisible," and the starter could be considered to be "integral" with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it "integral" within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter.

However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both "integral" and "indivisible" if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that

any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment.

ID: nht91-2.46

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles A. Schue, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-27-91 from Charles A. Schue, Jr. to DOT/NHTSA Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OCC 5782)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1991, to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to your prospective importation of a 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D. You have requested a "waiver of purchase date requirement" as outlined in the DOT "Guide for Complying with Regulations on Imported Motor Vehicles", and, if this cannot be granted, information of "other provisions under which I may request approval to import this vehicle into the U.S.A."

We are happy to provide you with an interpretation of the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591). One of its provisions will apply to your situation. A vehicle is admitted after its importer has executed a Form HS-7 at the port of entry. As one of its provisions will apply to you, there is no need to obtain written approval in advance from us.

First, there is no restriction upon importation if the vehicle, in fact, complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You report that the Mercedes has had two previous American owners in Turkey. If the car was originally bought by an American, even though in Turkey, there is the possibility that the vehicle was originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance with the standards at time of manufacture may be verified by the manufacturer's label certifying compliance, usually placed in the driver's door post area. If your Mercedes has such a label, then it may be imported without the necessity of demonstrating conformance.

An importer who is a nonresident of the United States may import a nonconforming vehicle temporarily without the necessity of conforming it to the standards. The fact that you have been employed in Turkey since June 1986 raises the possibility that you may not intend a permanent importation of the Mercedes. If you intend to seek employment again outside the United States, and if the Mercedes will be in the United States for less than a year, you would appear eligible to import the car under the nonresident provisions.

However, if you intend permanent importation and if your Mercedes lacks the certification label, the car is subject to the importation provisions affecting nonconforming vehicles. You have asked about your eligibility to import a vehicle under the provisions set forth in the Guide. The "purchase date" provision to which you refer is 49 CFR 591.5(g)(3). This requirement was mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1397(g)(3). Subsection (g) contains conditions, all of which must be fulfilled in order to import nonconforming vehicles under the more liberal provisions that were in effect before January 31, 1990. One of these conditions, as set forth in section 1397(g)(3), is that the importer "had acquired (or had entered

into a binding contract to acquire) (the motor) vehicle before the date of enactment of this subsection (October 31, 1988)." In establishing this requirement, Congress provided no authority to exempt anyone from its terms. Thus, unless you had a binding contract as of October 31, 1988, to acquire the Mercedes that you purchased on May 15, 1989, you are not eligible to import the vehicle under section 591.5(g).

The requirements under which you may be eligible to permanently import your Mercedes are set forth in section 591.5(f). Unfortunately, these are not explained in the DOT Guide that you have. For your information, I enclose a current copy of 49 CFR Part 591. In brief, two events must occur before you may import your noncomplying vehicle into the United States pursuant to this section. First, this agency must have made a determination that the vehicle is capable of being converted to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Second, after such a determination, the vehicle may be imported only by a "registered importer" (essentially an entity that the agency has recognized as capable of converting the vehicle to comply with the standards), or by the vehicle owner who has a contractual relationship with a registered importer to perform conversion work.

You will be pleased to know that the agency has already determined that noncomplying 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D passenger cars are eligible for importation. I enclose a copy of our Final Determination on this and other cars that was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1990. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance can furnish you a list of registered importers, and I suggest that you contact them shortly before you intend to import the car, so that the list will be current.

Attachments

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 219, 11-30-90; Final Determinations That Certain Nonconforming Vehicles Are Eligible For Importation. (Text omitted)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 591, Importation of Vehicles & Equipment Subject To Federal Safety, Bumper & Theft Protection Standards (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-2.47

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Jerald L. Mikesell, Ed.D. -- Assistant Superintendent, Sierra Vista Public Schools

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jerald L. Mikesell (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We would like to request a copy of the federal regulations regarding school vans being used for transporting of students. We are especially interested in the number of students which can be transported before a van is considered a school bus.

We appreciate your help in this matter as an answer to this question is needed as soon as possible. Thank you for your time.

ID: nht91-2.48

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Dan P. Strauser -- Manager, Research and Development, Elgin Sweeper Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dan P. Strauser (A37; VSA 102(3)

TEXT:

I would ask that you review the enclosed literature on Elgin Sweeper model Whirlwind, Crosswind and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, along with Pelican "SE" and Pelican "P", 3-wheel street sweepers. I am also enclosing literature from our sister division Ravo, Models 4000 and 5000 street sweepers.

I would like a letter of interpretation on the above models.

We would also be interested in determining what the criteria is for sweepers classified as falling under the FMVSS requirements.

If additional information is required, please call me at (708) 741-5370.

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.