ID: 9427

Ms. Lisa A. Norris
P.O. Box 41
Mandeville, LA 70470

Dear Ms. Norris:

This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency. You have written us questioning the disconnection of your original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when an aftermarket spoiler with lamp was installed on your Honda. American Honda has referred you to us, referencing an interpretation by our former Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice.

I enclose a copy of Mr. Rice's letter of August 31, 1990, to David Holscher which sets forth the agency's views on this subject. These views remain our position.

The disconnecting of your lamp appears permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 according to this interpretation. Because Federal authorities do not interpret the laws of the individual States, we are unable to comment on the Louisiana provisions that you paraphrase, except to note that "tail lights", as you refer to them, are not "stop lamps" under Standard No. 108. Taillamps are another item of lighting equipment and have no relevance to the wiring of the center highmounted stop lamp.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:12/27/93

ID: 9433

Mr. David Fabrycky
1633 W. Willeta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/12/94

ID: 9439

Sgt. Dennis Platt, Supervisor
Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section
State of Utah
Department of Public Safety
Utah Highway Patrol
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119-5994

Dear Sgt. Platt:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA officer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:208 d:12/30/93

ID: maxzonenew

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email (copy enclosed) concerning replacement lighting equipment. We apologize for the delay in our response.

You reported that your company is developing "a new headlamp" for 1998-2001 model Honda Accord passenger cars (we shall refer to this as the "Maxzone headlamp"). You informed us that the original equipment (OE) headlamp for these vehicles consists of "High Beam (9005 bulb), Low Beam (9006 bulb), Park Signal and reflector. No fog lamp function." (We would also note that the OE headlamp on this model Honda Accord appears to incorporate the required front turn signal and side marker lamp as well.) The Maxzone headlamp consists of "High Beam (H1 bulb), Low Beam (H3 bulb), Park Signal and weve added Fog Lamp (H3 bulb) to this headlamp assembly. It also comes with reflector." You informed us "the numbers of different functions after tests all pass SAE/DOT requirements." You asked whether the Maxzone headlamp could be certified and sold as legal replacements for the 1998-2001 Honda Accord models. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

Under S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108, "Each lamp . . . manufactured to replace any lamp . . . on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard." (S5.8.1)

S7.1 of Standard No. 108 requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to "be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6." Maxzone stated that the OE headlighting system on the 1998-2001

Honda Accord consists of headlamps with HB3 (9005) and HB4 (9006) replaceable light sources. Thus, a replacement headlamp for this vehicle must be evaluated according to the requirements of S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems.

S7.5(b) requires that each headlamp in the system be designed to conform to the photometrics as specified in S7.5(c) through (e) using any light source of the type intended for use in such system.Considering that this particular vehicle incorporates HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources in its OE headlighting system, we view S5.8.1 and S7.5(b) as requiring each replacement headlamp for this vehicle to be designed to conform to the specified photometry when using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources. Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for the Maxzone replacement headlamp to comply with the applicable photometry using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources when the Maxzone headlamp is designed to use replaceable light sources other than HB3 and HB4. Therefore, the Maxzone headlamp could not be certified and sold as a replacement for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord headlamp. This also means that a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original headlamp and install the Maxzone headlamp as a replacement without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You also informed us that the Maxzone headlamp "comes with reflector." We are unsure of your meaning. We interpret S5.8.1 as requiring replacement lighting equipment designed for specific motor vehicles to incorporate, at a minimum, the same required functionality as included on the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace. If the original Accord headlamp incorporated an amber side reflex reflector in compliance with Standard No. 108, each replacement headlamp for that Accord must also incorporate an amber side reflex reflector if we are to regard it being "designed to conform to this standard" within the meaning of S5.8.1.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/13/03

ID: may 29 571.213--battery dependent installation--Campbell2--13-002509

ID: MBWletter10702

Mr. Frank Multerer
President, MBW Inc.
250 Hartford Road
P.O. Box 440
Slinger, WI53086-0440

Dear Mr. Multerer:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 2002, concerning requirements for mortar mixers manufactured by MBW Inc., which are used by the masonry trade to process the binding material for the installation of brick, block, and stone at various construction sites. These mortar mixers may be wheel-mounted and towed to a jobsite, or alternatively they may be transported on a truck or trailer. You asked for our interpretation as to whether mortar mixers are subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements. For the reasons that follow, the answer is no.

By way of background, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it must comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then it need not comply with the agencys safety standards because such vehicle falls outside the agencys scope of authority.

Whether the agency will consider construction equipment, such as a mortar mixer, to be a motor vehicle depends upon its use. It is the agencys position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

However, in those cases where certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways, the agency has determined such equipment to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than "incidental."

Your letter states that mortar mixers can be wheel-mounted so that they may be towed from jobsite to jobsite. Your letter goes on to state that the duration of mortar mixers use on jobsites is variable, ranging from roughly a week at small, residential jobs to many months at large, commercial projects.

Based upon the information and literature you have provided, we do not believe that your mortar mixers are "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by section 102(3) of the Act. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to travel between jobsites. Accordingly, your mortar mixers would not be subject to the FMVSS.

However, that if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the mortar mixers use the road more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSAs safety standards, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.10/24/02

ID: MCI_removable_lift

Ms. Michelle Filippi
Motor Coach Industries
1700 E. Golf Rd. Suite 300
Schaumburg, IL 60173




Dear Ms. Filippi:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, with respect to vehicles designed to accept a platform lift by means of "quick connects". In your letter you stated that your company, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), manufactures over-the-road coach buses, including wheelchair accessible coaches. You explained that some of your customers have requested that MCI offer a vehicle/wheelchair lift system that would allow a lift to be removed from one coach and installed on an acceptable coach through the use of quick disconnects.

You expressed concern with the implications of FMVSS No. 404 to such a system, in that the lifts "can be taken out and re-installed by various MCI or customer technicians". You asked that we advise you about the agencys position on this issue.

I will reply to your letter by discussing how FMVSS No. 404 applies in the situation you described.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. Platform lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. Vehicles manufactured with platform lifts on and after July 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 404.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "Quick Connect" System

The central factor in determining the applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "quick connect" vehicle/lift system is whether the vehicle is originally equipped with the lift. 49 U.S.C. 30112 prohibits, in part, the manufacture for sale and the offer for first retail sale of a vehicle that is not certified as complying with all FMVSSs applicable at the vehicles date of manufacture. Each vehicle manufactured with a lift on or after July 1, 2005, must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and must comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a lift is installed after a vehicle is certified by the vehicle manufacturer, but prior to first retail sale, the vehicle as altered must comply with all standards affected by the alteration; i.e. , the vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404 and all other applicable standards. Conversely, if a vehicle is manufactured to accept a "quick disconnect" platform lift, but is not equipped with a platform lift up to the point of first retail sale, then FMVSS No. 404 would not apply.

"Make Inoperative" Provision

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

If a vehicle not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 (e.g. , a "quick connect" bus that was not equipped with a lift as manufactured or sold at first retail sale) has a "quick disconnect" lift added by one of the above named businesses after the first retail sale, the vehicle would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if a "quick disconnect" lift were added by any of the above named businesses, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses would be prohibited from removing a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 from compliance with that standard. While a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, we would not consider removal of the lift a violation of the "make inoperative" provision. In that instance compliance was premised on the presence of a platform lift. However, if a lift were then reinstalled on such a vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 based on that lift model.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 403

As noted above, a "quick disconnect" platform lift manufactured on or after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. The equipment standard requires in part that the lift be accompanied by instructions that identify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed (S16.13.1), and that the instructions specify procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant (S16.13.2).

However, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, with a system for which a vehicle was designed to accept a lift, we would not expect such alterations to be necessary.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: medcoaches3277.cmc

Mr. Dick Mattice
Vice President Engineering
Medical Coaches
399 Co Hwy 58
PO Box 129
Oneonta, NY 13820-0129

Dear Mr. Mattice:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, as they apply to platform lifts and mobile medical units manufactured by your company. I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards are effective December 27, 2004.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g., MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have patient lifts that "fold and store in an under-floor skirt compartment during transit." You further explained that although the lift design "is primarily used for non-ambulatory patients on gurneys, it could just as easily be used for wheelchair-bound patients."You stated that the lifts are designed so that a gurney would be parallel to the trailer when on the platform, and therefore a wheelchair would also be oriented parallel to the trailer when on the platform. You then asked several questions regarding the application of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to the lifts and vehicles manufactured by your company.

1) Platform Dimensions

Your letter explained that:

[The] lifts are designed so that a gurney will be parallel to the trailer when entering or leaving the trailer. The platform itself is 84" wide x 38" deep (inner roll stop to ramp). As a result, a wheelchair would also be parallel to the trailer and not perpendicular.

You then asked if the lift orientation and dimensions would be permitted under the new standards.

Before discussing lift dimension requirements, it is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) must be equipped with a lift certified to all requirements applicable to a public use lift (see S4.1.1). All other lift-equipped motor vehicles must be equipped with a platform lift certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements (see S4.1.2). FMVSS No. 404 does not include trailers as a vehicle type that must be equipped with a public use lift. Therefore, the trailers manufactured by your company may be equipped with lifts certified to the public or private lift requirements.

FMVSS No. 403 does not establish requirements specifying the orientation of a wheelchair during lift operation. For public use lifts, S6.4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 403 does establish a minimum operating platform volume, which is based on the sum of an upper and lower part (see Figure 3; copy enclosed). The lower part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a minimum width of 725 mm (28.5 in) along the platform surface and a minimum height of 50 mm (2 in). The upper part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a base with a minimum dimension of 760 mm (30 in) wide by 1,220 mm (48 in) long and a minimum height of 711 mm (28 in). While the standard specifies that the base of the upper part must be tangent to the top surface of the lower rectangular volume and the centroids of both parts must coincide with the vertical centroidal axis of the platform, the standard does not specify the orientation of the upper part to the lower part. There is nothing preventing the upper part from being rotated in relation to the lower part.

Based on the information provided in your letter, your platform would conform to the minimum operating platform volume requirement for public use lifts. Your platform is 84 inches by 38 inches and would be able to accommodate an upper and a lower rectangular solid of the minimum size required. Further, if you were to certify the lift to the private use lift requirements, you would be required to specify the unobstructed platform operating volume and include it in the lift insert to the vehicle owners manual.

2) Wheelchair retention device impact test

Again, you stated that upon loading, a wheelchair is intended to be oriented parallel to the trailer. You ask if S7.7, Wheelchair retention device impact test, must be performed in this orientation, with the wheelchair accelerated in a direction parallel to the trailer.

The wheelchair retention device impact test verifies the integrity of the inner roll stop and the wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. The test simulates uncontrolled acceleration of a wheelchair or mobility aid when loading a platform. When loading the platform at the vehicle floor level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the wheelchair retention device. When loading the platform at ground level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the inner roll stop. In both instances, the mobility aid has the opportunity to achieve a measure of speed and momentum in a direction perpendicular to the trailer before striking a barrier.

In FMVSS No. 403, S7.7.2.3 requires a test device to be positioned with its plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane. This results in the test device oriented perpendicular to the vehicle. The reference to the orientation of the test device in S7.7 refers to whether a wheelchair is loaded onto the platform in the forward or reverse direction.

On your vehicles, a mobility aid is loaded in a perpendicular direction to the trailer, even though once loaded it is positioned parallel to the trailer. Once the mobility aid is positioned on the platform parallel to the vehicle body, it is stationary. Even if it were to move forward or rearward, because of limited space on the platform, it could not achieve the level of momentum that is possible when rolling onto a platform from the vehicle or ground. However, during loading, an unimpeded mobility aid could heavily impact either a wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. Accordingly, the wheelchair retention device impact test would be performed on the wheelchair retention device/outer barrier and the inner roll stop.

3) Public use verses private use lift

Your letter asked if the lifts installed on the mobile medical units manufactured by your company would be required to be certified as public use lifts. As explained in response #1, because the vehicles manufactured by your company are trailers, the lifts could be certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements.

4) Platform freefall limits

Under S6.6 of FMVSS No. 403, no portion of a platform may fall vertically faster than 305 mm (12 in) per second in the event of any single-point failure of systems for raising, lowering, or supporting the platform. Your letter asked if a failure of a hydraulic line by rupture constitutes a single-point failure.

If a system for raising, lowering, or supporting a platform were to include a hydraulic line, then the rupture of that line would constitute a single-point failure under S6.6. Therefore, if the hydraulic line were to rupture, the platform must not fall vertically faster than permitted by the standard. Additionally, you may need to evaluate other failures, as S6.6 applies to any single-point failure.

I hope that you find our responses helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:403#404
d.6/25/04

ID: mema.ztv

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Christopher H. Grigorian, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger and Mr. Gregorian:

This is in reply to your letter of July 29, 2003, on behalf of your client, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), requesting an interpretation of one provision of NHTSAs early warning reporting (EWR) regulation, 49 CFR 579.27(c).

Section 579.27 requires manufacturers to which the section applies to report information about each incident involving one or more deaths in the United States and in, certain instances, in a foreign country "that is identified in a claim against and received by the manufacturer which notice alleges or proves that the death was caused by a possible defect in the manufacturers vehicle or equipment." (Section 579.27(b)). Among the information that must be provided, the manufacturer must separately report "the number of injuries for incidents occurring in the United States" (Section 579.27(c)).

You stated that "a literal reading of subsection (c) of the final rule indicates that in the event an equipment manufacturer reports an incident involving a death, it should also provide in its report the number of injuries, if any, if the incident occurred in the United States." This is correct. You also noted that the language of the final rule is not the same as that in the NPRM. This, too, is correct. As you know, final rules frequently include changes from the NPRM. We believe that the final rule is within the scope of the statute and the proposed rule.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any questions, please call Andrew DiMarsico (202) -366-5263.

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/9/03

ID: mercedes.rbm

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
555 13th St., NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109

Re: Mercedes-Benz Air Bag On-off Switch

Dear Mr. Raher:

This letter responds to your correspondence seeking permission to install a button-activated air bag on-off switch for individuals who have received permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to have their passenger-side air bag deactivated. I apologize for the delay in responding to your request. NHTSA will not take any enforcement action against any dealer or repair business under the make inoperable provision of Chapter 301 if it installs a Mercedes-Benz manufactured button-activated switch subject to the conditions outlined in this letter. NHTSA's decision is based on its belief that a button-activated on-off switch is a preferable means of air bag deactivation than disconnection of the air bag.

In your correspondence, you state that Mercedes-Benz would limit the installation of a button-activated device to the 1994 and 1995 model year Mercedes-Benz R-129, which you indicate cannot accommodate a key-operated device due to the vehicles' electrical system. Additionally, you state that the switch would only be installed for individuals who "needed to deactivate the passenger side airbag due to the presence of a child seat or other similar need." The status of the air bag would be indicated by a telltale incorporated into the switch and located on the driver's side of the instrument console. Mercedes-Benz would require the vehicle owner to provide it with a letter from NHTSA authorizing deactivation of the passenger side air bag.

As you are aware, NHTSA issued a final rule on November 18, 1997 allowing for the installation of an on-off switch that can be activated by a key or key-like object. Installation of these switches is limited to individuals who fall within specified risk groups and have received an on-off switch approval from NHTSA. As stated in the rule, NHTSA will continue to grant deactivation requests for individuals who fall within a smaller risk group if no original equipment manufacturer switch is available for their vehicle.

In making its decision to allow for a key-operated switch, NHTSA specifically considered and rejected allowing a switch that was not activated by an external device. The agency was concerned that lesser measures could lead to an inadvertent change in the status of the affected air bag. Accordingly, NHTSA's decision to allow Mercedes-Benz to use a button-activated switch is limited to installation in the vehicles described in your letter and referenced above. NHTSA's decision is also limited to vehicles for which the owner has received permission to deactivate the passenger side air bag. Permission to have an on-off switch installed will not be sufficient. Finally, if Mercedes-Benz is able to resolve problems related to the vehicle electrical system and a key-activated switch, the agency would encourage Mercedes-Benz to produce that switch rather than a button-activated switch.

NHTSA wishes to make it clear that its decision to allow the installation of a button-activated switch is limited to this request and should not be construed as precedent for how we would decide other requests.

If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.3/23/98