ID: nht93-5.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from Michael Love to Mary Versailles (OCC 8506)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. Your letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of "designated seating position," as defined at 49 CFR S571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. "For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria." You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation:

When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210.

When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210.

As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation.

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a "plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female." Therefore, these positions would be considered "designated seating positions" at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed.

Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific "designated seating position" when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the 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. NHTSA would only test a "designated seating position" for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a "designated seating position" was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances.

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.

ID: nht74-4.27

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: L and R Enterprises

COPYEE: HON. JOHN TOWER; HON. LLOYD BENTSEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether your installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.

Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on the driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.

Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed a copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.

Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if you qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a "non-readily attachable" alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the @ 567.7 requirement only if you mount it "before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale."

2 ENCLS

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

February 19, 1974

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

Since the questions raised in your letter of February 15, 1974, are under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, we have taken the liberty of forwarding it to the General Counsel of that agency.

You can expect to hear directly from that office in the near future.

FRED J. EMERY Director of the Federal Register

cc:w/encl Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq.

General Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

cc: (1) Honorable John Tower

United States Senate

(2) Honorable Lloyd Bentsen

United States Senate

L and R Enterprises

February 15, 1974

Director Office of Federal Registrar National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration

Ref: Code of Federal Regulations

49 transportation

Parts 200 to 999

Revised October 1, 1972

With reference to part 571 of the above publication and entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Standard; sub-part 571.201 and with specific reference to S3.1.1b and c, has been interpreted to indicate that any rigid projection outboard from the padded dash is or will be illegal. Our exact reference here has to do with a "post mounted spot light which has a rigid handle outboard from said dash." Please provide an exact interpretation of the above for us.

Another question arises in sub-part 571.216 with specific reference the strength of the roof of a vehicle. Said testing is completed the factory, but if a 1/2" to 3/4" hole is drilled in the left or right front corner post, the physical structure is altered and weakened. We would appreciate a positive interpretation on this point also.

L and R Enterprises is a manufacturer of 12 volt lighting devices, and we need these two interpretations so as to know how to schedule our production.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

c/c Honorable John tower Senator from Texas

Honorable Lloyd Pentsen

Senator from Texas

ID: nht75-5.31

DATE: 03/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Michael P. Dixon

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1975, requesting information concerning penalties available for failure to provide an odometer disclosure form upon sale of a vehicle.

As you know, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's correct mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, however, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. Violation of any of these requirements may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.

If you have reason to believe that the odometer mileage was altered by someone other than the person who actually sold you the vehicle, you are not precluded from suing him. The Act does not limit your recovery for a violation to your immediate transferor.

Where a vehicle has been rebuilt, the odometer mileage that is relevant for purposes of the Cost Savings Act, is the number of miles the chassis has traveled.

I have enclosed the materials you requested.

YOURS TRULY,

U.S Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

GENTLEMEN:

Could you please send me a copy of the exact wording of section 409(a) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513. I have the fact sheet on the odometer law that the GSA was so kind to send, but it does not answer the questions that pertain to my situation.

The dealer from whom I purchased my used car did not provide any odometer certification - the booklet says he must, but doesn't tell me what to do when doesn't, I asked for the certification and was told that it wasn't required - even though his own invoice says it is required. I have no reason to believe that the dealer has tampered with the odometer.

Secondly, the car has been made from 2 wrecks - the front of one and the rear of another and a previous dealer (with whom I had no dealings) did the work and in the process, deliberately altered serial numbers. I understand that he will be prosecuted for this by the State of N.C.. This rebuilding was discovered by me after I had the car for more than a month and I brought it to the attention of the N.C. Department of Motor Vehicle and they found out who tampered with the numbers and when.

Now, my problem is that the title is now mashed as "Reconstructed" and has a serial number of the N.C. Dept Mtr Vehicles and certainly has less resale Value than if not a patched up job. Surely the time cars used didn't have precisely the same mileage.

Can I sue the firm that did the altering in November, 1973? I bought the car from someone else (another dealer) in November 1974.

Would appreciate your comments if possible for you to do soon. Please send a copy of the law as there is little point in my (Illegible Words) if I have no grounds for suit.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Michael P. Dyson

ID: nht95-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Barbara Kise

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/11/94 letter from Barbara Kise to Chief Consul (OCC 10499)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kise:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1994 asking whether the air bag in your 1994 Oldsmobile can be disconnected. You explained that you use oxygen for emphysema and chronic bronchitis and are concerned that your lungs might not be able to toler ate the powder ejected if the air bag deploys in a crash.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The provision provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor veh icle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperat ive" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

NHTSA has previously stated that chemical and medical tests indicate that an air bag inflation poses no respiratory system hazard, even for persons who are highly susceptible to airborne particles. However, one recent test series of persons with an asth matic condition revealed that prolonged exposure (20 minutes with the windows rolled up) to the atmosphere inside a vehicle after both the driver and passenger air bags have deployed can induce significant asthmatic reactions in some persons. Please not e that these were worst case test conditions unlikely to be found in a real world crash situation.

However, given this test, we would recommend that you consult your doctor to determine whether any significant hazard could result if you were exposed to air bag deployment by-products. I have enclosed a report on this test for you to share with your do ctor to assist in this determination. If you and your doctor decide that the risk to you offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of your air bag, and you wished to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical v iolation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against the person who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag b e consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufact ured. Accordingly, we urge that the air bag be reactivated prior to selling the vehicle. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle always uses his or her safety belt.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht91-5.45

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Lombard -- Lombard Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-91 from Charles Lombard to Rick Iderstiene (OCC 6297); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S571.211). Specifically, you enclosed some drawings and photographs of your "new wheel and/or hubcap design," the "Lombard Racer," and asked whether it can be marketed. As explained below, the answer is no.

S3 of Standard No. 211 specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. The issue before us is whether the "Lombard Racer" includes any wheel nut, hub cap, or wheel disc that incorporates winged projections. To answer this, we have reviewed the drawings and photographs you have provided. Figures 4, 5, and 9 of the drawings show that the design of the octagonal hub cap incorporates two curved appendages (that the drawings depict as extending beyond the rim of the wheel), both emanating from the hub cap, that are placed at opposite ends from each other. Based on this, it is our opinion that your hub cap design incorporates "winged projections." As such, this design does not appear to comply with Standard No. 211.

I have, for your information, enclosed a copy of this agency's November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. That letter reaffirmed past interpretations stating that hub caps with winged projections do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211 and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211. We would consider each sale or offer for sale of hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (16 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

We have recently received a petition to amend Standard No. 211 to allow the manufacture and use of certain hub caps which may be prohibited under the existing language of Standard No. 211. The agency will be evaluating this petition over the next several months.

With your letter, you also enclosed promotional information from another company that offered hub caps with winged projections for sale. Thank you

for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Per your request, I have returned the enclosures in your letter to me. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney, Esq. (Text omitted)

ID: nht95-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your s on in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and ne w items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable th e outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" posit ion. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardle ss of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accide nt and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.)

ID: 9067

Dear :

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether "embossing" is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol "DOT" and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but "DOT" may not appear on original parts.

The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number "affixed or inscribed" on each of fourteen specified original parts.

Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter "R" "affixed or inscribed" on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol "DOT," that is "inscribed or affixed."

In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be "inscribed or affixed." To determine whether embossing is a means of "inscribing," we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. "Inscribe" means "to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface." (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of "inscribing."

The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it "has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43170; October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss.

Your second question asked whether "DOT" may be marked on original parts. The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes "DOT," the part would be dual marked. "Dual marking" was discussed in Part 541's preamble:

... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of "decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179).

It would also be inappropriate to mark "DOT" on an original part because "DOT" is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing "DOT" on the original part.

Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:541 d:10/5/93

ID: nht71-4.14

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobiles, Peugeot

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the questions you raised during our visit of June 9 and 10. I will try to answer each question as fully as possible.

1. It would be unfortunate if the effect of our standards on domestic passenger car production in Europe is to raise costs to the point where significant numbers of people are forced to rely on cheaper and more dangerous vehicles such as motor driven cycles. However, we do not think this result likely in the light of the continuing demand for inexpensive passenger cars and in the absence of legislation by the European nations to compel adoption of the costlier safety features.

2. We are aware of the concern of foreign manufacturers with the effects of the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will attempt to be as flexible as possible, consistent with its mandate to insure the safety of vehicles sold in the United States. The discretion allowed the agency to exempt vehicles from a standard is a matter that Congress will have to decide. At the present time, the exemption authority given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the 1966 Act has expired, and we are therefore unable to agree to any exemptions unless Congress chooses to recreate the exemption authority in some form.

3. In the development of standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration attempts to evaluate their effects on foreign as well as domestic manufacturers. As you are aware, it is sometimes not possible to reconcile all points of view on a standard, but we would urge you to make every effort to set forth your position on proposed rules during the comment period.

4, 5. Your comments on the proper height for bumpers and the problem of the license plate location have been considered in the context of the rulemaking on Standard No. 215. The amendment issued on June 22, 1971, should serve to lessen the height problem to some degree, and on the basis of present data we regard the height thereby established as reasonable for the overall vehicle population. The share of the license plate itself is determined by the individual states and is not within our authority.

6. The crash characteristics which you suggest for a vehicle's front end seem reasonable, but because they fall beyond the scope of the present rulemaking on Standard No. 215, any consideration of them will have to be deferred. Although we realize that the front seats can supplement the side structure of a car in a side impact, the question as to whether the seats should be retained was considered in the development of the final version of Standard No. 214, and it was determined at that time that the standard would provide a more reliable measure of side strength if the tests were conducted with the seats removed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still of that opinion, although it would consider any additional information presented in support of a petition to amend the standard to allow retention of the seats.

7. On the subject of prospective standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is currently preparing a new version of the program plan for motor vehicle safety standards. The plan is intended to map the course of rulemaking for the next several years, and should serve to answer most of your questions on timing. We expect to announce the new plan in the very near future.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. If not, or if additional questions arise, do not hesitate to ask us.

ID: Zimmer.rbm

Ms. Reneta Zimmerman
301 Golden Isles Drive, #407
Hallandale, Florida 33009

Dear Ms. Zimmerman:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes your concerns about placing your infant in front of the passenger-side air bag of your Mazda Miata. Since your vehicle has no back seat, NHTSA will grant an exemption to allow the dealer or a repair business to deactivate the passenger-side air bag. NHTSA is allowing this deactivation because an infant in a rear-facing child restraint should never be placed in front of an air bag and because it recognizes that you may be unable to replace your vehicle with a car equipped with a back seat.

If it is possible to retrofit your car with the installation of a manual cutoff switch, this option should be pursued rather than a total deactivation of the air bag. Mazda should be able to tell you if a manual cutoff switch is available for your vehicle.

If installation of a manual cutoff switch is not an option, you may choose to have your passenger-side air bag deactivated.

Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with air bags at the front outboard seating positions. The Federal law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, NHTSA has previously stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical and justified by public need, and that it would not begin enforcement proceedings.

Since your vehicle does not have any back seat, NHTSA will consider the deactivation of the passenger-side air bag as a

technical violation of the "make inoperative" provision that is justified by public need. Accordingly, it will not begin enforcement proceedings against any dealer or repair business which deactivates the passenger-side air bag.

Please note, however, that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, that the current and subsequent owners and occupants of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated once your child is old enough to ride safely in the front seat or when it is returned to the company which leases it.

In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts and to tell them that the passenger-side air bag has been deactivated.

I hope this letter resolves your problem. You should show this letter to the dealer or repair business when you take your car in for deactivation of the passenger-side air bag.

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:208

d:11/19/96

ID: crull.jeg

Ms. Lynette Y. Crull
1061 Greendale Road
Harrisonburg, VA 22801

Dear Ms. Crull:

This responds to your faxed letter of August 29, 1996, requesting special permission to have the passenger air bag of your 1996 Ford Taurus station wagon deactivated or a cutoff switch placed in it. You explained that you have a five-and-a-half-month old daughter who was born three weeks premature. She had an apnea spell in the hospital and went home on an apnea monitor. You stated that you need to be able to reach her within 10 seconds if the monitor should go off. You stated that this would be impossible if she is in the back seat of the car, since it would take far longer than 10 seconds to pull off the road if you were in traffic. You also stated that your dealership is not willing to deactivate the air bag due to a law that forbids the disabling of safety equipment.

As discussed below, we would consider the special needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that either temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag to accommodate your child, or places a cutoff switch in the vehicle for the same purpose.

Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as a means of complying with that requirement.

The law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that we would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical, justified by public need, and that we would not institute enforcement proceedings.

We would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger-side air bag in your car, or the addition of a cutoff switch, in the same way. Infants riding in rear-facing child safety seats should never be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. Since you need to place your daughter in the front seat of your vehicle in order to be able to quickly respond to an possible apnea spell, we would consider your situation as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag, or installs a cutoff switch, to accommodate your child.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you have the air bag deactivated, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated by the dealer when your daughter can ride in the rear seat.

In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:9/13/96