ID: tri-mark.rbm

Mr. Larry Wright
RV Market Manager
Tri/Mark
Industrial Park
New Hampton, IA 50659





Dear Mr. Wright:





This responds to your letter asking whether your side door locking system would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206). The answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter and presented in subsequent conversations with Rebecca MacPherson of my staff.

You have requested confidentiality of your incoming request, and we have granted that confidentiality. In order to adequately address your request, however, we must provide a brief, general description of your door retention system.

You stated that your side door locking system consists of two separate locks. One can be locked and unlocked from either the inside or the outside of the vehicle. This lock, which is not attached to the door handle, is the vehicle's primary locking system. The second can only be locked from the outside of the vehicle, but when so locked, will not prevent an individual inside the vehicle from opening the door. This lock serves as a security feature when the vehicle is parked. The door may be the only door on the vehicle or it may be supplemental to traditional front doors. It typically would not qualify as a front door because it would generally be located behind the driver seat. ⁽¹⁾

You asked whether your side door locking system would comply with the requirements of S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1, and S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206.

Paragraph S4.1.3, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

We have interpreted S4.1.3 to require the following features: each door must have a locking mechanism, and there must be an interior operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. In your letter you state that your system has an interior means for engaging one of the two door locks. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.3 would be met.

Paragraph S4.1.3.1, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Front Door Locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

Based on your explanation of your design, it is unlikely that the affected door would qualify as a front door. If it does qualify as a front door, the requirements for S4.1.3.1 would also be met since both locks on your system prevent an individual from opening the door when it is locked.

Paragraph S4.1.3.2, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

One of the locks in your system will prevent the door from being opened from either inside or outside the vehicle when the lock is engaged. This lock meets the requirements of S4.1.3.2. The security lock does not meet the requirements of S4.1.3.2. However, this lock is supplemental and is not designed to meet the primary purpose of that section, i.e., preventing individuals from inadvertently opening locked doors while the vehicle is in motion.

Thus, the primary locking mechanism would meet the requirements of either S4.1.3.1 or S4.1.3.2, depending on the placement of the door relative to the driver seat. We note that even though the locking mechanism is not directly linked to the door handle, the door's latch release control, it does render the door handle inoperative since the door remains closed when the locking mechanism is engaged.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.7/26/00

1. FMVSS No. 206 defines a side front door as a door that in a side view has 50% or more of its opening area forward of the rearmost point on the driver's seatback when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most vertical and rearward position. The Standard defines a side rear door as a door that in a side view has 50% or more of its opening area rear of the rearmost point on the driver's seatback when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most vertical and rearward position.

ID: 08-003232 tunick door locks

ID: 007749drn-3

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request that we reconsider a May 6, 2003, interpretation letter to Jaguar Cars on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. After carefully considering your request, we affirm the opinion stated in our letter. Our reasons are set forth below.

In its request for interpretation, Jaguar asked whether the daylight opening should be measured to the edge of complete blackout area, the start of dot fade area, or to some point in between. We explained that the daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area on the indshield.

Daylight opening is defined at S3 of FMVSS No. 104 as: "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface, as defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963."

Paragraph 2.3.12 of that SAE standard states:

The term "Daylight Opening" (abbreviated DLO) refers to the maximum unobstructed opening through any glass aperture, including reveal or garnish moldings adjoining the glass, according to a given direction or projection. If not specified the dimension will be the vertical projection.

We noted that the definition of "daylight opening" referred to by Jaguar was in a later SAE document (SAE Recommended Practice J1100) and not the one referenced in FMVSS No. 104. One difference between the definition of "daylight opening" in the older document and the one in J1100 is that the newer one treats "opaque coatings" in the same manner as reveal or garnish moldings.

In our letter, we noted that opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used to serve the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believed it was appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in FMVSS No. 104. We stated, however, that this is only true for what Jaguar referred to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. We stated that the dot fade area is not truly opaque, and is not analogous to moldings. Thus, daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area.

In your recent letter, you disagree with our view about the dot fade area. You believe that the dot fade area that is ordinarily inboard of the opaque coatings at the edge of the windshield should not be included in the measurement of "daylight opening."

According to your letter:

"Daylight Opening" is defined both in FMVSS No. 104 and in the referenced SAE standard as the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface. The dot-fade area is not "unobstructed." Rather, the dot-fade area is more appropriately viewed as the transition to the opaque area of the windshield, analogous to the edge of a molding in an older design. As moldings would not have been included in the definition of "daylight opening" under the standard, the dot-fade edge of the opaque area should likewise not be included in that definition. For the same reason, Alliance members have not included dot-fade areas as part of the daylight opening when providing windshield measurements to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for purposes of FMVSS 104 compliance testing.

While we have considered your arguments, we do not agree that the dot fade area toward the edges of a windshield represents an obstruction within the meaning of FMVSS No. 104.

As a technical matter, we believe that the term "unobstructed opening," as used in the 1963 SAE document incorporated into FMVSS No. 104, originally referred to physical obstructions. In our letter to Jaguar, however, we noted that opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used for the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believed it was appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in FMVSS No. 104.

After considering your letter, we continue to believe that this is true only for what Jaguar referred to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. The dot fade area is not truly opaque and does not cover the adhesive.We therefore do not consider it analogous to moldings or to the "edge of a molding." (The edge of a molding is a part of the molding and is opaque.) If anything, the dot fade area is more analogous to shade bands, which are not obstructions. Since a dot fade area neither constitutes a physical obstruction nor is opaque, it comes within the definition of "daylight opening."

We note that in a letter dated February 24, 2004, you cited a letter from the Vehicle Certification Agency of Great Britain concerning its interpretation of the term "daylight opening" under the applicable ECE regulation and direction. However, that agency was providing an interpretation of different language with different origins from that included in FMVSS No. 104.

Because there has been some confusion within the industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening," we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003, interpretation beginning with vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.3/31/04

ID: 10723-2

Ms. Merridy R. Gottlieb
4 Duchess Court
Baltimore, MD 21237

Dear Ms. Gottlieb:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995, requesting an "exemption" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states:

I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all.

You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would "interfere with the functionality of the air bag."

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA 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 requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements 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 to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition 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 FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would "make inoperative" the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the dynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements.

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 violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208 d:4/25/95

ID: 1938y

Mr. Randy Blackman
Per-Lux Inc.
1242 E. Edna Place
Covina, CA 91724

Dear Mr. Blackman:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall.

We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/MARCIA/SHAVON: PLEASE MAKE SURE THE SKETCH IS NOT COPIED FOR ANY FILE. WE ARE RETURNING IT, UNCOPIED, TO MR. BLACKMAN.

ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: 12420.jeg

Mr. Al Farshchian
President
Air Bag Technology, Inc.
15 Hammond, Suite 304
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Farshchian:

This responds to your letters concerning two devices that you have designed to deactivate passenger air bags under certain circumstances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You call the first device an "air bag deployment restrictor." This device would detect a passenger's size and distance from the air bag and automatically deactivate the air bag under circumstances in which deployment would "prove hazardous." The second device would allow the owner of "any motor vehicle containing a passenger side air bag to able or disable that air bag with the flick of a switch without disabling the entire air bag system." I note that we would categorize your first device as an "automatic" cut-off device, and your second device as a "manual" cut-off device. You indicated that the devices might be sold in the aftermarket or for installation during the manufacture of the vehicle. You asked whether these devices are permitted under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

One of the standards issued by this agency is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks in order to comply with this standard.

If either of your devices were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

NHTSA has previously addressed the question of whether automatic cut-off devices and manual cut-off devices are permitted for passenger air bags under Standard No. 208. The standard does not preclude the use of automatic cut-off devices for passenger air bags so long as the dummy performance requirements are met in the specific dynamic crash conditions specified in the standard. For example, an unbelted 50th percentile male passenger dummy would have to be protected in the barrier crash test or alternative sled test specified by the standard.

Standard No. 208 expressly addresses the circumstances under which manual cut-off devices are permitted. See S4.5.4. The standard limits the types of vehicles which are permitted to have manual cut-off devices and also specifies a number of requirements for manual cut-off devices that must be satisfied. For example, the manual cut-off device must deactivate the air bag by means of the ignition key and require manual reactivation of the air bag once deactivated. The standard also specifies certain requirements for an accompanying warning light, and the option for manual cut-off devices is only available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2000.

I have enclosed a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the final rule establishing Standard No. 208's requirements for manual cut-off switches, as well as a recent final rule extending the option until September 1, 2000. I have also enclosed a copy of an NPRM. addressing air bag deactivation, which discusses manual cut-off switches as a possible means of deactivation.

I also note that, since both of your devices would include indicator lights, you should also check whether they would comply with Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays.

If one of your devices were installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a dealer or repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, Federal law prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. See 49 U.S.C. 30122. In general, this "make inoperative" prohibition would prevent a dealer or repair business from installing one of your devices if the effect of such installation would be to take the vehicle out of compliance with one or more safety standards. For example, a dealer or repair business could not add manual cut-off devices to types of vehicles for which such devices are prohibited, but could add them to types of vehicles for which they are permitted (assuming all of the conditions specified in Standard No. 208 are met). The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications made by persons to their own vehicles. Such modifications may, however, be covered by State laws.

Enclosed is an information sheet we have prepared to provide general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet explaining how to obtain copies of our standards.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d:3/31/97

ID: 14280.jeg

Mr. Bob Van Hazelen
Fleet and Building Manager
Public Works Department
City of Burbank
124 South Lake Street
P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510-6459

Dear Mr. Van Hazelen:

This responds to your letter, on behalf of the Police Department of the City of Burbank, requesting a "formal written passenger air bag deactivation waiver." The Department requested deactivation of the passenger side air bag and the removal of the passenger side seat in two Ford Crown Victoria police patrol vehicles. According to your letter, computers will be mounted in the deployment area of the passenger air bag, and the front passenger seats will be removed. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. Therefore, you do not need an "air bag deactivation waiver."

Some background information about our agency may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

Federal law also limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new.

Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the make inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position.

However, the make inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

I note that the "make inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards.

I also note that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

I hope you find this information helpful. 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:VSA#207#208
d:5/29/97

ID: 11210

Fred H. Pritzker, Esq.
Pritzker & Meyer, P.A.
Suite 1275 Peavey Building
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Dear Mr. Pritzker:

This concerns your August 29, 1995 letter about the replacement of a rear seat in a 1993 GEO Tracker with a speaker box. In response to your request that we speak with you about the issues raised in that letter, Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff spoke with you by telephone. In that conversation, you requested a written opinion. Our opinion is set forth below.

According to your letter, the son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. An employee of that store removed the rear seat and replaced it with a speaker box. As part of this process, the female portion of the seat belt buckle was removed. You stated that the speaker box has a ledge not unlike a bench-type seat, the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on, and was carpeted.

You represent a person who was sitting on this speaker box when the vehicle was involved in a serious collision, and believe that the electronics company violated the "make inoperative" provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).

As Mr. Glancy explained to you by telephone, NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a company violated the "make inoperative" provision outside a compliance proceeding. I can, however, provide general information on how this provision applies in such a situation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1993 passenger cars and other light vehicles to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward- facing rear outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear designated seating positions.

NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. However, section 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows:

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 safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

I can offer the following thoughts concerning how section 30122(b) would apply in the context of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business removing rear seat belts. First, electronics companies which install stereo equipment in motor vehicles are subject to section 30122(b), given the broad language "manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business."

Second, some specific examples will illustrate how answering the question of whether a particular action Amakes inoperative@ a device installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard depends on the underlying factual circumstances. As noted above, under Standard No. 208, seat belts were required to be installed at the rear designated seating positions in the Tracker. The definition of "designated seating position," set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows:

Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle 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. . . .

The simple removal of rear seat belts from designated seating positions, without other modifications to a vehicle, would obviously make inoperative a device, i.e., seat belts, installed in compliance with Standard No. 208. Similarly, the removal of rear seat belts, coupled with replacing the rear seat with another rear seat, would make the seat belts inoperative (assuming the rear seat belts were not replaced). However, if rear seat belts were removed as part of permanently converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat, the removal of the seat belts would not make inoperative a device installed in compliance with a safety standard. This is because Standard No. 208 would not have required rear seat belts in the absence of rear designated seating positions.

Your letter raises the question of whether a speaker box of the type installed by the electronics company would be considered to provide designated seating positions. I have enclosed a copy of the final rule establishing the designated seating position definition (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979). As discussed in that notice, any position likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. The notice includes several discussions which are relevant to the issue of whether a position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Included is a discussion that a manufacturer would not be responsible for abusive or unorthodox use of a particular position.

If you have further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Glancy at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#VSA d:12/22/95

ID: 11247

Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D.
15 Fairview Knoll N.E.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-9147

Dear Dr. Arnold:

This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were Agranted dispensation from such usage several years ago.@ In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old, 5 feet, three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

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 governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The section 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 vehicle 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 inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupant restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency=s actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:208 d:12/ll/95

ID: 1985-01.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey E.Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. R. Fisher

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. R. Fisher Manager, Environmental Affairs New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. 45500 Fremont Boulevard Fremont, California 94538

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in response to your letter of October 5, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

Under the assumptions that your Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status and that light-duty engines are "certified at time of entry," you have asked for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require a DOT HS-7 Form for the engines.

Motor vehicle engines are not subject to any form of certification to DOT requirements, and no HS-7 Form is required for them under any circumstances.

You have also asked for confirmation that no HS-7 need be filed for finished vehicles entering the stream of commerce of the United States provided that they are produced at the Fremont plant and are in compliance at the time of delivery.

For Customs purposes, motor vehicles manufactured in Foreign Trade Zones within the United States are not considered as subject to importation requirements until they leave the Zone and enter the Customs Territory of the United States. Under the joint DOT-Treasury (Customs) regulation governing importation of vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a declaration must be given (usually the Form HS-7) when vehicles enter the United States, even if they bear the certification of compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)). Technically, Customs could require declarations for all vehicles manufactured in the Zone at Fremont.

However, declarations may be waived for certified U.S., Mexican, or Canadian-registered vehicles arriving at land borders (19 C.F.R. 12.80(f)), at the discretion of the District Director of the border crossing involved. We view the Fremont Trade Zone situation as analogous, and you may inform the local District Customs Director that this agency would have no objection if the declaration requirement were waived for the cars to be produced at Fremont. Should the District Director decide that authority was lacking for such a waiver, your recourse would appear to be to petition the U.S. Customs Service for rulemaking to amend Section 12.80(f) to include certified but unregistered vehicles produced within Foreign Trade Zones.

In closing, we request that your company file a Manufacturer Identification statement with this agency as required by 49 C.F.R Part 566.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

October 5, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is a follow up to a conversation last week with Mr. Clive Van Orden concerning the enclosed letter of August 17, 1984. I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS Form 7 for light-duty engines imported by New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS Form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

A.R. Fisher, PhD Manager, Environmental Affairs

cc: E. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs

August 17, 1984

Mr. Clive Van Orden National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Van Orden:

As a follow up to our conversation last week, I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS form 7 for engines imported by New United Motor Mfg. Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

Anthony Fisher. Ph.D Manager - Environmental Affairs

cc: e. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs