ID: nht75-4.33

DATE: 04/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Director of Safety - CINCUSAREUR

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your question whether a recent amendment of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, which modified the requirement for a seat belt warning system, would make legal the disconnection of warning systems which conformed to earlier requirements.

The answer to your question concerning vehicle owners is yes. Disconnection of safety devices is subject to a Federal statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), as recently amended (P.L. 93-492). For your information, I will summarize the relevant provisions on disconnection.

The Safety Act prohibits knowing disconnection of safety devices after the first retail sale, as well as before this sale, with three exceptions.

First, after December 26, 1974, a private party may disconnect any devices after sale. Generally, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may not knowingly disconnect safety devices except during repair of the vehicle.

Second, after December 26, 1974, any person, including a new car dealer, may disconnect the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer (but not the warning light) at any time after sale of 1974- or 1975-model passenger car. This does not include the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.

Third, a dealer may disconnect the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer (but not the warning light) at the request of the first purchaser before sale of the new vehicle. This is the only exception to the rule that no person may disconnect any safety devices prior to sale. This does not include disconnection of the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.

YOURS TRULY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE and SEVENTH ARMY OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNAL

MARCH 3, 1975

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportaion

Reference the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 published in the 6 December 1974 issue of the Federal Register (Vol 39, No. 236).

Since the continuous or intermittent audible signal of one minute or more duration is no longer required, is it permissible for owners to disable these warning devices on vehicles so equipped.

LEONARD F. BLANDA Director of Safety

ID: 08-006170as congressional

ID: nht71-4.46

DATE: 11/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 28.

We understand your apparent problem in mounting the middle identification lamp on the vertical centerline, near the extreme height of the vehicle. Since it is apparently impracticable to mount the lamps at this height, their relocation to a position under the door opening would appear to meet the requirement that identification lamps be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" (Table II, Standard No. 108).

ID: 3234o

Ms. Claire Haven
Vice President
Quadwest
27833 Avenue Hopkins
Valencia, CA 91355

Dear Ms. Haven:

This responds to your letter seeking further agency assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances.

If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad.

If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The safety belt systems installed in vehicles are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a shoulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherise modify existing equipment without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standards. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a "render inoperative" violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a "render inoperative" violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the inventor contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agency would be very likely to find a "render inoperative" violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed.

Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder belt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:VSA#208#209#302 d:l1/22/88

ID: 000644brownlee.drn

Mr. Rick Brownlee
Charlotte Bus and RV Sales
P.O. Box 218
Simpsonville, SC 29681

Dear Mr. Brownlee:

This responds to your e-mail message to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting information about sales of small buses to child care centers for school pick-up. You explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that your company manufactures new vehicles that meet the school bus crashworthiness safety standards, but do not have school bus flashing lights or stop arms. You wish to know whether child care centers may purchase and use these vehicles.

By way of background, keep in mind that Federal law restricts the types of new buses that may be sold to transport children to or from school or school-related events, but does not restrict the use of vehicles. State laws regulate the use of vehicles, including how school age children are to be transported. Presently, NHTSAs requirements do not permit the sale of vehicles such as yours to the centers for the purpose of picking up and dropping off students at schools. However, the adoption of proposed changes to those requirements would permit the sale of the vehicles for that purpose.




Present Requirements

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30125 defines a "school bus" as any passenger motor vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

Your question regarding sales of new buses to child care centers has been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation. In the Collins letter, we explain dealers' responsibilities in selling new buses to child care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools. (All the enclosures mentioned in the letter are provided.) NHTSAs longstanding position has been that child care centers in and of themselves are not Aschools@ within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a child care center is providing transportation to or from school or school-related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action--transporting students to or from school--contemplated by the statute. As such, a dealer selling a new bus to a child care center for transporting students to or from school is obligated to sell a new "school bus."




Proposed Change ("Multifunction School Activity Bus")

You state that the child care centers "may be picking up and dropping off at schools." Because your vehicles do not have the flashing lights and stop arms, at present they could not be certified as meeting all school bus FMVSSs and thus cannot be sold to the centers to transport students to or from school. However, the agency is considering adding a new vehicle classification that would allow the sale of such a vehicle for those purposes.

On November 5, 2002 (67 FR 67373), NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a new school bus subcategory, the "Multifunction School Activity Bus" (MFSAB).An MFSAB would be a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,804 kilograms (15,000 pounds) or less that meets all school bus FMVSSs, except for S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. That is, the vehicle would be constructed as a school bus except for school bus flashing lamps and stop arms. The MFSABs would have a label stating that they are not to be used to pick school children up from or drop them off at home. If NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB subcategory, you will be permitted to sell MFSABs to child care centers.




"Allowable Alternate Vehicles" (AAV)

You also asked: "Will the [allowable alternate vehicles] AAVs be acceptable for pupil transportation for day care centers who may be picking up and dropping off at schools, but who would have no need for the emergency lights and stop arm?" Your question relates to a final rule of January 18, 2001, in which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Head Start Bureau defined "allowable alternate vehicle" (AAV) as "a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131." (See 45 CFR 1310.3.)

NHTSAs notice proposing the MFSAB is intended to create a vehicle that would meet the Head Start Programs definition of "allowable alternate vehicle."However, until NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB, you may not sell an AAV to a child care center, if you know the center will "significantly" use the bus to transport children "to and from school or related events."




Sales of "Commercial Buses" that Meet Standard No. 220

You also ask whether a "typical 'commercial bus' that passes FMVSS 220 for school bus rollover and meets all safety standards for a commercial bus [would] be acceptable."The answer is no. The "commercial bus" you describe would not meet all of NHTSAs school bus crashworthiness safety standards. Accordingly, the vehicle would not be considered an MFSAB under the November 2002 proposal.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's school bus safety programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.2/6/03

ID: 2837yy

Ms. Susan J. Otjen
Spill Response Project
Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office
3000 Market Street Plaza
Suite 534
Salem, Oregon 93710-0198

Dear Ms. Otjen:

This responds to your request for an opinion whether Oregon's specifications for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles are consistent with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Based on the information provided in your letter and telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of this office, there is no inconsistency betweens Oregon's specifications and the Federal safety standards.

The Emergency Response Vehicles in question have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. Oregon's specifications call for the vehicle to include a manual safety belt at each seating position. One of the parties bidding on the contract for these vehicles suggested that these specifications were inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards, because, according to the bidder, the Federal standards require a crash test to measure the occupant protection afforded in these vehicles. The bidder's assertion is inaccurate.

The occupant protection requirements applicable to these Emergency Response Vehicles are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). That section requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 pounds provide occupant protection at every designated seating position, but gives manufacturers two alternative means of providing the necessary protection.

The first option for manufacturers of these vehicles, as set forth in S4.3.2.1, is to provide automatic crash protection (e.g., air bags or automatic safety belts) for occupants. If this option were chosen, the vehicle would be subject to crash testing by NHTSA during its compliance evaluations. To date, no manufacturer of heavy vehicles has ever chosen this option. Instead, they have chosen the second option.

The second option, as set forth in S4.3.2.2, is to provide manual safety belts at every designated seating position. No vehicle crash testing is conducted under this option. Instead, compliance evaluations are based on a series of static tests of the safety belt assembly and the anchorage for that assembly. Accordingly, there is nothing in the Oregon specifications for these Emergency Response Vehicles that conflicts with the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:2/5/9l

ID: nht91-1.34

DATE: February 5, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Susan J. Otjen -- Spill Response Project, Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-5-90 from Susan J. Otjen to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5519)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an opinion whether Oregon's specifica- tions for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles are consistent with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Based on the information provided in your letter and telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of this office, there is no inconsistency betweens Oregon's specifications and the Federal safety standards.

The Emergency Response Vehicles in question have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. Oregon's specifications call for the vehicle to include a manual safety belt at each seating position. One of the parties bidding on the contract for these vehicles suggested that these specifications were inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards, because, according to the bidder, the Federal standards require a crash test to measure the occupant protection afforded in these vehicles. The bidder's assertion is inaccurate.

The occupant protection requirements applicable to these Emergency Response Vehicles are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). That section requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 pounds provide occupant protection at every designated seating position, but gives manufacturers two alternative means of providing the necessary protection.

The first option for manufactures of these vehicles, as set forth in S4.3.2.1, is to provide automatic crash protection (e.g., air bags or automatic safety belts) for occupants. If this option were chosen, the vehicle would be subject to crash testing by NHTSA during its compliance evaluations. To date, no manufacturer of heavy vehicles has ever chosen this option. Instead, they have chosen the second option.

The second option, as set forth in S4.3.2.2, is to provide manual safety belts at every designated seating position. No vehicle crash testing is conducted under this option. Instead, compliance evaluations are based on a series of static tests of the safety belt assembly and the anchorage for that assembly. Accordingly, there is nothing in the Oregon specifications for these Emergency Response Vehicles that conflicts with the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 18323.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to modify a 1995 Ford E-150 full-size van for a driver with muscular dystrophy. You explain that your client has limited strength and range of motion due to his disability and needs to replace the OEM steering wheel and air bag with a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that removes the air bag and modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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. After the first sale of a vehicle, 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 standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires 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 standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the vehicle's original steering wheel and air bag would affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. However, as noted above, 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 violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the vehicle manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, the seller should advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:vsa
d.8/28/98

ID: lamb.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to modify a Plymouth Grand Voyager lowered floor minivan van for a driver with quadriplegia. You explain that your client has limited strength and range of motion due to her disability and needs to replace the vehicle's original steering column and air bag with a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that removes the air bag and modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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. After the first sale of a vehicle, 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 standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires 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 standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the vehicle's original steering wheel and air bag would affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. However, as noted above, 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 violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the vehicle manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, the seller should advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

As we mentioned in an earlier letter to you, NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, the agency is proposing to give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking is enclosed for your information.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.12/1/98

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