ID: nht93-9.29

DATE: December 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Matt Gerrity

COPYEE: Harris W. Fawell -- U.S. Representative

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/93 from Harris W. Fawell to Howard Smolkin (OCC 9457); Also attached to letter from Matt Gerrity to Howard Smoklin

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, forward to us on December 9, 1993, by Representative Harris W. Fawell, regarding the removal of the air bag in your 1990 Coupe de Ville. Because you have a physical handicap, you had your vehicle modified by the installation of a hand control system over the steering wheel. You are concerned that, in the event the air bag should activate, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. You also stated that dealers and other mechanics are reluctant to disconnect the air bag because of Federal law.

As discussed below, in certain limited situations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exercised its discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowance when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. While the disconnection of an air bag by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business would ordinarily be a violation of Federal law, this is to advise you that this agency would not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer or repair business that disconnected the driver side air bag in your vehicle. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Removal or disconnection of an air bag by any of the named commercial entities would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, since air bags are installed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. However, in certain situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, NHTSA has been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need, and indicated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. We will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. For example, 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. After the air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. The readiness indicator should not be modified, so other drivers who may expect an air bag will be aware that the air bag is not functional.

I would also like to caution your dealer or mechanic to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag disconnection as this procedure could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners and users of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you would have the air bag reconnected before selling the car. I urge you to have this work performed so that future users of the vehicle will have the protection the air bag affords.

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: nht93-9.3

DATE: December 4, 1993

FROM: David Fabrycky

TO: Chief Counsel -- US DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To David Fabrycky (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I and my associates are currently involved in the development of a child safety device that is intended to prevent the inadvertent and curiosty based opening of the safety buckle by a one to six year old. Although there have been many studies done on the value of such a device the Code of Federal Regulations contains many relevant statements regarding the testing and operation of child restraint systems.

I am writing you for the purpose of gaining your insight and opinion as to the relationship between the type of device we have developed and the standards articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our device is and after-market item purchased by the parent or gaurdian. The device covers the safety buckle and prevents the child from gaining access to the pushbutton. The adult or gaurdian is presumed to possess sufficient mannual dexterity and cognitive skills to easily remove the cover and release the safety belt. The device is also transparent so that the objective is visible.

Regarding the following sections, what is your opinion of the installation of such a device on a child's seat belt buckle in conjuction with other approved devices?

Please find several references to the Code of Federal Regulations followed by specific issues/questions in boldface.

CFR 571.214

S5.4.3.5 Buckle Release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 9 pounds is applied and shall release when a force of not more than 14 pounds is applied:

The device requires that a latch be accuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle so that the pushbutton can be depressed. If none of the forces required to accomplish these tasks exceed the limits specified, would the device be acceptable.

The device requires the manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simulateously. Does this comply with the foregoing requirement?

(b) After the dynamic test S6.1, when tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is applied;

2

The device does not bear the restraining force of any test and is designed to operate after any stress as when first installed.

(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (CFR 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for pushbutton application shall be 0.6 square inch;

The device covers the pushbutton during use. The parent or gaurdian is required to remove the device in order to access the pushbutton.

S6 Test Conditions and procedures.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for child restraint system. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

S6.2 Buckle Release Test procedure.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for buckle of child restraint systems. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

What other Regulations seem relevant to the development of our device and do you have other observations or opinions that relate to public policy that I have not mentioned?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Sincerly

ID: nht93-9.4

DATE: December 6, 1993

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Automotive Equipment Div. 2, Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for an "Exemption for Inconsequential Noncompliance" to FMVSS 108, S7.8.5.2 (On Vehicle Aiming)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108; Part 573)

TEXT:

FMVSS 108 requires in the above mentioned paragraph a graduation of not larger than 0.19 degree for the scale of the vertical and 0.38 degree for the scale of the horizontal aim indicator. To make the scales more clearly legible and to avoid confusions we kindly ask for the permission to use scales with graduations of 0.2/0.4 degree.

We principally prefer scales with numbers indicating the graduation.

It is our opinion that there is no influence on the accuracy of aim because 1/100 degree is less than the width of the graduation-lines on bubble vials and scales used on headlamps.

ID: nht93-9.5

DATE: December 7, 1993

FROM: Dennis Platt -- Supervisor, Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section, State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Utah Highway Patrol

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Air bag installation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/93 from John Womack to Dennis Platt (A42; Std. 208), letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad

TEXT:

During a recent telephone conversation with a N.H.T.S.A officer, I was informed that no current federal requirement exists for air bag re-installation following a deployment.

The Utah Highway Patrol would appreciate a formal opinion or a copy of an opinion rendered to another state on this issue.

Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.

ID: nht93-9.6

DATE: December 8, 1993

FROM: Michael J. Siris -- Attorney at Law

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger Harvey

TITLE: Standard 114

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Michael J. Siris (A42; Std. 114; VSA S108(k))

TEXT:

Although you were nice enough to answer my questions regarding standard no. 114, I still would like to have some confirmation that a manufacture's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacture. Is that proposition published in the CFR.

Also, given the scenario we discussed, i.e., the 1987 Ford which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column, do you have any other suggestions besides no. 114? In other words, is there some other source of standards that might be more stringent than NHTSA's standards?

Thank you for your anticipated attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-9.7

DATE: December 8, 1993

FROM: Steve J. Brooks -- Program Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John Womack to Steve J. Brooks (A42; Part 567; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are developing a vehicle, of which only six will be built.

These vehicles will be fit for highway use and will be used to travel to trade shows and promotional events at which point the crew of two will distribute items and literature relating to the company.

The vehicle will carry less than ten passengers and the GVWR will be 11,500 lbs.

Would the office of chief council please indicate, what drivers license would be necessary to operate this vehicle, and confirm the classification of the vehicle.

Look forward to your reply.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht93-9.8

DATE: December 9, 1993

FROM: Harris W. Fawell -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Matthew Gerrity; 7624 Rohrer Drive, Downers Grove, IL 60516

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/93 from John Womack (signed by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Matt Gerrity (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

During April of this year, a member of my district office staff spoke with John Wolmack in your office regarding Mr. Gerrity's problem with a new Cadillac he had purchased. Because of a physical handicap, the steering wheel of Mr. Gerrity's car must be modified with a device which permits him to operate it. As he explains it, the device would prohibit the normal function of the air bag and would cause him injury in the event of an accident. Mr. Wolmack said that requests to authorize the waiver of federal air bag regulations are considered on a case-by-case basis, and suggested that Mr. Gerrity should write to you, explaining the circumstances, and the need for such a waiver.

We are writing to you now because Mr. had advised us that he had written a letter to you, and had not received a response. When we called Mr. Wolmack about this, he told us that your records showed that no letter had been received. We then asked Mr. Gerrity for a copy of his letter, which we now present to you. We note that the letter is undated and that your address is not complete, which may explain why you cannot locate the original.

I would appreciate your responding to Mr. Gerrity on the basis of this copy. If this is not possible, please advise us on what we need to do in order for you to consider his request that he be authorized to disconnect the air bag.

All of this is a little convoluted, I know. Thanks for your patience and whatever help you can give us to help Mr. Gerrity with his problem.

- - -

The following is the letter from Matt Gerrity to Howard Smolkin:

Matt Gerrity 7624 Rohrer Drive Downers Grove, IL 60516 (708) 964-7201

Howard Smolkin National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20598

Dear Mr. Smoklin,

I am a handicapped motorist. In order to steer my car, I have a metal bar that goes across the steering-wheel with a type of spinner-know at the end. I recently purchased a 1990 Coup De Vile with a drivers side air-bag. In the

event, the air-bag should go off, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. I have gone to dealers and other mechanics who see the obvious problem but are reluctant to disconnect the air-bag because of Federal Law. I would have the air-bag connected again upon sale of this car. Please tell me what measures I should take.

Sincerely,

Matt Gerrity

ID: nht93-9.9

DATE: December 10, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- ITT Automotive Europe

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Rear Fog Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A42; Std. 108; VSA 103(d))

TEXT:

In the field of a new development for a German customer who intends to certificate a rear lamp in the U.S. there are some questions regarding the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars. I hope you will answer the questions below.

- Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the MVSS 108.

- Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?

- Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?

- Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S.?

Please send your answer by FAX.

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht94-1.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Tom Delapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to Tom Delapp (A42; Std. 206)

TEXT:

As a quality manufacturer of limousines we strive to meet or exceed any safety regulation which would affect our customers or their clients. To this end we request an interpretation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #206, specifically the section which addresses the use of an inside locking mechanism.

Our need for this interpretation is based on the design of a "5th" door conversion that we plan to offer for sale based on the 1993 Lincoln Town Car base vehicle. The door assembly has been evaluated by a professional engineer and has exceeded the requi rement of section #214. It is designed to be opened safely through the use of an electrically controlled solenoid that is accessible by the driver from a parked position. The door panel contains no provisions for occupant control due to the exclusion o f interior and exterior release controls, making the use of a rear door locking mechanism unnecessary.

In a telephone conversation with George Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, he concurred that the provision for an interior lock in this case was redundant, but cautioned that a final interpretation and approval must be issued by your office.

Please address this matter at your earliest convenience. Should you require further information to process this request, please feel free to contact me by phone or writing.

ID: nht94-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: C. N. Littler -- Administrator Regulatory Affairs, MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES (MANITOBA, CANADA)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to FMVSS P571 @ 121

ATTACHMT: Attached to Letter Dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to C. N. Littler (A42; STD. 121; VSA 103D)

TEXT: I am writing to request a NHTSA legal opinion regarding New York State enforcement of a brake stopping distance standard which is not identical in nature or substance to FMVSS 121.

In effect, NYSDOT is currently inspecting and placing out of service privately owned motor coaches which do not stop within 22.2 feet and 20 mph. FMVSS 121 requires a stopping distance of 35 feet at 20 mph on a road surface having a skid pad number of 81. Not only is the New York standard not identical to the Federal standard, (as required under the provisions of Sec. 103(d) of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966), it is also unduly restrictive.

Recently, the Bus Association of New York met with members of NYSDOT to attempt to resolve this problem. This meeting unfortunately only resulted in an impasse, whereby NYSDOT requested that the vehicle manufacturers write letters to the NYSDOT Compl iance and Enforcement Branch requesting exemptions to the New York standard.

We do not feel that this approach is appropriate. This issue is not one of a technical nature. It is, in fact, a legislative issue in that New York State is not in compliance with a Federally mandated standard.

Your assistance in providing a legal opinion with respect to this rather urgent matter would be greatly appreciated. I have attached for your reference copies of the standards and statute above named. Please do not hesitate to call me at 204-287-427 4 or FAX 204-453-7356 should you or counsel's office staff required further information. With kindest regards, I remain,

ATTACHMENTS: NEW YORK STATE TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS (TEXT OMITTED)