NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam3130

Dear Mr. Maugh: Re: Distribution of Imported Vehicles Brought Into Conformity Wit Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; This is in reply to Mr. Eckhold's letter of September 28, 1979, to Mr Vinson of this office asking for our concurrence in Ford's wish to sell 60 1978 model Ford Fiestas on the American market.; According to Mr. Eckhold's letter, 56 of the cars did not comply wit the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time they entered the United States for use by Ford in testing and training programs. Ford represents that all these have now been brought into compliance. The four remaining Fiestas conformed at the time of entry but, presumably, because of the execution of the HS-7 importation form, were not certified.; We concur with Ford's opinion that all conforming vehicles may now b sold in the United States. However, since such sales are to first purchasers for purposes other than resale, a certification label must be attached to each that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2578

Dear Mr. Fleischman: This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1977, concernin Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard no. 114, *Theft Protection*, as it relates to a device you wish to market called 'Remote Auto-Start.'; Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*, which applies to passenger cars requires that when the key is removed, normal activation of the car's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility of the car is prevented (49 CFR 571.114, S4.1(a) and (b)). According to the material which you forwarded, your device results in the following characteristics which differ from what we consider to be normal activation:; >>>1. The engine deactivates when a door is opened. 2. The steering column and gear shift remains locked until the actua key is inserted.; 3. The logic circuitry deactivates the engine after 15 minutes.<<< Consequently, we have determined that your device does not result in 'normal' activation of the car's engine.; Thus, it appears that the characteristics of the 'Remote Auto-Start system are not in conflict with Standard No. 114.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1797

Dear Mr. Blewett: This responds to your January 8, 1975, request for confirmation tha air-braked trailers built after January 1, 1975, for export to Mexico (and therefore without brake systems conforming to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*) may re-enter the United States on a continuing basis on railway cars for marshalling and unloading. Your letter states that the trailers would not be used in interstate commerce, by which we understand they would not operate on public streets or highways.; The NHTSA would not consider this limited introduction of non-complyin trailers into the United States an importation or introduction into interstate commerce for purposes of S108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397). This means that the trailer could legally be brought into the United States on a railway car to be unloaded on private property and returned by railway car to Mexico. These vehicles could not be operated on the public highway without violating S 108(a)(1)(A). I enclose a copy of a letter on this subject for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1426

Dear Mr. Lang: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether you installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.; Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on th driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3- 1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.; Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.; Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if yo qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a 'non- readily attachable' alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the S567.7 requirement only if you mount it 'before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1425

Dear Mr. Lang: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether you installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.; Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on th driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.; Your drilling operation may effect roof strength an I have enclosed copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufactures or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.; Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if yo qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a 'non-readily attachable' alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the S567.7 requirement only if you mount it 'before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2261

Dear Mr. Barry: I am writing in response to your March 22, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the treatment of plastic fuel tanks under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*.; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has issued no safety standards that apply directly to fuel tanks. Standard No. 301-75, which applies to entire vehicles, specifies fuel spillage requirements for barrier crash and rollover tests, but does not include a flame envelopment test. In addition to passenger cars and school buses, the vehicles that are subject to the standard are multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less.; Standard No. 301- 75 applies to new vehicles. In addition, the Federa Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has established requirements for certain vehicles in use in interstate commerce. I understand that a fuel tank flame envelopment test is among these. For information concerning such a test, you should communicate with that agency.; For your convenience, a copy of Standard No. 301-75 is enclosed. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl F. Milde, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl F. Milde, Jr., P.C. Law Office RFD #8, Box 369 Union Valley Road Mahopac, NY 10541

Dear Mr. Milde:

This is in reply to your letter of October 2 1987 with reference to an electronic circuit that would automatically activate a vehicle's hazard warning system when the vehicle is proceeding slowly, or has stopped in the roadway. You have asked whether suc h a system has been proposed before, or field tested, and whether federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would permit its installation on motor vehicles.

The traffic hazard that concerns you, especially that presented by a vehicle that has stopped in the roadway without activation of either brakes or hazard warning system, is one that is familiar to many motorists. However, it appears that in actuality mo st motorists confronted with this hazard are able to react in time to avoid a rear end collision. Accident data available to the agency indicate that crashes of this nature are relatively rare. As you know, many States require activation of the hazard wa rning system at speeds less than 40 mph on the Interstate system. NHTSA has not proposed a system of this nature, nor has it field tested one. The agency has participated in research with deceleration warning systems, a similar though not identical conce pt, and concluded that safety benefits were insufficient to propose their adoption.

We see no Federal prohibition against installation of a circuit that would activate the hazard warning system at a predetermined low rate of speed. Equipment that is not prescribed by the lighting standard is permissible as original equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that Standard No. 108 does require. And modifications of vehicles in use by persons other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, vehicle equ ipment necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Not are we aware of any State restrictions on the use of such Q system, though you should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for a definitive answ er. Its address is 1201 Connecticut Avenue, M, Washington, DC 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 2, 1987 CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR

Erica Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Automatic Hazard light for motor vehicles Dear Ms. Jones:

Brian O'Neill of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggested that I write to you and request your comments on the memorandum.

In particular, I respectfully request your answers to the following two questions:

(1) Has an automatic hazard light been proposed before? If so, has its effectiveness been field tested?

(2) Does the federal Standard 108, as presently formulated, permit the installation of an automatic hazard light on a motor vehicle?

Your comments on any prior experience with this safety device as well as your "interpretation letter" on its legality would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Karl F. Milde, Jr. Enclosure cc: Mr. Brian O'Neill

MEMORANDUM

TO: N H T S A FROM: Karl F. Milde, Jr. DATE: October 1, 1987 RE: Automatic Hazard Light

I would like to alert you to a traffic hazard that has plagued me personally, many times, and which can be completely eliminated by a simple electronic circuit on a motor vehicle:

Frequently, the vehicle in which a motorist is driving - call it "vehicle 2" - is proceeding down a highway at a normal highway speed: e.g., 30-55 MPH. The vehicle of another motorist - call it "vehicle 1" - is stopped or is proceeding very slowly on the same highway ahead of vehicle 2. (There may be any number of reasons why the vehicle 1 has stopped or proceed slowly: the operator of vehicle 1 may intend to turn left after oncoming cars have passed; there may be traffic congestion ahead of vehicle 1; or vehicle 1 may be disabled with an overheated engine, flat tire or the like.) Normally, the operator of vehicle 1 will have applied the brakes so that the brake lights of vehicle 1 are illuminated, alerting the operator of vehicle 2. Often, however, th e operator of vehicle 1 does not have a need to apply the brakes because vehicle 1 has either stopped or is proceeding slowly at a steady speed. Alternatively, the operator of vehicle 1 can switch on flashing "hazard" lights, but this requires positive a ction on the operator' s part which is frequently forgotten. In the absence of any warning lights, the operator of vehicle 2 may not notice that vehicle 1 has stopped or is proceeding slowly until it is too late to prevent vehicle 2 from colliding with t he rear of vehicle 1.

There is a simple solution to this all-too-frequent traffic hazard: namely, an electronic circuit which will automatically switch on the hazard lights of a motor vehicle when this vehicle is detained (has stopped or proceeds slowly) on a highway.

With such a circuit the hazard lights will warm the drivers of vehicles approaching from the rear, even though the operator of the motor vehicle has forgotten to manually actuate the hazard light switch.

Such a circuit could not possibly cost more than a couple of dollars and, if every vehicle were so equipped, many accidents (and personal injuries) could be avoided.

As an example, I am attaching a newspaper report of a truck driver who failed to notice that traffic had stopped in front of him on the New Jersey Turnpike. The consequence was fatal. Had the cars ahead of him been flashing hazard lights, the truck drive r would surely have brought his vehicle to a safe stop.

ID: 86-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Leon Conner Manager Long & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 691 San Angelo, TX 76902

Dear Mr. Conner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you asked wether this regulation requises the treadwear testing for a tire size to be conducted only with vehicles that specify the subject tire size either as the original equipment size or as one of the recommended optional tire sizes. The UTQGS does not contain any such provision.

The conditions and procedures to be followed in grading tires for treadwear under the UTQGS are set forth in S575.104(e). That section specifies tire loading conditions and rim dimensional requirements for the vehicles used in the treadwear testing. However, it does not specify that the vehicles used in the treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle when new. Accordingly, persons testing tires to determine the treadwear grade may mount the tires on any vehicle, provided that the tire and vehicle satisfy all the requirements of S575.104(e), relating to tire construction, inflation pressure, size designation, vehicle loading, and wheel alignment.

You stated in your letter that the UTQGS compliance test procedures, used by this agency for conducting its enforcement testing for treadwear grades, currently specify that tire sizes must be tested on vehicles that specify that size as either original equipment or recommended optional size. This specification may have been adopted after the following language appeared in a 1975 preamble to a final rule establishing the UTQGS:

Several commenters suggested that the rule specify all vehicles in a given convoy be identical, to reduce variations in projected treadlife...Variations in vehicle type, however, do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize such variations, tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. 40 FR 23073, at 23076, May 28, 1975.

As explained above, the UTQGS regulation does not specify that the vehicles used in treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle. The agency's compliance test procedures are only the methods the agency itself uses to determine the appropriate treadwear grade for a tire. Persons outside the agency are not bound by any testing conditions and methods not set forth in the UTQGS itself. Such persons may, therefore, conduct their own testing in a manner different from that specified in NHTSA's compliance test procedures, provided that their testing satisfies all requirements of S575.104(e).

You also stated that the use of different vehicles for treadwear testing of tires will produce measurably different treadwear grades for the tire, even when all the vehicle factors are closely and properly controlled. As quoted above, NHTSA concluded that vehicle-to-vehicle variations "do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections", when it examined this issue in 1975. However, the agency is currently reexamining the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variations on treadwear projections, particularly with respect to front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive vehicles and passenger cars vs. light trucks and vans. If you wish to provide some additional data on this subject, please forward the data to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at this address. We would be interested in analyzing whatever data form the basis for your belief that our 1975 conclusion was incorrect.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, if you have any further questions about our UTQGS.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office Of Chief Counsel, NAO-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Subject: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Testing

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are requesting clarification of the UTQG Stnadard relative to selection of test vehicles.

The UTQG Compliance Test Procedure requires that, "the vehicles must specify the tire size to be tested as standard equipment or approved alternate for that vehicle", i.e. government compliance testing will be performed with vehicles selected in this manner. It behooves the tester then to select vehicles in the same manner it would seem.

While outdoor road testing inherently involves a large number of variables it is apparent from our accumulated CMT data that different cars do produce different wear rates for a given set of tires and conditions, even when vehicle factors (wheel alignment, wheel loads, mechanical maintenance) are closely and properly controlled. It is therefore possible to bias the candidate tire grades measurably through selection of the control tire car, the candidate tire car or both. Use of certain larger vehicles produce faster wear of the CMT tires and consequently higher grades for the candidate tire; tested in the same convoy.

If the UTQG Standard allows the tester to choose any car in which he can attain the required wheel loads, manufacturers may seek the tester who can obtain the highest grades.

Hopefully you can clarify the intent of NHTSA on this matter. If we can be of assistance in any way please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

J. Leon Conner JLC:bf

ID: nht90-3.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re REF: 2013-138

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. J ones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas

TEXT:

I have written letters to you in the past regarding the FMVSS compliance in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), but have never seen any action.

It is my understanding that the FMVSS apply in full force to the CNMI. As such, I have dutifully refrained from bringing in nonconforming vehicles. Due to the apparent complete failure of any local enforcement (as admitted by local officials--see enclos ed letter), my competitors are not so constrained and are engaging in what seems like unfair competition by bringing in cheap nonconforming vehicles.

Now it is okay with me if you have no interest in "compliance enforcement" in the CNMI. Perhaps it's better for the people? I can get the cheap nonconforming cars too. All I want is a level playing field, and to know the rules. Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?

Attachment

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Governor Capitol Hill, Saipan MP/USA 96950 The Honorable Ben Blaz Phone: (670) 322-5091/2/3 Member of Congress Telefax: (670) 322-5096/99 1130 Longworth House Office Building Telex: 783-622 Gov.NMIWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blaz:

Re: Triple J Motors - Bob Jones - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Applicability to the CNMI

We reply to your letter to us of October 5, 1990. You explain that Mr.

Bob Jones, of Triple J Motors, has a problem. It goes like this. Triple J, apparently, makes sure all the vehicles it imports and registers in the Commonwealth are in compliance with the FMVSS. Triple J fears possible federal enforcement action or. po ssibly worse, a customer law suit arising

from an auto accident and grounded on the company's failure to sell cars safety equipped to federal standards.

Compliance with these standards raises Triple J's investment in the automobiles so equipped. This added investment must be taken into consideration when Triple J sets its retail prices. Triple J's competitors in the Commonwealth, by design or accident, don't uniformly follow the federal standards. The competitor's retail prices need not, therefore, include consideration of the added cost of equipping vehicles for compliance with the FMVSS. Because of this, Triple J feels at a competitive disadvantag e in the market place. Triple J seeks a level playing field: It wants all CNMI automobile dealers compelled to follow the federal safety rules or, alternatively, that none of them including itself, be compelled to follow the rules.

Mr. Jones asks you for help. What would he have you do? He wants you to see to it that the CNMI enforces the FMVSS or he wants you to obtain a declaration, preferably from the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Transportation, that the federal safety standards don't apply in the CNMI. Before taking action, you ask for our comments and views. Here they are.

We only enforce laws that apply in the CNMI. Do these federal safety standards apply in the CNMI? By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979. It looks like we get the law. But this is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for sel f-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. Besides, consider the practicality of the situation. We move slowly on two lanes roads up and down twelve and fourteen mile long islands. Our drivers aren't hooked into a vast system of U.S. interstate highways where uniform safety equipment might be necessary to protect highspeed free ways carrying commerce between the states. We can't even drive to Tinian. We're small, wind-swept islands out here without even a traffic light.

I will say this, however: If I find that our people need the protection of some or all of the motor vehicle safety standards included in the FMVSS program, I'll be the first to move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law. Until then , it is our position that the FMVSS does not apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

If you address this matter on a national level, Congressman, please take our views into consideration. Thank you so much for consulting us. You

are a true friend of the Northern Marianas.

Sincerely,

LORENZO I. DE LEON GUERRERO Governor

cc: Lt. Governor Resident Representative to the United States Director, Department of Public Safety Director, Department of Finance Triple J Motors

ID: nht94-2.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/1/93 from Peter Drymalski to John Womack (OCC-8371)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when rep lacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A ) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under S114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable compone nts" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re- certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily atta chable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under S567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "t he addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in S567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label of the type and form specified in S567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered ino perative.

The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursu ant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of r epairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or

by phone at (202) 366-2992.