ID: diamst

Mr. Gary Shultz
Vice President, General Counsel and
General Manager--Public Relations
Diamond Star Motors
100 North Diamond Star Parkway
Normal, Illinois 61791

Dear Mr. Shultz:

This responds to your letter asking about Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that section 583.6 specifies that manufacturers are to determine the percentage U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, before the beginning of each model year. You stated, however, that the regulation does not indicate what should be done when there is a change of plans in the source of production for a particular carline in the middle of the model year. According to your letter, one of your carlines currently in production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan, which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point.

You requested confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether section 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carline's content only on a one-time model year basis. You also requested confirmation as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, section 583.5(a) requires manufacturers to provide five basic items of information on the label: (1) U.S./Canadian parts content; (2) Major sources of foreign parts content; (3) Final assembly point; (4) Country of origin for the engine; and (5) Country of origin for the transmission. The first two items are determined on a "carline" basis; the last three items are determined with respect to individual vehicles.

Both Part 583 and the American Automobile Labeling Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304) contemplate that U.S./Canadian parts content and Major sources of foreign parts content are determined on a once-a-model- year basis for a particular carline. In particular, section 32304(b)(2) reads as follows:

At the beginning of each model year, each manufacturer shall establish the percentages required for each carline to be indicated on the label . . . . Those percentages are applicable to that carline for the entire model year. . . .

We believe that Congress included this provision to reduce unnecessary manufacturer costs, and was seeking to make it clear that the manufacturers could not be required to revise their calculations during the model year. The specified percentages are estimates by nature, and the assumptions underlying them are subject to change during the model year. It would be very burdensome to manufacturers to be required to constantly recalculate the estimated percentages throughout the model year.

Your letter raises the issue, however, of whether a manufacturer is permitted to revise the carline percentages in the event of a major change in source of production during a model year. It is our opinion that a manufacturer may revise the percentages in such circumstances, at its option. Such revision would be analogous to correcting an error and would prevent the possibility of misleading consumers. If you do make such a revision, however, the revised estimates should reflect the model year as a whole and not just the balance of the model year. In addition, the label should include a note indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the model year. This is necessary to prevent confusion when consumers compare the labels of vehicles within the same carline manufactured at different times.

You also asked whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Since final assembly point is determined for individual vehicles rather than carlines, the label must be changed to indicate the actual final assembly point of the vehicle. See section 583.5(a)(3).

The section which you cited, i.e., section 583.5(e), permits manufacturers to provide additional information for carlines assembled in the U.S./Canada and in one or more other countries. Since your carline would now be assembled in the U.S./Canada and Japan, your company may avail itself of this option. I note that section 583.5(e)(3) provides that a manufacturer selecting this option for a particular carline must provide the specified

additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline. In your situation, you would need to provide the additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline, beginning from the time the vehicles were manufactured in both places.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:583 d:2/l0/95

ID: DIERSEN.ETL

Mr. Dave Diersen
915 Cove Court
Wheaton, IL 60187

Dear Mr. Diersen:

Your letter to the Secretary of Transportation proposing a change in the Federal odometer disclosure law has been referred to me for response. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is the agency in the Department of Transportation that is responsible for the Federal regulations that implement the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 as amended (P.L. 99-579).

NHTSA recently received and responded to a letter from Congressman Henry Hyde that inquired about issues raised in a letter you wrote to the Congressman on this same subject. That letter states this agency's position on the issues you raise in the attachment to your letter to Secretary Peña. As that letter states, NHTSA does not believe that the change to the Federal regulation that you advocate would be advisable. State law may be able to provide a remedy for the problem you describe more effectively and more efficiently.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff.

Sincerely,

Samuel Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:580

d:8/8/96

ID: DNBA_B.Nicolle_Parts_573_and_579

ID: Dynasty_002301

Mr. Cam Dowall
Dynasty Electric Car Corp.
591 Chester Road
Delta, BC V3M 6G7
Canada

Dear Mr. Dowall:

This responds to your letter and phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff regarding your companys intention to import a "low speed vehicle" (LSV) into the United States. Your letter requested approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to sell an LSV that is based on the body and platform of a full speed production vehicle. As explained below, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the vehicle you described can be imported as an LSV so long as it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low speed vehicles, and all other applicable Federal regulations.

By way of background, NHTSA has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA defined the types of vehicles that can be certified as LSVs and established FMVSS No. 500 to ensure that LSVs are equipped with appropriate motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs.

In your letter, you explained that Dynasty Electric Car Corp. (Dynasty) plans to import into the United States a vehicle that would consist of a Russian full speed production vehicle (the OKA) equipped with an electric motor and controller in place of the gasoline engine and drive train for which the vehicle was originally designed. You further stated that Dynasty intends to sell this vehicle in the United States as an LSV and that the new vehicle will meet all current FMVSS No. 500 requirements.

FMVSS No. 500 and the associated LSV definition were established to accommodate a new category of small motor vehicles. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose attainable speed in 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile) is more than 32 km per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) on a paved level surface (49 CFR 571.3(b)). The definition relies on the maximum speed capability of 40 km per hour as a characteristic representative of the small vehicles that gave rise to the associated standards.

We note that the purpose of FMVSS No. 500 is not to accommodate speed-governed motor vehicles which otherwise might be capable of meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In response to an inquiry regarding use of a speed-governing device on a Land Rover, the agency stated that, "there are no circumstances under which the addition of a speed governing device to a high-speed vehicle would make the vehicle meet the definition of low-speed vehicle" (June 2000 letter to Mr. Thomas Dahl; copy enclosed).

However, you stated that your company is not governing the speed capabilities of a full speed production vehicle. The vehicles you are intending to import would be limited to a maximum speed capability of 40 km per hour with the use of Dynasty supplied electric motors and controllers. This is within the scope of the LSV definition. Therefore, if the vehicles were to comply with FMVSS No. 500 and all other applicable Federal standards, then it could be imported into the United States.

We also note that NHTSA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the LSV definition by including a maximum vehicle weight (68 FR 68319; December 8, 2003). If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:500#571
d.5/12/04

ID: EAtonfinal

Mr. Daniel I. Hanrahan
Quarles & Brady LLP
411 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Dear Mr. Hanrahan:

This responds to your e-mail and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff in which you ask about the certification responsibilities associated with a vehicle fitted with new technology for test purposes. As we understand it, your client has been developing a hydraulic launch assist system (HLA) and has been working with vehicle manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate its benefits. Your client has retrofitted three Ford F350 trucks with the HLA. Your client owns one of the trucks. Ford owns the other two. You intend to display these vehicles at an exhibit in Alaska hosted by the Department of Defense. The trucks will operate only on test track/open lot settings. They will not be driven on the public roads. You also ask about a Peterbilt Refuse Hauler that your client has fitted with the HLA system. Peterbilt owns the vehicle, but will drive it on the public roads from Michigan to Texas.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that manufacturers certify their vehicles as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. § 30012 provides that:

A person may not manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.

A motor vehicle may be subject to this certification requirement prior to a first retail sale since a vehicle is considered to be introduced into interstate commerce if it is introduced into a means of interstate traffic – i.e., used on public roads.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations also specify, for vehicles that are built in multiple stages or which have been altered, the certification responsibilities of the various manufacturers that have built the vehicle. Alterers perform modifications on completed vehicles prior to an initial retail sale and carry certain certification responsibilities. Modifiers make changes to vehicles after their first retail sale. Section 30122 prohibits modifications that would impede the safe operation of a previously certified vehicle:

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 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 and repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

We understand that your client has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate advanced new technology. Your client will equip Ford F350 trucks with the HLA system and demonstrate the vehicles on test tracks. Ford has retained ownership of these vehicles and has consigned them to the EPA for purposes of this test program. The vehicles will not be driven on the public roads. These apparently are ordinary production vehicles manufactured to comply and certified as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

Initially, it is not clear whether adding the HLA system to these trucks would affect their compliance with the FMVSS. Regardless, however, based on the facts as presented to us, there are no current plans to enter the vehicles into interstate commerce, and thus they are not required to comply with all applicable FMVSS. If the vehicles are subsequently sold to persons who would operate them on the public roads, they will need to comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of their first retail sale and be so certified. Because Ford has retained ownership over these vehicles and would, presumably, be the seller, your client would not be responsible for the certification.

We understand that the Peterbilt Refuse Hauler is to be driven on the public roads from Michigan to Texas, and therefore that it will enter interstate commerce. Accordingly, the vehicle must comply with all applicable FMVSS when fitted with the HLA system. Based on the facts as presented to us, it appears that your client would be considered an “alterer” under NHTSA’s regulations and should certify that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS as altered.

We commend your client for its efforts in working with the EPA to develop and demonstrate advanced vehicle technologies. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at 202 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:567

d.11/12/04

ID: eggiman.ztv

Mr. J. Michael Eggiman
Omni Manufacturing & Distributing Co.
P.O. Box 86096
Portland, OR 97206

Dear Mr. Eggiman:

On January 13, 2003, you wrote us a letter, the purpose of which was "to introduce to you people of the Counsel, a new concept in which the flashing of all brake lights, including the CHMSLs, in the event of a vehicles engine stalling."

Thank you for the introduction. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning in use, and, for this reason, your invention could not be used. All vehicles today are equipped with a hazard warning lamp system which the operator can use to flash the vehicles turn signal lamps if the vehicle stalls.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.33/24/03

ID: eightyrs.crs

Mr. Lindsay Harris
Director, Product Integrity
Fisher-Price, Inc.
6636 Grand Avenue
East Aurora, NY 14052

Dear Mr. Harris:

I am writing to clarify a statement in a letter from this office, which was referenced in, and enclosed with, your letter dated October 14, 1996 to Pat Wallace of our Office of Defects Investigation. The letter from this office, which was dated July 27, 1989 and addressed to Mr. Robert V. Potter, Jr. of Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., stated that in the event that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is found to exist in a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment, the manufacturer is required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act "to provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase." In your letter to Ms. Wallace, you cite this statement as indicating that there is a limit to the time in which a manufacturer is obligated to remedy a defect or noncompliance.

To the extent that it implies that a manufacturer's obligation to remedy a defect or noncompliance expires eight years after the purchase of an affected product, this statement does not accurately characterize the relevant statute. The statement was derived from a provision of the Safety Act, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30120(g), which reads as follows:

The requirement that a remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the motor vehicle or replacement equipment was bought by the first purchaser more than 8 calendar years . . . before notice is given under section 30118(c) of this title or an order is issued under section 30118(b) of this title, whichever is earlier.

This provision relieves a manufacturer from the obligation to provide a remedy without charge for defects and noncompliances in products that were first purchased more than eight years before the manufacturer furnishes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and affected vehicle owners with notification of the defect or noncompliance.

The quoted language from section 30120(g) should not be interpreted as limiting a manufacturer's responsibility to remedy defects and noncompliances to a period of eight years from the purchase of an affected product. If a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment is purchased less than eight years before its manufacturer provides notification that it contains a defect or noncompliance, the manufacturer's obligation to remedy the defect or noncompliance remains in existence for the full service life of the vehicle or equipment item. Contrary to the manner in which you appear to have interpreted the statement in our July 27, 1989 letter to Mr. Potter, this obligation does not expire eight years after the purchase of the affected product.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(B), manufacturers of replacement equipment, including child safety seats, may elect to remedy a safety defect or noncompliance "by repairing the equipment or replacing the equipment with identical or reasonably equivalent equipment." Therefore, Fisher-Price may not, as your letter suggests, "supply replacement parts until such times as stocks are depleted and thereafter provide a refund less an allowance for depreciation." The latter alternative may only be chosen by vehicle manufacturers. Compare 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(A) with 30120(a)(1)(B).

We regret any confusion that may have resulted from the statement in our June 27, 1989 letter. If you have any further questions concerning our interpretation of the notification and remedy requirements for defects and noncompliances, please contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Any questions regarding the implementation of these requirements should be directed to Jon White of our Office of Defects Investigation at 202-366-5227.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Robert V. Potter, Esquire

ref:VSA

d.12/17/96

ID: EJones.ajd

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
1909 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1101

Re: Requests for Interpretation of Part 579

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in reply to your letter dated January 5, 2004, seeking two interpretations of 49 CFR Part 579, "Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects."Both requests for interpretation involve reporting consumer complaints related to child restraints pursuant to the early warning reporting (EWR) requirements.

In particular, you seek guidance on how to report consumer complaints that erroneously identify the production year of the affected child restraint as a year in which the identified make/model restraint was not manufactured. In addition, you seek a clarification of the definition of "consumer complaint" with respect to communications related to safety recalls. You ask the agency to confirm your understanding that the agency does not expect manufacturers to record calls to request a repair kit or ask about participation in a safety recall as "consumer complaints" for purposes of EWR.

In response to your first request, I note that the agency addressed a similar concern raised by the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association (JPMA) in a request for reconsideration of the EWR rule.See 68 Fed. Reg. 35132 (June 11, 2003). JPMA had asked how to report consumer complaint/warranty claim information when the production date is illegible. We responded that when a manufacturer is confronted with a reportable item that does not include the production year of the child restraint, the manufacturer should enter the number "9999" in the template. See 68 Fed. Reg. at 35136.Child restraint manufacturers should report similarly when they receive a consumer complaint that specifies a year in which the model was not produced.

Your second request asks the agency to confirm your understanding that the agency does not expect manufacturers to record communications "to request a repair kit that is being offered pursuant to a safety recall, or to ask about participation in a safety recall" as "consumer complaints" for the purposes of EWR.

The definition of "consumer complaint" includes a communication made by a consumer "expressing dissatisfaction with a product, or any actual or potential defect in a product." 49 CFR 579.4. With respect to communications about recall remedies, the preamble to the final rule explained that:

Our proposed definition would also include communications in which the owner of a vehicle or item of equipment that is subject to a defect or noncompliance recall asserted that the remedy failed to correct the defect or noncompliance.

67 Fed. Reg. 45822, 45847 (July 10, 2002). The agency intended to receive communications relating to failures of a recall remedy that allow a defect to continue, not communications seeking information about the recall itself. Thus, we confirm your understanding that general communications requesting a repair kit or to participate in a safety recall campaign are not "consumer complaints" for the purposes of EWR.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/13/04

ID: ELECBIKEZTV

Mr. Adam Englund
Electric Bicycle Company, LLC
3601 Empire Avenue
Burbank, CA 91505

Dear Mr. Englund:

This responds to an undated letter of yours which we received on October 2, 1995. Initially, you requested interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 108, 116, 119, and 122 as they apply to the "EV Warrior," "an electric/human-powered bicycle" which your company intends to manufacture. Subsequently, on December 12, 1995, you informed Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX that your company (1) had resolved its problems that would have raised questions with respect to Standards Nos. 108 and 119, and (2) only needed answers to its questions concerning Standards Nos. 116 and 122.

The EV Warrior comes within the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of the FMVSSs. Occasionally, the FMVSSs prescribe lesser requirements for a subset of motorcycles with 5 or less horsepower, known as motor driven cycles. Although electric motors are not rated by horsepower, the size of the EV Warrior is consistent with that of a motor driven cycle. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate to consider it as such for purposes of the FMVSS.

The following issues remain:

1. FMVSS No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids.

You stated that the EV Warrior is equipped with a hydraulic disc brake that uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, known as "Shell Naturelle HF-E 15." You further stated that this oil "is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."

Your letter discusses the definitions for "brake fluid" and "hydraulic system mineral oil," argues that your fluid is neither, and concludes that there are no requirements under FMVSS No. 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil used in the EV Warrior's hydraulic brake system.

Although we agree that the synthetic oil does not fall within either of those definitions in FMVSS No. 116, the implication of this fact is not that the use of the synthetic oil is unregulated by the standard. FMVSS No. 116 specifies the types of fluids that may be used in the braking systems of motor vehicles. Section S3, Application, states that FMVSS No. 116 "applies to all fluid for use in hydraulic brake systems of motor vehicles." (emphasis added). Section S5.3 requires each motor vehicle that has a hydraulic brake system to "be equipped with fluid that has been manufactured and packaged in conformity with the requirements of this standard." Since the synthetic oil cannot be manufactured in conformity with the standard, the EV Warrior would not comply with FMVSS No. 116 if its brake system used the oil you have described.

You informed this office that fluid conforming to FMVSS No. 116 may be incompatible with the seals currently specified for use in the EV Warrior's brake system. However, our technical analysis suggests that it might be relatively simple and inexpensive to fabricate seals from materials that are compatible with conforming brake fluids, thus allowing the EV Warrior to be equipped with fluid conforming to FMVSS No. 116 and to comply with S5.3 of the standard.

2. FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems.

You stated that the EV Warrior will have a hydraulic brake system with no master cylinder reservoirs. You contend that because the hydraulic brake system will not have master cylinders, the motorcycle need not have master cylinder reservoirs. You ask whether the EV Warrior therefore will meet FMVSS No. 122. In the alternative, you ask for an interpretation stating that FMVSS No. 122 applies to an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system (in which a reservoir serves no purpose).

FMVSS No. 122 (unlike FMVSS No. 105) does not define a motorcycle hydraulic service brake system, and does not specify design requirements for such. Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 122, specifying requirements for motorcycle hydraulic service brake systems, states that "[e]ach motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2." S5.1.2.1 specifies that each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir and S5.1.2.2 specifies reservoir labeling. S5.1.2.1 may be read as assuming, but not requiring, that a motorcycle hydraulic service brake system will have master cylinders. Therefore, we agree that because your brake system does not have master cylinders, there is no requirement for reservoirs or for reservoir labeling.

Nevertheless, because we understand this brake system can be opened for the purpose of adding or changing the fluid used in it, and because fluid used in the EV Warrior's brake system may be susceptible to contamination, we urge you to inform the purchaser, by a label on the machine or warning in the operator's manual, that care is required when the filler cap is removed.

If you have any further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108#116##119#120#122 d:1/19/96

Your requests for confidentiality, as modified after discussions with this office, were granted on October 27, 1995, by the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law.

ID: Ellerltr

Ms. Penny Eller
1006 South Road
High Point, NC 27262-7944

Dear Ms. Eller:

This responds to your telephone inquiry asking if a repair business or dealership is obligated to restore an automatic shoulder belt which is no longer functioning to its original condition or if it is permissible for the belt to be repaired so that it operates manually.

As discussed below, Federal law does not require that the automatic belt system be restored to its original condition. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" (49 CFR 571.208). During those model years in which automatic belt systems could be used to comply with Standard No. 208, manufacturers installed automatic belts in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such as an automatic belt, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. However, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that has ceased to function. Therefore, Federal law does not require restoration of a damaged or broken automatic belt in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require restoration of automatic belts to their original condition. You may wish to contact the State of North Carolina to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney about liability concerns, particularly if you sell the car.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA recommends the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash or has otherwise ceased to function. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.6/20/00