ID: nht76-4.43

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Nissan Motor Company's June 2, 1976, question whether a passenger car rear seat cushion assembly which is hinged to rotate forward about its lower front corner is subject to the requirement of S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, for a self-locking restraining device with certain dynamic characteristics. If a restraining device is required, you request to know the test procedures appropriate for it under S4.3.2.1(a).

Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 states, with two exceptions, "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding device." The NHTSA does not consider the words "occupant seat or occupant seat back" to refer to the seat cushion alone, and therefore a restraining device for the cushion alone is not required. The requirement of S4.2(a) in the case of seating systems with separate backs and cushions is considered a sufficient test of the seat cushion retention characteristics. In the case of the seat cushion assembly you describe, our estimate of the cushion center of gravity in relation to the hinge point indicates that some form of restraint is probably necessary to comply with the requirement for application of a 20g force in the forward direction.

This interpretation supersedes our November 27, 1972, letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute to the degree that its discussion of seat cushion restraint is inconsistent with this interpretation.

YOURS TRULY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD.

June 2, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would like to take this opportunity to ask you for your interpretation regarding the application of S.4.3 in FMVSS 207 "Seating Systems".

1) Is S.4.3 applied to the hinged seat cushion which is shown in the attachment No. 1? In other words, should the hinged seat cushion be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining itself and a control for releasing that restraining device? Should its restraining device meet the requirements of static force and acceleration stated in S.4.3.2.1 (a) and S.4.3.2.2 respectively?

2) If the answer of the above question is yes, in which direction of (X) or (Z) described in the attachment No. 2 should the restraining device be subjected to an acceleration of 20 g when tested in accordance with S.4.3.2.2?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

CC: ROBERT E. NELSON

Condition of using seat

Condition of folding seat

Attachment No. 1 - the hinged seat cushion installed for the rear seating system of station wagon

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.13

DATE: 04/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 22, 1976, request for interpretation of the provision of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that requires unobstructed passage of a described parallelepiped through the opening provided by an open rear emergency door in the case of a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds (S5.4.2(a)). The dimensions of the parallelepiped are 45 inches by 24 inches by 12 inches, and it is oriented so that the 45-inch dimension is vertical, the 24-inch dimension is parallel to the opening, and the lower surface is in contact with the bus floor.

You point out that "unobstructed passage" through the opening could be considered to occur when the rearmost surface of the parallelpiped coincides with a vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening, or intersects the inner surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening.

The NHTSA considers unobstructed passage of the parallelepiped to occur when its rearmost surface coincides with the vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at the bottom of the opening in question. Thus, your intention to assure compliance by measuring unobstructed passage at the point when the rearmost surface is flush with the bus body outer surface appears justified. The agency does not consider the bus body outer surface to include rub rails or trim materials for purposes of this measurement.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 22, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, PARAGRAPH S5.4.2a, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 26, 1976

This paragraph specifies a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide, and 12 inches deep. We need an interpretation as to the reference point from which the 12" dimension should be measured. The four alternatives are:

1. From outside body at floor level.

2. From inside body at floor level.

3. From outside body at top of parallelepiped.

4. From inside body at top of parallelepiped.

As you can see from the enclosed photograph, the measuring point can make several inches difference depending on where it is located.

Because time is so important to us in complying with this standard and several others, we have made a decision to proceed based on measuring the 12" at the floor level with the rear surface of the parallelepiped flush with the outside surface of the body as shown in the enclosed photos. If this interpretation is not valid, please call us immediately. We shall look forward to your early written confirmation of this interpretation.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.33

DATE: 08/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1974, asking for the appropriate method for bending plastic material over the mandrel as specified in Test No. 22 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). You indicate that the test procedure does not specify either the bending force, or whether mechanical means for bending are allowed.

Paragraph 5.22.2 of Test 22 states, in part, as follows:

After conditioning, the test specimens shall be immediately bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 130 degrees over the mandrel, with the longitudinal axis of the specimen normal to the axis of the mandrel. (emphasis added)

As the procedure does not specify the bending force, or the method in which it is to be applied, the NHTSA would consider as appropriate any force or method of application that would permit the plastic to be bent immediately after conditioning. There is nothing to prohibit the use of hand or mechanical pressure, but it must be applied in such a way that an immediate bending takes place.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY

INCORPORATED

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

August 2, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We manufacture a transparent acrylic safety glazing material, Lucite (register) AR abrasion-resistant sheet. Many of our markets are in the transportation industry, including public buses, people movers, and recreational vehicles. Safety glazing materials must conform to ANSI Z26.1-1966 code for glazing motor vehicles operated on land highways, as required by FMVSS #205. The ANSI Z26.1-1966 code, Item 6, flexible Plastics category, is defined in part by Test No. 22. This test requires that a sample of the plastic be "bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 180 degrees over the mandrel." (The diameter of the mandrel being 80 times the sample thickness.) The stated purpose of the test is to determine "satisfactory flexibility".

No mention is made of the method or technique used in forcing the plastic to conform to the mandrel. The test does not indicate whether mechanical means are allowed; and, if so, what force. It is my understanding that some independent testing laboratories use hand pressure.

Would you please indicate to me what the NHTSA or DOT position is on this test and the test method to be used

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Carfagna -- Technical Representative, Lucite (register) AR Marketing

ID: nht75-6.26

DATE: 06/02/75

FROM: JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TO: DAVID E. MARTIN -- DIRECTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your December 17, 1974, and March 31, 1975, letters asking whether your proposed inertia seatback latch meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems.

After carefully examining the mechanism, considering General Motors' arguments in its favor, and meeting twice with GM representatives, we have decided that the proposed inertia latch would not comply with S4.3.1 of FMVSS 207 unless an emergency release were added to enable someone to override the automatic locking mechanism when necessary.

We agree with GM that the proposed seatback latch is an improvement in some respects over current designs. The latch provides added convenience for rear seat occupants since under normal circumstances they may fold the seat forward by simply pushing on the seatback. We also recognize that there may be a safety advantage in certain circumstances requiring fast exit from the vehicle in that the passenger will not have to fumble for a latch, which, though readily accessible, is neither in the same location nor operated in a similar manner in all cars. Your proposed design also avoids a serious problem of some current latches: namely, that they will not release if even light pressure is applied against the seatback in a forward direction. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is seriously considering action on this problem.

Despite these advantages, GM's proposed inertia latch would satisfy neither the intent nor the wording of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 207 because it would not release when the vehicle is upside down or upright at a pitch attitude exceeding a 32% downgrade. Such vehicle positions are not uncommon in accident situations and GM's own figures indicate that "100 rear seat occupants per year could be hindered in leaving the vehicle under circumstances which would make prompt egress important." S4.3.1 requires that "the control for releasing the (self-locking seatback) device shall be readily accessible to the occupant of the seat . . . and . . . to the occupant of the designated seating position immediately behind the seat." Under normal conditions the seatback itself would be the control for your latch and it is certainly readily accessible. When the vehicle is nose down or inverted, however, the seatback would not perform this function and there would consequently be no readily accessible control for releasing the self-locking device.

Because it is often important for passengers in post-accident situations immediately to leave or be removed from a vehicle, for any number of reasons including fire, serious bleeding or hazardous vehicle location, it seems especially important that a seatback release control operate under these circumstances. Adding an emergency latch lock override to the inertia latch design would avoid this problem while retaining the previously mentioned advantages of your design.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-1.12

DATE: 07/08/75

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1975, asking at what point the test voltage may be measured during testing for compliance with the Standard No. 103, Windshield Defogging and Defrosting Systems, requirement that the blower motor test voltage be 15% over nominal system rating at the blower motor or the supply end of the motor dropping resistor. Your question relates to the meaning of "the supply end of the motor dropping resistor."

Measurement of the blower motor test voltage should occur at the supply side of the motor where there is no resistor. Where the system contains a resistor, the voltage should be measured at the supply side of the resistor, not between the resistor and the motor. The reason for this is that the test voltage level specified in the standard is intended to relate only to the voltage as it is fed into the defrosting and defogging system. The purpose of the voltage level specification is to assure a system capability to handle voltage levels that will normally be encountered during operation of the defroster and defogger. This can be accomplished by measurement of the voltage before the current reaches the resistor.

Yours Truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

May 5, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103 - Windshield Defrosting & Defogging Systems

FMVSS 103 through reference to SAE J902, requires that the blower motor test voltage be 15% over nominal system rating at the blower motor (for example 13.8 volts on the 12 volt system) or the supply end of motor dropping resistor.

The terminology "the supply end of motor dropping resistor" does not, in our opinion, provide specific direction on the test methods to be used for designing to this Standard. We would appreciate receiving clarification as to whether or not the test voltage may be measured at:

1. the motor,

2. the circuit between the dropping resistor and the motor, or

3. the dropping resistor on the side of the electrical power source.

We recommend that the requirements be interpreted to mean that the test voltage shall be measured at the motor or before the dropping resistor if included in the defroster motor circuit.

Permitting the use of a dropping resistor in the defroster motor circuit permits the designer to provide exact blower motor speeds for this function. Should, however, this resistor be excluded during compliance testing, the higher voltage at the motor would result in higher fan speeds, which might result in less than optimum deicing of the windshield.

Should you require any additional information concerning this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Heinz W. Gerth

Assistant Vice President

Engineering

ID: nht95-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 7, 1995

FROM: Takashi Tohse -- Quality Assurance Group, Fabricated Glass general Division, ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD

TO: Marvin Show -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Company ID in logo marks

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO TAKASHI TOHSE (A43; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shaw;

We have made an inquiry regarding use of plural company Ids in our logo mark for automotive safety glazing materials and requested NHTSA's comments trough Mr. Clarke Harper of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. We understand that this matter was re ferred to you for a legal interpretation.

What is the status of your consideration on this matter? Would there by any other clarification necessary on our part?

It would be very much appreciated if you could provide us with some indication on these questions. Enclosed you will find our letter dated February 6th for your reference.

PREVIOUS LETTER:

February 6, 1995

Mr. Clarke Harper Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 U.S.A.

Rf: Company ID in logo marks

Dear Mr. Harper;

My Colleague Mr. M. Ojima in the automotive Glazing Group suggested that I write to you directly so that this matter can be expedited. Should this matter be handled by someone other than you, please refer it to the proper person.

Use of plural company IDs in our logo mark for automotive safety glazing materials is under consideration. It would be appreciated very much if you could provide with your views on the following two cases as to whether they comply with FMVSS 205 concern ing marking of glazing materials.

Case1: Is it permitted to use different kinds of IDs for different grades of products?

Please refer to the attached sheet

Sample 1: Current Asahi Glass logo mark.

Sample 2&3: Draft of secondary IDs.

Case 2: Is it permitted to use a common company ID for all members of our group? For example, for Asahi Glass Co. ltd. and AP Technoglass Company.

Please refer to the attached sheet.

Sample 4: Draft of AGC logo mark.

Sample 5: Current AP Technoglass logo mark.

Both cases mentioned above have Symbol and Item No. AS1, DOT-20, Material No. M354, Trademark LAMISAFE and company IDs.

It is our contention that these comply with FMVSS 205; however, we will await your comments before making any change.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your prompt attention to our inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Takashi Tohse Quality Assurance Group Fabricated Glass General Division Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 2-1-2 Marunouchi Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 Japan Tel: 3-3218-5789 Fax: 3-3201-5810

ID: nht71-1.3

DATE: 06/22/71

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

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1971, requesting clarification of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which requires a placard containing specified information to be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location." Your letter lists seven locations on the vehicle (steering column, lower instrument panel pad or knee pad forward of the front seat occupants, sun visor, inside panel surface of the driver's door, door-latch post next to the driver's seat, door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat, and door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat) and asks whether each would be considered an "equally accessible location" under the standard.

The phrase "glove compartment door or equally accessible location" is intended to require the placard to be affixed to a location where, like the glove compartment door, it can not only be easily referred to, but where it will also be relatively free from exposure to substances that may destroy it or render it illegible. With reference to your list of seven locations, we cannot determine without the specific configuration of the components involved whether placing the placard at any point on the component will meet the requirement. However, we believe the placard could be placed at some point on each of these components or locations so that the requirements of the standard would be met.

Please let us know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

June 2, 1971

Douglas W. Toms Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

This is to request the interpretation of the words "equal accessible" in S4.3 placard of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

S4.3 specifies "A placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location, shall display the -----." In meeting this requirement, the design of the instrument panel or the glove compartment door some times necessitates us to seek the location for the placard somewhere other than the glove compartment door. We would understand that the places such as the following are considered to be "equally accessible locations".

1) Steering column 2) Lower instrument panel pad or knee pad foward of the front seat occupants

3) Sun visor

4) Inside panel surface of the driver's door

5) Door-latch post next to the driver's seat

6) Door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat

7) Door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat

We would like to ask your interpretation or view toward our understanding of this matter.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD. --

Kunitaka Suzuki for Keitaro Nakajima, General Manager

ID: nht91-4.30

DATE: June 26, 1991

FROM: Y. Endo -- Technical Manager, Hose Team, Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Inquiry for our Hydraulic brake hose assembly

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Y. Endo (A38; Std. 106)

TEXT:

Recently, we manufacture peculiar type of hose assemblies by our customer's request.

These hose assemblies are consisted of 2 or 3 pieces of cut hoses swaged permanetly with both ends fittings and intermediate metal fitting(s) which swaged and connected 2 pieces of cut hose at its both sides.

Please refer enclosed drawing and illustration. These assemblies are long in the whole length, but each cut hose is not loose in actual application, it is fixed by metal fitting to body side of vehicle. Please refer the illustration, the ones which be marked by red line is actually equipped example.

Concerning to the testing for these hose assemblies, there are diverse opinions in our company. FMVSS 106 specifies in its S 5.3.4 that "Tensile strength. A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pound without separation of hose from its end fittings". While "Brake hose assembly" is specified that a brake hose, with or without armour, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system". Brake hose end fitting means a coupler, other than a clump, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose. SAE J 1401 also specifies, Brake Hose End Fitting - A coupling designed for permanent attachment to the ends of a brake hose by crimping or swaging.

Therefore, Imyself consider, Brake hose assembly shall be each one piece of hose with both ends fittings which be swaged permanently, that is 3 pieces hose multiple assembly shall be 3 Brake hose assembly.

In the Tensile strength test, multiple 3 pieces hose assembly shall be devided at each intermediate metal fitting, otherwise the test result comes to far from the real value, so I insist.

On the contrary, some one says, as far as 3 pieces hoses are connected as one assembly, the Tensile strength test shall be done as it is, only the both ends shall be fixed to the tester and pulled.

Imyself still insist, the Tensile strength test shall be done at each permanently swaged portion at the stand point of faithful interpretation to FMVSS and SAE specifications and to get accurate test result.

We can say, actual test operation is easy enough even the test of 3 devided tensile test.

Perhaps, these specifications are established without prediction of such multiple construction assembly at that time.

Then, we would like to ask your favour, please inform us your opinion or interpretation as soon as possible. This is suggested by Mr. George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services of AAMVA , Arlington VA.

Thanking in advance and remain,

Attached to drawings of 2 and 3 piece hose assembly. (Graphics omitted)

ID: Bruno

Mr. Dick Keller
Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. ("Bruno") is "the manufacturer and distributor of a motor vehicle occupant transfer device called the Turning Automotive Seating (TAS) system." You describe the TAS product as being "used to facilitate the transfer of a mobility-impaired . . . passenger or driver between a motor vehicle and a mobility aid such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair." You state that the TAS is designed to replace seats that are supplied with a vehicle as original (OEM) equipment, and that "[i]t is installed by removing the OEM seat assembly and bolting the TAS into the motor vehicle using the same seat structural mounting as the original." You state that it should take the average mechanic less than two hours to install the TAS and that the only tools required for the installation are those typically found in a motor vehicle maintenance shop.

You state that "when a person decides to purchase a new motor vehicle using the motor vehicle manufacturer's Mobility Program and/or new vehicle finance program . . . the Bruno TAS will likely be installed in a motor vehicle prior to first sale to meet the program requirements and also as a convenience to the purchaser." As you are aware, the certification regulations require a person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle, before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR 567.7. The regulations provide, however, that a person

who alters . . . a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies . . . in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle . . . .

See 49 CFR 567.6.

You have asked what constitutes "a readily attachable component" for the purpose of this provision. You note that in a prior interpretation letter, to Katzkin Leather Interiors, Inc., we stated that because the leather interiors there at issue "require several hours to install by professional installers and require specialized tools for their installation, we would not consider [them] to be readily attachable." From this you have drawn the conclusion that "if persons having average mechanical ability using normally available tools, such as wrenches and screwdrivers, can install the Buno TAS in less that two hours with the Bruno-supplied installation kit and instructions, it could reasonably be considered a readily attachable component," precluding the need for the vehicle to be certified under 49 CFR 567.7 as conforming to all applicable FMVSS affected by the installation of the TAS.

As we have stated in a number of past interpretation letters, a determination of whether a modification involves the addition of "readily attachable components" depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching the components. In assessing this issue, the agency has identified the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise as factors that must be taken into consideration. The agency has taken the position that absent extraordinary ease of installation, it would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable components." See, e.g., letter to Terry Rowe dated March 7, 1991 and letter to Samuel Albury dated July 12, 1991.

Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that the Bruno TAS cannot be installed with sufficient ease for it to be regarded as a "readily attachable component." From the literature that accompanied your letter, we note that the installation of this equipment would require the removal of seating originally supplied with the vehicle and the installation of a seat base that allows the seat to be automatically raised and lowered, and swiveled so that it extends outside the vehicle. We would not regard this task as one that can be performed with "extraordinary ease." Your statement that it would take "less than two hours" to install the Bruno TAS confirms that this cannot be characterized as an extraordinarily easy task. Based on this conclusion, if the Bruno TAS is installed in a vehicle before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, the installer will have to affix a label certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration, as required by 49 CFR 567.7. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an interpretation letter to B&D Independence Co. Inc. dated August 21, 2001, which identifies the standards that are impacted by the installation of an adjustable seat pedestal device that appears to serve a similar function as the Bruno TAS, and addresses a number of compliance issues that are raised by the installation of such a device.

If the Bruno TAS is installed after the vehicle's first retail sale, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration. In this circumstance, the installer would not be required to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, but would be prohibited, under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .." On February 27, 2001, NHTSA issued a final rule (at 66 FR 12628) that creates an exemption from this prohibition for motor vehicle repair businesses that modify a motor vehicle to enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in the vehicle. A copy of the final rule is enclosed. In the preamble of the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to define the phrase "first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic)," for the purposes of the rule, "as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered." See final rule at p. 12644. The agency explained that "[t]his definition will reduce the risk of a business being deemed an alterer because it is unable to transfer title at the time the modifications are made." Id. The agency further observed that "[i]f a dealer or manufacturer adds or removes features to or from a vehicle, or otherwise customizes a vehicle after the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic), then the dealer or manufacturer may utilize" the exemption established under the rule. Id. Applying this exemption, if the Bruno TAS were to be installed in a vehicle after a sales contract is entered for the delivery of that vehicle, but prior to the actual transfer of title, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration that would trigger the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7, and the installer would not be subject to the "making inoperative" prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b).

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref:567
d.5/24/02

ID: 8371-2

Mr. Peter Drymalski
Investigator
Montgomery County Government
Office of Consumer Affairs
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Drymalski:

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 replacement 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 114 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 567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable components" (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 attachable 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 567.7. 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 108(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 "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in 567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label to remain on the vehicle and affixing an additional label of the type and form specified in 567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to 108(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 applicable 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 inoperative.

The effect of 108(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 pursuant 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 repairing 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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:567#VSA d:5/3/94