ID: nht88-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES

TO: GARY M. CEAZAN -- VICE PRESIDENT RIKEN-AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/16/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO MIKE KAIZAKI; STANDARD 119; UNDATED LETTER FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO E.W. DAHL; LETTER DATED 04/18/88 FROM GARY M. CEAZAN TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC-1951; STANDARD 109,119

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ceazan:

This is in response to your letter asking whether tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation and a different ISO (Inter national Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response.

All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109), and all new pneumatic tires impo rted for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119). Both of these standards prohibit "dual-size markings," or l abeling two different size designations on one tire.

In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 1 09; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974; and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "th e tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase "tire size designation," rather than the plural "tire size designations," to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these

tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki.

Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Sa fety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht94-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 2, 1994

FROM: Forbes Howard -- Chairman, Goodlife Motors Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Forbes Howard (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

About a year ago, we talked with two of your attorneys about the super golf car we were developing. Our "Runabout" is now ready to go into limited production. We need to get the letter from you confirming that our vehicles are not required to meet the c urrent national safety standards for automobiles.

We assume the 23,000 plus golf cars now registered in Arizona, many of which go 25 mph, have not been required to meet these standards.

Our cars are safer than golf cars by being wider, longer, and they include doors, seat belts, wipers, etc. and will have a top speed of 29 mph.

The enclosed photographs and specifications will familiarize you with one model of our vehicles. Please call me at my North Carolina office if you have any questions. Thank you for your prompt attention to our need.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures

(Photos and specifications omitted.)

ID: nht72-4.13

DATE: 02/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is in response to your inquiry of January 6, 1972, regarding the relationship of Standards No. 208 and No. 216.

You interpret Standard 216, paragraph S3. Application, which states that the Standard does not apply to passenger cars "that conform to the rollover test requirements (S5.3) of Standard 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants," as follows:

1. From August 15, 1973, the effective date of Standard 216, to August 15, 1977, passenger cars are not required to meet Standard 216 if they conform to the "first option" of Standard 208.

2. For the period of August 15, 1973, through August 14, 1975, passenger cars which are designed to conform to the "second" or proposed "third" option of Standard 208 are not required to meet Standard 216 if they meet the rollover requirements (S5.3) by passive means (when tested under the applicable conditions of S8), even though in Standard 208 the rollover requirement is specified only for "option 1."

These interpretations are correct. Please write if we can be of further assistance.

ID: 2256y

Ms. Linda L. Conrad
Nives Ford, Inc.
15690 South Harlem Avenue
Orland Park, IL 60462

Dear Ms. Conrad:

This responds to your letter asking what legal obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side air bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to replace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car.

In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle; (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so; and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, beginning with 1987 model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory requirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags, except as needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a functioning air bag before you resell the car.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems intact and functional.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars.

While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles are designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purchaser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may well expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacment of deployed air bags.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:l/l9/90

ID: 1934y

Mr. William L. Dunlap
Engineering Manager
Philips Industries, Inc.
Dexter Axle Division
500 Collins Road
Elkhart, IN 46515

Dear Mr. Dunlap:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120; copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in this response. You stated that your company manufactures rims that you sell to other wheel manufacturers. These wheel manufacturers combine your company's rims with center disc sections of their own design to produce finished wheels for use on light trucks and trailers. Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 specifies that each rim shall be marked with certain information. You asked whether your company, as the rim manufacturer, or any subsequent manufacturer that uses your company's rims to produce complete wheels is required to mark the rims in compliance with section S5.2(c). The answer is that the rim manufacturer is responsible for those markings, as explained below.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A); the Safety Act) specifies that "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." In this case, section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 requires certain markings to appear on all newly manufactured rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These requirements became effective August 1, 1977. Thus, section 108 of the Safety Act makes it illegal for any person to "manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any rim manufactured on or after August 1, 1977 designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars unless that rim is marked in accordance with section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Your company would violate this provision of the law if you were to sell light truck rims without the required markings, even if the party to whom you sold such rims was going to use the rims to produce completed wheel assemblies.

You suggested in your letter that your company's markings on its rims used by other manufacturers to produce completed wheel assemblies may be misleading or unfair, because your company has no control over the integrity of the completed wheel assemblies. This may represent a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the required rim markings. The markings and certification required on rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars by section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 provide information about only the rims, not the entire wheel assembly. In your letter, you indicated that other wheel manufacturers simply add center discs to your company's rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. In these circumstances, the accuracy of the markings and certification put on a rim by your company as the rim manufacturer would not be affected by another manufacturer simply adding a center disc to that rim to produce a completed wheel assembly.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:120 d:8/7/89

ID: nht73-5.43

DATE: 11/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gerald Ahronheim

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for a statement of your odometer disclosure obligations under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law 92-513.

Under the Act, all transferors must make a "mileage statement" to the transferee. "Transferor" means any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest. This includes a dealer transferring a new or used vehicle. The only exceptions to the requirement are for vehicles over 16,000 pounds gross weight rating, non-self-propelled vehicles, vehicles 25 years old or older, and new vehicles sold by a dealer to another dealer for resale.

The statement must contain (1) the odometer reading, (2) date of transfer, (3) transferor's name and current address, (4) vehicle identification or serial number, make, model, year, body type, last plate number, (5) a statement that actual mileage differs from recorded mileage if such is the case and the transferor knows it, and (6) reference to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act with the statement that incorrect information may result in civil liability under it. An example of an adequate statement and format is enclosed for your information.

The federal government does not print these forms but several commercial printers have prepared Federal disclosure forms for the convenience of dealers. Alternatively, the statement

may be included in the bill of sale, or other transfer document. In any case, it must be completed and signed prior to the transfer. Either the original or carbon copy may go to the transferee. You can see that the transferor must make a statement about actual mileage only if he knows that it differs from recorded mileage. A person like yourself who has no knowledge of odometer accuracy would only state the recorded mileage.

A copy of the Act is also enclosed for your information.

ENCLS.

October 9, 1973

Dear NHTSA

This note is prompted by Sylvia Porter's column which appeared in the Detroit Free Press of Wednesday, October 10 1973 (page 6-C) concerning the 1972 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

As one who has owned several previous-owned cars and who doesn't anticipate purchasing any new car in the near future, I am concerned about possibly unwittingly violating the 1972 act, of which I was not previously aware. For example, I have sold two cars which I had bought used in the past 13 months, and now am driving a 1951 automobile which may follow its predecessors. How can I guarantee the mileage of these cars? I can't attest to the honesty of the previous owners, and even though both cars were purchased in earlier times I have no way of verifying anything which could have been tampered with. Does the Act protect a seller from unwittingly becoming liable for omissions or commissions of others?

What is the document -- "Disclosure Statement" -- referred to by Ms. Porter? Is this a standard form, an amendment to a bill-of-sale, or anything in a contractual form? Where are these documents to be obtained, and who must complete them? Must one be furnished with every vehicle sale (e.g. motorcycle, bicycle, ORRV) and by any seller (private individual vs. dealer)?

I'd be very grateful for official answers to these questions specifically, as well as for a copy of the Act and any information booklet you may have printed. Thank you very much.

Respectfully,

Gerald Ahronheim

ID: aiam4075

Dear Mr. Sornson: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agenc to 'delay' its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as 'high theft lines' for the purposes of 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to 'delay' its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.; In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to 'delay' final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.; You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car lin should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.; This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that th theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.; Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency wa required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of the enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among all lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, *Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard*, at 50 FR 25603, June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:; >>>1. Retail price of the vehicle line. 2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy. 3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, an the theft rates of such lines.; 4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).; 5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on th basis of currently available data.<<<; Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, 'We generally concur wit the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable.' General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, 'Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data.' In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:; >>>As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines ar partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.<<<; NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objectiv basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicated the lines will be high theft lines.; Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay th October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5352

"Dear Mr. Drymalski: This responds to your letter and telephon 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";

ID: nht94-4.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 31, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTERS DATED 6/30/94 AND 8/9/94 FROM TREVOR BUTTLE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning the F1 road car manufactured by your company. The F1 has a unique seating configuration, with the driver's seat located at the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle also has two passenger seats, lo cated on each side of the driver's seat, with the seating reference points for the passenger seats located 320 mm rearward of the driver's seating reference point. You stated that the driver's seat is fitted with a four-point harness (which you say is n ot a Type 1 or Type 2 belt), while the passenger seats both have three-point, Type 2 belts. You are considering importing the car into the United States and asked whether the restraint systems installed in the vehicle meet the requirements of Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained below, the restraint system installed at the driver's seat may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, but the restraint systems installed at the passenger seats do n ot.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicl es and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. The F1 road car would be subject to these requirements. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standrad No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front out board seating position, Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position.

Thus, to determine what type of occupant protection is required at each of the seating positions in the F1 road car, it is necessary to determine how each of the seating positions would be categorized. An "outboard designated seating position" is define d in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point . . . and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion." Based on the location of the two passenger seats, it appears that the driver's seat is located at least 12 inches from the side of t he vehicle and would not be considered an "outboard designated seating position." Therefore, Standard No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's seat in the F1 road car. If the four-point harness installed at the driver's sea t does not meet the requirements for one or the other of these two types of belts, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 208, at S4.1.4.2(c), defines "rear outboard designated seating position," in relevant part as "any outboard designated seating position . . . that is rearward of the front seat(s). . ." We interpret this to mean that an outboard designated s eating position must be completely rearward of the front seat or seats in order to be considered a rear outboard designated seating position. Therefore, the two passenger seats in the F1 road car would be considered front outboard designated seating pos itions, and as such, would be required to provide automatic crash protection for the occupants. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protect ion requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currentl y offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Beginning with passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, a new Federal requirement will be phased in making air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory.

Although Standard No. 208 does not require it, this agency strongly encourages you to provide an air bag for the F1's driver. In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in all driver's seating positions being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is ra rely used. However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position. Especially since air bags will be provided for the drivers of all other passenger cars, we urge you to provide that same added protection for drivers o f the F1.

I note that NHTSA has procedures in 49 CFR Part 555 for temporarily exempting vehicles from our safety standards. These procedures may be used by small volume manufacturers such as McLaren to market vehicles that do not (or cannot) comply with the stand ards. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Part 555.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/19/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LINDA L. CONRAD -- NIVES FORD, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED AUGUST 17, 1989 TO S. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM L. CONRAD, NIVES FORD, INC., ATTACHED; [OCC-3863]

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking what legal obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side a ir bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to rep lace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car.

In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle; (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so; and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, th at is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, begin ning with 1987

model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and a passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory r equirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Fede ral law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor veh icle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle . . . will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags, except a s needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a funct ioning air bag before you resell the car.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that use d vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, y ou may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note tha t every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems in tact and functional.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restorat ion, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars.

While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles ar e designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purc haser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may we ll expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacement of deployed air bags.

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