ID: 9068

Mr. Joey Ferrari
Director Technical Sales
Grant Products
700 Allen Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201

Dear Mr. Ferrari:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag.

Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection 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, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars 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). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag; (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident; (3) State law may address these issues; and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life?

2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped?

The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold.

After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act which 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.

In the case of a vehicle 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. Any violation of this "render inoperative" provision 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 apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles.

I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person.

4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped?

5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag?

The "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so.

7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?

We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. 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. Air bags provide some protection, 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 a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:10/6/93

ID: aiam5195

"Dear Mr. Banner: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as 'kit cars.' In the 'kit car' version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle. This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1). 1. New Body on New Chassis. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer' of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. 2. New Body on Used Chassis. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable safety standards. 3. Kit cars. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a 'motor vehicle' is defined, in part, as one that is 'driven by mechanical power.' See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards. If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules. I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards' that briefly describes each of the safety standards. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht92-8.3

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 27, 1992 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Porsche") hereby submits the attached request for interpretation of FMVSS 108.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

ID: nht87-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wil de Groot -- President, Exoticars of Hunterdon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Wil de Groot

TEXT:

Mr. Wil de Groot President Exoticars of Hunterdon 6 Washington Street Frenchtown, NJ 08825

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1987, with respect to your further questions on Federal regulation of kit cars.

You have presented the following facts: the engine, transmission, final drive, axles, suspension, steering, brakes, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harness, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switch buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks, impact absorbing bumper supports, and other unnamed components, all previously used on a vehicle meeting Federal safety standards would be retained for use with a new body of your own manufacture.

Your first choice is to install these items upon a new chassis of your own manufacture, and to supply the vehicle to a purchaser fully assembled. This is what must be met under these circumstances: when a new body is mounted upon a new chassis, the resul ting vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable upon the date of its assembly, even if the parts that you named are used. Further, the assembler must certify that the vehicle complies with safety standards. There is no legal obligation to use new parts in order to certify compliance with the standards. The assembler is regarded as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, and must notify owners and remedy noncompliances with the safety standards or safety related defects shou ld they occur, in accordance with Federal law and regulations.

If you supply all parts, but do not complete assembly of the vehicle, we should regard you nevertheless as its manufacturer and subject to the requirements stated above. However, if you do not supply all parts, the question of whether you would be regard ed as the manufacturer would necessarily depend upon the parts that the purchaser must supply in order to compete assembly.

You have also stated your second choice: that the new body would be mounted upon the original chassis, modified to accept it. In this circumstance, when a new body is mounted upon a used chassis, the resulting vehicle is not subject to Federal motor vehi cle standards that apply to new vehicles, and there is no certification obligation. Nevertheless, its assembler is a "manufacturer" under federal law and responsible for notification of owners and remedy of any safety related defects that may occur in th e product. Further, if the assembler is the person responsible for removing the old body, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet the standards that originally applied to the vehicle which might have been affected by removal of the old body. For example, if the body of a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 is removed, compliance with a number of standards such as those covering glazing, lighting, and windshield retention is affected and the reassembled vehicle must then meet the standards that were in effect in 1974. But, standards covering such things as accelerator control systems and brake hoses would not appear to be affected by the disassembly of the original vehicle, and the assembler is under no obligation to ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet those standards.

If the used-chassis vehicle is supplied partially disassembled, but all parts are supplied, we would nevertheless regard the supplier as subject to all obligations discussed above, assuming that he was the person responsible for removal of the old body. If all parts are not supplied, the answer remains as before: whether the supplier is a "manufacturer" depends upon the parts that the purchase must provide.

Finally, you have asked, "if actual crash tests. . .have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?" There is no express legal requirement that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles conduct crash tests in order to certify compliance with those st andards where compliance can be demonstrated through barrier impacts. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care to ensure that his vehicle, if crashed, would meet the performance requirements of those standards incorporating barrier impact test pro cedures, but his certification may be based upon computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations, etc. We cannot advise you as to the cost of such tests, and suggest you write the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) for in formation on facilities that perform them. MVMA's address is 1620 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MS. ERIKA Z. JONES U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

4.2.1987

Dear Ms. Jones,

Thank you for your reply of Feb. 24 1987 to my letter of January 12, 1987 regarding regulations for home built or car kits.

What we have in mind is to take, for example, a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 (federal version) remove the engine, transmission, final drive, suspension, steering, brakes, etc. and all safety and emission related items and after refurbishing these parts, install them on a new chassis with a new body of our own (U.S.) manufacture. We are familiar with the process of bringing a gray market car into compliance with Federal regulations, having gone through the process and wondering if this same process, complete with all applicable engineering data, photo's and paperwork could somehow be applied to a limited production rebodied and rechassied vehicle without the expense of crashing cars into a wall.

If actual crash tests have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?

The following are the specifics that I hope will allow you to give me the answers I am looking for,:

-Chassis- New made in U.S.A. (first choice) -Chassis- Used original chassis but modified to accept new body (second choice)

-Old parts used- Engine, transmission, final drive, axles, brakes, steering, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harnesses, seats, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switc h buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks. Impact absorbing bumper supports, etc.

-Suppled to Consumer fully assembled- (first choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts supplied (second choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts not supplied (third choice)

-Parts- Used would come from federal version of imported cars or domestic cars. All parts including new would meet D.O.T. & E.P.A. specifications.

Thank you in advance, I hope you can help us.

Sincerely,

Wil de Groot, President

ID: 2112y

Mr. Wolfred Freeman
Freeman & Company
P.O. Box 5062
San Marcos, CA 92069

Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter to June 22, l989, to the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you "petition...for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles." You have designed "a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road."

We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of motor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. l08, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. l08, we regard the auxiliary light as having rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act.

Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the accelerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment.

You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: 2840yy

Mr. Samuel Yk Lau
Kenwo Industries Ltd.
Unit 20, 10/F, Block A,
Hi-Tech Ind. Center,
5 Pak Tin Par Street, Tsuen Wan
Hong Kong

Dear Mr. Lau:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp orignally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, l985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. l08. For lighting equipment this certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an Identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. l08. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. l08, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of MOtor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. l08 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:556#551#l08 d:2/22/9l

ID: 2855o

Mr. Richard J. Matysiak
President
Auto Chek, Inc.
P.O. Box 258
Stone Mountain, GA 30086-0258

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you asked how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention standard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would naturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Kelly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the vehicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titling requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:541#580 d:3/30/88

ID: nht87-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. D. Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. C. D. Black Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This responds to your December 11, 1986 letter to me concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit inst allation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a "child safety lock." The answer to your question is yes.

You explain that a "child safety lock" is a special locking system installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as "the primary locking system") is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a "secondary locking system") consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear doors which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the "active" position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadverte nt door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from insi de the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained be low, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the engagement of the primary locking system. Since y our child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacture is permitted.

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1. 3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door lo cks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is enga ged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the requ ired locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No. 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitat ing escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking systems are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but d id not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in Collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of the operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the doo r lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as "child safety locks." To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 11, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We request your interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 206 as it relates to child safety lock systems currently fitted to Jaguar sedans destined for U.K. and European markets and which we would like to fit to USA cars.

The Jaguar rear door primary locking system is activated or deactivated from a vertical plunger situated in the door top trim roll. It functions in the manner described in FMVSS 206, paragraph 4.1.3.2., (also pages 12 and 13 of the Jaguar drivers handboo k attached.)

To operate the additional child safety lock (special locking system), the door must first be opened and a small lever, situated in the door shut-face, activated. The door, when subsequently closed, cannot then be unlocked or opened from inside the vehicl e regardless of the position of the primary locking system vertical plunger. However, the door can be opened using the outside handle. The child safety lock can be deactivated only by opening the rear door using the outside door handle and then reversing the position of the lever in the door shut-face.

However, the preamble to FMVSS 206 amendment of 27 April 1968 (33 FR 6465) contains a phrase that we believe could be interpreted to preclude fitment of these locks for USA cars:

"At the same time, by affording occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle, a reasonable means of escape is provided for such occupants in the post crash phase of an accident." (Emphasis added).

We would like a clear statement that such a system as described above would not contravene the requirements of FMVSS 206.

On behalf of Jaguar Cars Yours sincerely,

C.D. Black

Manager - Engineering CDB:as Legislation & Compliance

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

Attach.

ID: nht71-5.6

DATE: 11/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trike Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: You wrote some time ago to request information concerning the application of various motor vehicle safety standards to passenger cars with curb weights of less than 1,000 pounds. Contrary to the information you obtained from Motor Trend, this category of passenger cars is still exempt from the standards. There is a possibility that at some future date the exemption granted by 571.7(a) will be changed or revoked, but any such action can be taken only after opportunity for public comment.

Please advise us if you feel it necessary to have your remaining questions answered.

ID: aiam2433

Dear Mr. Kommers: This is in response to your letter of October 12, 1976, requestin information concerning the application of Federal standards to bumper systems produced as after-market replacement equipment.; Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, is a motor vehicle safet standard that applies to the performance of bumper systems on cars manufactured after certain dates. The requirements of the standard are not imposed on the manufacturers of bumpers as items of equipment. It is the manufacturer of the car who must certify the compliance of the bumper system with the provisions of Standard 215. Therefore the bumpers manufactured by Mr. Coddou do not fall within the application of the standard.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, even though a replacement bumper is not required to meet the requirements of Standard 215 when it is produced or sold, its installation on a car by one of the above-named persons would invoke the application of section 108 of the Act. With the bumper installed, the car must comply either with the particular safety standard in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standard in effect at the time the bumper is replaced.; Due to the requirements of section 108 it would be advisable for Mr Coddou to manufacture his bumpers so that they are capable of meeting the requirements of the applicable Federal bumper standard.; Mr. Coddou should note that although Standard 215 is currentl applicable to all passenger cars, a new and more stringent bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, will become effective September 1, 1978. Part 581 is promulgated under the authority of both the National Traffic and Vehicle Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) and will supplant Standard 215 when it becomes effective. I have enclosed copies of both Standard 215 and Part 581 for Mr. Coddou's information.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel