ID: used_carseats

Ms. Shauna Sloan
Kid to Kid Franchise System
452 East 500 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111




Dear Ms. Sloan:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are Federal regulations applying to "the resale of used car seats or child restraint systems". Our use of the term "child restraint system" includes "car seats" and other types of child restraints.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child restraint systems," applies to new child restraint systems. The requirement under Federal law to manufacture and sell products that meet all applicable FMVSSs does not apply to the sale of a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of the item in good faith other than for resale ("first retail sale").

Thus, the answer to your question is no, Federal law does not apply to the resale of used child restraint systems. However, while the FMVSSs apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, several of our programs affect used vehicles or equipment.

The "make inoperative" provision of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ) states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). This provision applies to new and used motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers, distributor, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are not permitted to make inoperative a device or design installed on or in a new or used child restraint in compliance with FMVSS No. 213.

Also, under our statute, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (including child restraint systems) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. NHTSAs investigations of safety-related defects often originate from reports of problems from owners of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Finally, under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[. ]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

You asked if states regulate the resale of used child restraint systems. States could regulate the sale and use of used child restraints. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide information of any such regulation state-by-state, as you requested.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes responsibilities of new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed information on NHTSAs policy regarding the re-use of child restraints after minor crashes. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:213
d.10/28/05

ID: aiam4388

Dear Mr. Hand: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208). Specifically, you asked whether General Motors Corporation (GM) can be deemed the manufacturer of passenger cars produced by Lotus Cars Limited (LCL) for the purposes of S4.1.3.5, the manufacturer attribution provisions of Standard No. 208. After we received your letter, you made us aware of certain changed circumstances. In your letter, you stated that GM did not own the entity that was the exclusive importer of Lotus vehicles, and that GM owned 96 percent of LCL. Subsequently, you have told us that GM wholly owns the companies that import and market Lotus vehicles in the United States and that GM wholly owns LCL. This letter of interpretation is based on the GM - Lotus corporate relationship described in this letter. To the extent that the description in this letter differs from the description set forth in your August, 1986 letter, it reflects our understanding of the changed circumstances. Our conclusion is that, since GM sponsors the importation, distribution, and marketing of these cars, GM may be considered the manufacturer of cars produced by LCL for the purposes of Standard No. 208.; You explained that LCL is a part of Group Lotus, a United Kingdo company that provides engineering services to various motor vehicle manufacturers and produces fewer than a thousand passenger cars a year. Group Lotus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, although LCL designs, builds, and certifies its cars without GM's advice. Approximately 200 Lotus passenger cars are imported into the United States each year by Lotus Performance Cars, Limited Partnership (LPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Lotus cars are marketed and distributed in the United States by Lotus Cars USA, Inc., another wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Hence, GM owns the company that designs and assembles these cars, and GM owns the companies that import and market the vehicles.; Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' Under this definition, *both* LCL and LPC are statutory manufacturers of Lotus passenger cars. LCL designs and assembles the cars, and has filed a designation of agent for service of process with this agency, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1399(e). By filing a designation of agent, LCL has acknowledged that it is offering its cars for importation into the United States. LPC imports those cars into the United States.; Section S4.1.3.5 of Standard No. 208 sets forth provisions fo instances in which passenger cars have more than one statutory 'manufacturer.' That section provides that the manufacturers may execute an express written contract to specify the manufacturer to which the cars shall be attributed. In the absence of such a contract, S4.1.3.5.1(a) provides that imported passenger cars will be attributed to the importer. Since there is no such contract in this instance, application of this provision means that the Lotus passenger cars, which are produced in the United Kingdom, would be attributed to LPC, the GM subsidiary which imports the cars into the United States.; In the April 12, 1985, proposal to establish attribution requirement in the case of vehicles that have more than one statutory 'manufacturer' (50 FR 14589), NHTSA stated that it considers the statutory definition of 'manufacturer' to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. See 50 FR 14596. The agency stated that if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles, applying basic principles of agency law. On the other hand, the agency stated that the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does *not* make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles.; Applying these principles to your case, we conclude that GM sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Both LCL, the actual assembler, and LPC, the actual importer, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of GM. By itself, GM's ownership of both the producer and importer of these cars might not be sufficient to establish that GM was the sponsor of these vehicles for the purposes of Standard No. 208. In addition, however, another wholly-owned subsidiary distributes and markets the vehicles in the United States. GM coordinates the activities of all these subsidiaries. Since GM wholly owns the actual producer of these vehicles and is actively involved in the importation, distribution, and marketing of these vehicles, we believe that GM should be considered to sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Accordingly, GM rather than LPC, may be considered the importer and manufacturer of these vehicles.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4186

Dear Mr. Flanagan: This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin, of our Rulemakin division, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You described a situation in which a client, Saab-Scania of America, imports cars subject to the theft prevention standard and uses them directly as company cars or leases them to employees for their personal use. After such use, the company sells the cars to dealers as used cars. On occasion, these vehicles may have an original equipment major part covered by the theft prevention standard that is so badly damaged during such use that the part must be replaced before the vehicle is delivered to a dealer or distributor. When this occurs, you asked whether the repair would be required to be made with a part marked with the full VIN or whether the repair could be made with a properly marked replacement part. We conclude that when a manufacturer uses a car as a company car in the manner you describe, it may make any necessary repairs to damaged major parts by installing parts marked as replacement parts. This conclusion is explained in detail below.; Section 2(7) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901(7)) defines manufacturer as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' (Emphasis added). It is clear under this statutory definition that your client is a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the theft prevention standard, since it is importing motor vehicles for resale.; Section 606(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)(1)) requires vehicle manufactures to certify that each vehicle complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard 'at the time of delivery of such vehicle'. The preamble to the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard discussed this agency's conclusion that the 'delivery' as used in this part of section 606(c)(1) means the delivery from the manufacturer to a dealer or distributor, and that the delivery occurs when the goods are delivered by the seller to a carrier. 50 FR 43166, at 43185-43187, October 24, 1985. In the next sentence, section 606(c)(1) specifies that the certification shall accompany the vehicle until delivery to the first purchaser. NHTSA believes that this statutory requirement means that each vehicle in the lines selected as high theft lines and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be delivered to the first purchaser with *all* covered major parts marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard. However, NHTSA does *not* interpret this statutory provision as requiring that ever first purchaser be delivered a vehicle with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. Instead, the agency believes this means that the first purchaser may receive a vehicle with the undamaged covered original equipment major parts marked with the VIN, and with those covered major parts installed by a dealer or distributor to replace damaged original equipment parts marked as replacement parts.; In accordance with this interpretation, NHTSA does not believe that manufacturer delivers a car to itself, when the car is sold to the public as a new car. However, you have noted a circumstance in which cars are *bona fide* used as company cars and are sold to the public as used cars, not new cars. Congress knew that used cars frequently have some replacement parts substituted for the original equipment parts. However, Title VI contains no requirement that used cars have all covered major parts marked with the VIN. In fact, Title VI presumes that when an original equipment major part is so badly damaged that it must be replaced, it will be replaced with a replacement part marked in conformity with Part 541. This reflects a legislative judgment that such replacement does not increase the opportunity for car thieves to steal the car without fear of being apprehended, or otherwise frustrate the purposes of Title VI, even though the car no longer has all major parts marked with the VIN.; On the other hand, a severe burden would be imposed on al manufacturers if they were required to deliver all *bona fide* company cars to distributors or dealers with all covered major parts marked with the VIN. If this were required and the company car were involved in an accident that required a covered major part to be replaced, the manufacturer would have a choice of either asking the factory to produce a replacement part with the VIN marked on the part and waiting to repair the vehicle until the part marked with the VIN arrived, or ending the vehicle's use as a company car and shipping the unrepaired vehicle to a dealer or distributor with the damaged major part marked with the VIN still on the vehicle. Nothing in the legislative history of Title VI explicitly or implicitly suggests that Congress intended such harsh treatment of company cars under the theft prevention standard.; Balancing the absence of negative policy consequences under Title VI i manufacturers are allowed to repair company cars with properly marked parts against the significant burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers if damaged major parts on company cars had to be replaced with parts marked with the full VIN, NHTSA concludes that Title VI of the Cost Savings Act permits cars damaged while in *bona fide* use as company cars and sold to the public as used cars, to be repaired by the manufacturer using properly marked replacement parts. This conclusion is based on NHTSA's interpretation that *bona fide* use of the car as a company car by the manufacturer is, for all practical and policy purposes, tantamount to a delivery of the vehicle under section 606(c)(1). The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when a company car is later sold to the public as a used car, the consumer purchasing the company car will get a car with the same theft markings as any other used car.; NHTSA would like to note that this interpretation applies only to Titl VI of the Cost Savings Act, and not to any other statutes administered by this agency. Those statutes may have different underlying policy considerations, which might mandate a different conclusion for cars used as company cars. Further, the agency wishes to emphasize that this interpretation applies only to *bona fide* company cars that are sold to the public as used cars, and not to most of the cars manufactured by the manufacturer.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions abou our theft prevention standard.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4089

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: Thank you for your letter of October 25, 1985, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208 and Part 581. In addition, your letter asked about the status of a response to your July 17, 1985 letter. Unfortunately, my office had not previously received a copy of your letter of July 17, 1985. This letter addresses the Standard No. 208 questions you raised. We will shortly be responding to your other questions as well.; You asked about the automatic restraint phase-in requirements o Standard No. 208. You said that it is not clear how the requirements of S4.1.3 of the standard would apply to a manufacturer that will first start manufacturing cars for the United States during the phase-in period. On April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14589), the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which would affect the way in which a manufacturer calculates the amount of passenger cars that must be produced with automatic restraints during the phase-in period. The notice proposed that instead of using a three year average of its passenger car production for the U.S., a manufacturer could use its actual production during each of the three years of the phase-in to calculate the amount of cars that must have automatic restraints. In the case of a new manufacturer, the manufacturer would not have three prior years of U.S. production and thus would have to use its actual production during each of the affected years. We have just issued a final rule adopting that proposal. I have enclosed a copy of that final rule.; For illustrative purposes, the proposal, if adopted, would have th following effect on the examples you used. In your first example, you assumed a new manufacturer starts manufacturing passenger cars for the U.S. on August 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. For the first phase-in period (September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987), the manufacturer would have produced 3,000 cars and would have to equip 10% of them (300 cars) with automatic restraints. For the second phase-in period (September 1, 1987 - August 31, 1988), the manufacturer would produce 36,000 passenger cars (12 x 3,000/vehicles per month) and would have to equip 25% of them (9,000 cars) with automatic restraints. For the final phase-in period (September 1, 1988 - August 31, 1989), the manufacturer would also produce 36,000 passenger cars and would have to equip 40% of them (14,400 cars) with automatic restraints.; In your second example, a new manufacturer begins production o passenger cars for the U.S. on September 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. During the second phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 9,000 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints. During the final phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 14,400 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints.; You also asked about the requirement of S4.5.1 that a vehicle must hav a maintenance label for any crash-deployed occupant protection system. You asked if the requirement only applies to air bags and does not apply to seat belt systems. The requirement applies to any crash deployed system. Thus, it applies to air bags and would also apply to an automatic safety belt that does not move into position until a crash occurs.; Finally, you asked about the warning system requirements of Standar No. 208 that would apply to a passenger car that has an automatic safety belt that meets the frontal crash protection requirement and also has a manual lap belt, provided in accordance with 4.1.2.1(c) to meet the side impact and rollover requirements of the standard. You noted that the manual belt would be required to meet the warning system requirements of S7.3, while the automatic belt would have to meet the warning system requirements of S4.5.3.3. You asked if the passenger cars must have two different safety belt warning systems with two warning lights and two audible signals.; The purpose of both warning system requirements is similar. Th requirements of S7.3 are meant to remind the driver to reengage a safety belt, in one case a manual belt and in the other a detached or released automatic belt. In addition, S4.5.3.3 is meant to warn a driver that a motorized belt is not in its locked position. Both warning system requirements specify the use of the same types of equipment, a 4 to 8 second audible warning and a continuous or flashing light. Since the purpose of the two warning system requirements is similar and they use the same equipment, the agency believes it is reasonable for a vehicle only to have one warning system, as long as it met the requirements of S5.4.3.3 and S7.3.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4251

"Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /";

ID: aiam4250

"Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /";

ID: aiam4252

"Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /";

ID: aiam4601

"Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your letter to the Department o Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with air bags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the air bags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Sparks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars. When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does not comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car 'in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all applicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them. After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in the car in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks police department cars. Please note that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of 'authorization' from this agency to disconnect the air bag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of Sparks can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada. I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The air bags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle occupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported instance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars. I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4600

"Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your letter to the Department o Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with airbags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the airbags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Sparks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the new requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars. When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does not comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car 'in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all applicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them. After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in the car in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks police department cars. Please not that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of 'authorization' from this agency to disconnect the airbag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada. I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its policy cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The airbags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle occupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported instance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars. I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4402

Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how the conversion of convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216.; I would like to set the foundation for answering your specifi questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is *not joined* at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer.; The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would no permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception.; Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on sellin nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certification of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certification of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR S567.7.; The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth i sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were:; 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crus requirements of Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?; ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any ca that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216.; 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provisio remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?; ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you ar referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR S571.3 as follows:; >>>'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capabl of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.<<<; We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable o accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions.; The required occupant restraint system would also be affected b converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would *not* be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel