Interpretation ID: nht73-2.24

DATE: 05/02/73

FROM: JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NY0-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/30/73 FROM GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- NADA TO LAUREN SNYDER -- NHTSA; OBTAINED OCTOBER 17, 1973

TEXT: Dear Mr. Molovinsky:

This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which you asked whether it would be permissible for automobile dealers to modify vehicles as necessary for handicapped persons in such a manner that they might not conform to all the applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

Section 108(b) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (1), states that the prohibition against delivery of a nonconforming vehicle "shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." The question is when the "purchase" of a vehicle is completed so that a dealer or other person is free to modify it as he wishes. We have generally taken the position that the purchase is not completed until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser. This of course raises the problem you have described in cases where the vehicle must be modified prior to delivery.

Our position, that the first purchase of a vehicle is not completed until the vehicle is actually delivered, is necessary, we believe, in the general situation to carry out the intent of Congress and maintain the effectiveness of the standards. The situation where a vehicle must be modified for the special needs of a handicapped person is distinguishable, however, from the general case in that the modification (1) is necessary for the buyer to use the vehicle, (2) takes the vehicle out of its

2 normal commercial configuration and thus identifies it to the particular buyer, and (3) is performed for purposes other than evasion of the requirements of the safety standards. In this limited case, therefore, we are willing to consider any violation a purely technical one that is justified by the public need, and will exercise our discretion not to take any enforcement action.

Sincerely,