Interpretation ID: nht73-2.34
DATE: 11/07/73
FROM: R.B. DYSON -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN G. WOMACK
TO: Missouri Automobile Dealers Assoc.
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1973, concerning the legality of disconnecting seat belt interlocks.
The interlock is a required item of safety equipment that must be operable on any new car when it is sold or offered for sale, pursuant to section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. After an interlock equipped car is sold, however, the purchaser may disconnect the interlock, without violating the Act, by virtue of section 108(b)(1), which exempts transactions after the first purchase of the vehicle.
If a dealer offers to disconnect an interlock as an inducement to the sale of the vehicle, it is our opinion that a violation of the act occurs even though the actual disconnection may take place after delivery of the vehicle. If, on the other hand, the subject of the interlock is not discussed during the sale and the buyer subsequently requests disconnection on the basis of his experience with the vehicle, the dealer would not violate the Act if he disconnected the interlock.
Although a dealer does not violate the act by suggesting that the buyer go somewhere else to have the interlock disconnected, I am sure you appreciate the troublesome consequences such advice may bring for the buyer if the resulting disconnection is carelessly performed.
YOURS TRULY,
October 10, 1973
Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Dear Dr. Gregory:
As you can see from the enclosed article of the October 1, 1973 issue of Automotive News, it is reported by Congressman Dante B. Fascell, that he received a letter August 20, 1973 from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs, in which he states:
"Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards (safety belt interlocks). The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."
Dr. Gregory, many of my dealers have called wanting to know if the report by Mr. Carter is the truth. Can you tell me?
1. Is it a violation for my dealers after they make the sale to disconnect the interlock system or make it inoperative?
2. Is it against the law for a dealer to tell a purchaser of a 1974 car that he can go some where else and get it disconnected?
Please advise at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION
Ralph J. Kalberlon Executive Vice President Joe Machens President
cc: David Castles, Castles-Wilson Buick Casey Meyers-Casey Meyers Ford, Inc.
in the letterbox
Who can tamper?
On Page 1, of the Sept. 10 issue of AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, appears a story by J. Donald Williamson, "First Buyers Turned Off by Interlocks."
The second and third paragraphs of your story read as follows:
"Forbidden by law to remove or tamper with the new system, dealers resorted to their own ingenuity to allay customer gripes and many and varied were the suggestions.
"Generally, stringent objections were met by suggesting the customer might stop at a service station on the way home where mechanics not hampered by federal edict could render the system inoperative."
After studiously searching for an answer to this question we finally received a letter dated Aug. 22, from Congressman Dante B. Fascell in which he enclosed a letter dated Aug. 20, 1973, he received from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs. The third paragraph reads as follows:
"In the case of starter interlock safety belts, they are required, at the time of purchase, in all passenger cars manufactured on or after Aug. 15, 1973. Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards. The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."
It appears that the ruling from the U.S. Department of Transportation is directly contrary to the information conveyed in your story.
This matter is of such importance to all dealers we think it imperative that you retract our statement.
If by chance there is a subsequent ruling from the administrator, then we would be grateful if you would immediately furnish us with the latest release -- Edgar Jones, general manager, Nolan - Brown Motors, Inc., Miami.
Motors safety experts (AMC models were the only ones involved in the story).
As is pointed out in Reader Jones' letter, the law appears to permit a dealer to modify the interlock after the car is sold.
Dealers should keep in mind, however, that it is clearly the intent of the law that nobody tamper with the interlock. AMC people are obviously taking a supercautious stance.
Furthermore, a House bill currently under consideration would ban anyone, including the owner, from tampering with any safety item.