ID: nht94-6.41

DATE: April 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax/letter dated 2/14/94 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC 9677)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, relating to a policy of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regarding importation of vehicles from Canada.

Under this policy, and because of the close congruence of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards of both the U.S. and Canada, OVSC has, in essence, waived the requirement for bond and entry through the registered importer process if the Canadian vehicle is accompanied by a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. standards, except for minor labelling variations. You state that this policy has been restricted to personally owned vehicles and does not allow "importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use." Instead, these vehicles must be entered under bond and conformance verified or achieved by a registered importer. You state that you do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, as a general matter, a noncomplying vehicle may enter the United States permanently only if it is imported by a registered importer who brings it into compliance. However, an exception is made by 15 U.S.C. 1397(f)(1)(B) which allows importation by a person other than a registered importer if that person has a conformance contract with a registered importer and if the vehicle is imported "for personal use, and not for purposes of resale, by any individual (other than an individual described in subsections (g) and (h)). . . ." The term "individual" refers to a human being and not a corporate person. Therefore, the Act distinguishes both as to whether an importation is for personal use AND whether the importer is an individual or a corporation.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht94-6.42

DATE: April 11, 1994

FROM: David Huff -- Co. Chairperson Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University

TO: Charles Holt -- NHTSA

TITLE: Wheelchair Restraint Standards Clarification

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/14/94: Letter from John Womack to David Huff (Stds. 209 & 222)

TEXT: The Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation, 1995 Standards for Special Needs Bus Body Committee is currently working on appropriate standards for wheelchair and occupant restraint systems. During our research, we have encountered a situation we feel requires clarification by your office.

Wheelchair securement anchorages as defined in FMUSS 222, $ 5.4.1.1 through $ 5.4.1.3 requires that the anchorage(s) withstand certain force. Paragraph $ 5.4.1.3 indicates when more than one securement device share a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 newtons multiplied by the number of securement devices sharing that anchorage. We agree with this requirement.

Wheelchair securement devices as indicated in paragraph $ 5.4.2, if incorporating webbing or strap, shall comply with the requirements of type 1 safety belt systems in $ 4.2, $ 4.3 and $ 4.4(a) of FMUSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

Many of the wheelchair and occupant restraint systems use an Integrated occupant restraint system which is anchored in series with the wheelchair securement device, such that, the lap belt anchors to the wheelchair securement near the wheelchair seat.

Our concern is that the webbing or strap for the wheelchair securement device in the integrated system has not been addressed in the amendments to FMUSS 222. It is our feeling that the wheelchair securement device webbing or strap on the integrated system should be required to withstand twice the normal load indicated in FMUSS 289, since this webbing or strap is actually securing both the rear of the wheelchair and the occupant simultaneously.

Several manufacturer's adjustment hardware is designed in such a manner that the webbing or strap is doubled in order to remove slack from the securement device. However, there are others who use only a single webbing for this purpose.

Please advice us of your understanding or interpretation of the load requirements for the webbing or strap used in the integrated systems. This information is needed as soon as possible so we may continue drafting our proposed standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht94-6.43

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Daniel T. Mason -- Product Development Engineer, Avery Dennison - Automotive Division (Troy, MI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Daniel T. Mason to Barbara Gray (OCC 9807)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of labeling requirements under 49 CFR part 541 Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard. Your letter has been referred to my office for a reply. You asked whether a label that leaves a fluorescent "footprint" of a vehicle identification number (VIN) on a vehicle part, complies with section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) of part 541. The answer is yes.

Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that if a theft program label is removed from a vehicle part, "residual parts of the label" be left in the area of the part where the label was affixed. The residual parts, also known as "footprints," provide investigators evidence that a label was originally present. "Footprint" requirements for theft labels were discussed in the preamble to the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 541 (See 50 FR 43166, at 43174; October 24, 1985):

... this standard requires only that removal of the labels must leave residual parts of the label ... , on the part, and that these residual parts must be discernible by trained investigators. For purposes of this requirement, "discernible" does not mean that residual parts must be visible under natural light. (50 FR 43174).

In your letter, you stated that Avery Dennison's VIN marked labels have a fluorescent agent that transfers onto vehicle parts when the label is applied. If the label is removed, and the formerly labelled area is viewed under an ultraviolet light, a reproduction of the VIN is visible. If the labels, when removed, leave "residual part(s) of the label ... on the part" that is "discernible" under ultraviolet light, the Avery Dennison label would fulfill section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B).

I hope this responds to your question. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.44

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company (Fort Valley, GA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/15/94 from Thomas D. Turner to George Entwistle (OCC 9696); Also attached to letter dated 1/26/83 from Frank Berndt to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to NHTSA's Office of Safety Compliance requesting an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements in Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. This letter confirms your understanding that a reflectorized stop signal arm that fully complies with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 complies with S5.3, regardless of whether a stop signal arm is equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2.

As you are aware, S5.3 conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Section S5.3.1 sets forth requirements addressing reflectorization, and S5.3.2, which references S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2.2 specifies a stop signal arm's flash rate.

You explained that some of the stop signal arms that you install fully comply with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1. However, these stop signal arms are also equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2 because they do not comply with the flash rate requirements in S6.2.2.

As we noted above, compliance with the conspicuity requirements in S5.3 can be established EITHER by complying with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 OR the flashing light requirements in S5.3.2. (emphasis added) Since the stop signal arms in question comply with the reflectorization requirements, they comply with the conspicuity requirements and need not comply with the flashing light requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.45

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Perry McGlothan -- Quality Assurance Test Specialist, Century Products Company (Macedonia, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Perry McGlothan to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9495)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000.

You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and it subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. (*1) S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test.

S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear

to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint.

We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

* 1 We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in the standard.

ID: nht94-6.46

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Derrick Barker -- John Martin Designs (Stourbridge, West Midlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/93 from Derrick Barker to Mary Versilles (Versailles)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the buckle release requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You asked for the "tensile load requirements for the buckle and tongue." There is no specific requirement in Standard 213 for the tensile force that a child restraint buckle must withstand. Instead, the buckle must maintain its integrity when the child restraint is subjected to a simulated frontal impact at 30 mph with either a six-month-old (17 pounds (lbs.)) or three-year-old (33 lbs.) sized dummy restrained in the car seat. At the conclusion of the simulated impact, the force required to depress the latch button to release the buckle is measured and must be 16 lbs. or less.

You also asked for a copy of Procedure D of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D756-78. Section S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 213 sets forth those requirements by making reference to section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209. which, in turn, leads to the reference to Procedure D of ASTM D756-78. The material you requested is enclosed.

In addition, you asked for a list of laboratories that test child safety seats and buckles. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint compliance tests. There may be other laboratories that can test child safety seats and buckles.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have further questions.

LABORATORIES CONDUCTING CHILD RESTRAINT COMPLIANCE TESTS (Partial List - Addresses current as of Dec. 1993)

CALSPAN CORPORATION (CAL) 4455 Genesee St. Buffalo, NY 14225 Phone: 716-632-7500 FAX: 716-631-6843

COMMERCIAL TESTING CO. (CTC) (Flammability testing) 1215 S. Hamilton Street Dalton, GA 30722-0985 Phone: 404-278-3935 FAX: 404-278-3936

DETROIT TESTING LABORATORY, INC (DTL) 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren, Mi 48092-0869 Phone: 313-754-9000 FAX: 313-754-9045

MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION (MGA) 12790 Main Road P.O. Box 71 Akron, NY 14001-0071 Phone: 716-542-5515 FAX: 716-542-4437

MGA PROVING GROUNDS 5000 Warren Road Burlington, WI 53105 Phone: 414-763-2705 FAX: 414-763-0934

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MSE) 19867 Cajon Blvd San Bernadino, CA 92407 Phone: 909-887-1938 FAX: 909-887-5937

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 9920 LaCienega Blvd., Suite 708 Inglewood, CA 90301 Phone: 310-641-3606 FAX: 310-641 -1930

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER OF OHIO (TRC) 10820 State Route 347 P.O. Box B67 East Liberty, OH 43319 Phone: 513-666-2011 FAX: 513-666-5066

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (UST) - (Flammability testing) Engineering Services Division 291 Fairfield Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: 201-575-5252 FAX: 201-575-8271

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: 201-792-2400 FAX: 201-656-0636

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE (UMTRI) 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150 Phone: 313-936-1103

ID: nht94-6.47

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the

requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.48

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Darryl Cobb (Abbeville, GA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/29/93 from Darryl Cobb to Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC 9280)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal regulations would affect the sale of an aftermarket rearview mirror you plan to import into the United States. You stated that this mirror system would be installed on the driver's side of a passenger car. A brochure accompanying your letter indicated that the mirror system contains both a portion that is a flat mirror of unit magnification and a portion along the outer edge that is convex. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA issued performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in Standard No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type.

Please note that since Standard No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under the Safety Act, the mirror is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on

or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced a complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of the render inoperative provision.

The Safety Act does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht94-6.49

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve J. Brooks -- Program Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc. (CA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/93 from Steve J. Brooks to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9443)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the operation and classification of a commercial vehicle you wish to manufacture. The vehicle will carry fewer than 10 passengers and its GVWR will be 11,500 pounds. You were particularly interested in the type of operator's license that would be required of the driver.

Driver licensing requirements for vehicle operators are determined by state law. Since the vehicle's GVWR will be less than 26,000 lbs, and the vehicle will presumably be designed to carry fewer than 15 passengers, the driver will not be required, under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Commercial Driver Licensing (CDL) regulations, 49 CFR part 383, to qualify for a commercial driver license. However, some states require that drivers obtain a commercial driver license to drive vehicles that have lower GVWRs. The driver licensing requirements of the state in which the vehicle is registered, will apply. For more information about the CDL requirements, you can contact the FHWA Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0834.

Vehicle classification is relevant for the regulations and standards of our agency. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each FMVSS for motor vehicles applies to one or more particular types of vehicles, e.g., a standard might apply to passenger cars, buses, trucks, and/or trailers.

To determine which FMVSSs apply to their vehicles, manufacturers classify their vehicles using the definitions in 49 CFR part 571.3 of NHTSA's regulations. Under part 571.3 (copy enclosed), your vehicle, which you said is built in a bus/truck chassis, appears to be a "truck" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." Under part 567, a manufacturer must state the vehicle classification on the vehicle's certification label and certify that its motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA may take issue with a manufacturer's vehicle classification in an enforcement proceeding if the agency does not agree with the manufacturer's classification.

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

ID: nht94-6.5

DATE: May 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/1/93 from Peter Drymalski to John Womack (OCC-8371)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under S114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable components" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re- certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under S567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in S567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label of the type and form specified in S567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or

by phone at (202) 366-2992.