ID: nht95-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Amin Ahmadi

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/15/94 letter from Amin Ahmadi to Office of Rule Making

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ahmadi:

This responds to your letter requesting that the Federal government require all motor vehicles to be equipped with your mirror, which you believe reduces blind spots. You state that part of your mirror is shaped at a straight angle while another part ha s a three to five degree outward variance. As explained below, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), does not believe it should require all vehicles to be equipped with your mirror. Nevertheless, NHTSA does not prohibi t you from marketing your mirror, provided the mirror complies with the Federal standard on rearview mirrors and other safety considerations are met.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a November 29, 1994 telephone conversation between you and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, about your request for the information in your letter be treated as confidential. Mr. Shaw explained that letters requestin g interpretations of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are public information. Nevertheless, he further explained that we would only include a general description of your mirror in our response. Accordingly, we will return your sketche s to you and make only the cover letter publicly available. You agreed that this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111, copy enclosed), to set performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors. FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehic le. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.

Assuming that the straight mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111, vehicle manufacturers could install this new mirror system on their vehicles.

However, even though your mirror may be installed as original equipment, NHTSA does not agree with you that new vehicles should be required to be equipped with a mirror system that has a portion that is at a slight variance. As explained in the enclosed notice about convex mirrors, while a convex mirror reduces blind spots by increasing a driver's field of view, such mirror systems also "increase distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgement about another vehicle's closing distance." Like the mirror referenced in that notice, your mirror has both potential advantages and disadvantages: it would increase the driver's field of view, but it would to some extent increase the potential for confusing the driver, since it combines two diffe rent orientations.

Please note that since FMVSS 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 NHTSA"S enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defe cts. 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 eq uipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make 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 . . ." Based on our understanding of your mirror system, it appears that its install ation would not make inoperative compliance with the standard. Nevertheless, if the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair busi ness that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation o f the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law 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 wh ether that mirror makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 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. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I hope this information is helpful. For your future reference, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 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: 10285

Mr. Amin Ahmadi
800 South Pacific Coast Highway
Redondo Beach, CA 90277

Dear Mr. Ahmadi:

This responds to your letter requesting that the Federal government require all motor vehicles to be equipped with your mirror, which you believe reduces blind spots. You state that part of your mirror is shaped at a straight angle while another part has a three to five degree outward variance. As explained below, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), does not believe it should require all vehicles to be equipped with your mirror. Nevertheless, NHTSA does not prohibit you from marketing your mirror, provided the mirror complies with the Federal standard on rearview mirrors and other safety considerations are met.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a November 29, 1994 telephone conversation between you and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, about your request for the information in your letter be treated as confidential. Mr. Shaw explained that letters requesting interpretations of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are public information. Nevertheless, he further explained that we would only include a general description of your mirror in our response. Accordingly, we will return your sketches to you and make only the cover letter publicly available. You agreed that this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111, copy enclosed), to set performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors. FMVSS 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 FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.

Assuming that the straight mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111, vehicle manufacturers could install this new mirror system on their vehicles.

However, even though your mirror may be installed as original equipment, NHTSA does not agree with you that new vehicles should be required to be equipped with a mirror system that has a portion that is at a slight variance. As explained in the enclosed notice about convex mirrors, while a convex mirror reduces blind spots by increasing a driver's field of view, such mirror systems also "increase distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing distance." Like the mirror referenced in that notice, your mirror has both potential advantages and disadvantages: it would increase the driver's field of view, but it would to some extent increase the potential for confusing the driver, since it combines two different orientations.

Please note that since FMVSS 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 NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements 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 a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make 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 ...." Based on our understanding of your mirror system, it appears that its installation would not make inoperative compliance with the standard. Nevertheless, if the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law 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 makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 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. In addition, individual States are responsible for

regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I hope this information is helpful. For your future reference, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 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.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:#111 d:1/5/95

ID: nht92-2.32

DATE: 11/13/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCEL, NHTSA; UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: Due to some information received by the ministry that there are some companies who were dumping some defected and regected tyres in the area and for the safety of vehicles passengers the Ministry of Commerce & Industry had issued the Ministrial Degree no 3/1982 requiring that all imported vehicles tyres must be brand new and complying with international standards and that every shipment of such tyres must be accompanied by quality certificate issued by independent officially recognize body as an authority which has an ability of testing and prooving the quality of these tyres in accordance with these standards.

Accordingly we have received the certificates of quality from many authorized agencies from different countries and most of these certificates are valid for aperiod of time (One year - two years)

For U.S.A. we have not been able to obtain such certificate and the only certificate we are receiving now from a company named Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) which issued certificate for each shipment separetally and which does only visual test and not actual labrotary testing.

In order to obtain information concerning regulations and standards for motor relicles we have contacted the USA embassy in kuwait who has supplied us with standards NO, 569, 571.109, 571.110, 571.117, 571.119, 571.120, 571.129, 574.1 - 6, 575.1 - 7, 575.101 - 104, which have been issued by your administration.

This responds to your letter concerning United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is considerably different in the United States than in other countries. For example, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. The Safety Act, on the other hand, establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this process, the tire manufacturer, not a governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with applicable safety standards.

The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance without charge.

With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions:

1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the "DOT" mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The "DOT" symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards.

2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the "DOT" mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the "DOT" symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted.

3. Is the "DOT" symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the "DOT" symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States.

4. Is there a validity time for the use of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation.

6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the "DOT" symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the "DOT" symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the "DOT" symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines.

I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.

ID: elliswatts_6838

Mr. John E. Getz
Vice President, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103




Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, are applicable to lift equipped trailers produced by your company. As explained below, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are applicable to lifts and trailers, as you have described.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards were established December 27, 2002. Compliance with FMVSS No. 403 has been required as of April 1, 2005. Compliance with FMVSS No. 404 has been required as of July 1, 2005.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g. , MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have lifts that are used by patients on gurneys and wheelchairs as well as ambulatory patients. You further stated that patients are not transported in the trailers, and that when on location the trailers are essentially "fixed medical suites". You then stated that you believe these lifts would be considered "special purpose lifts," which as discussed in an October 1, 2004 final rule, are not subject to FMVSS No. 403 (69 FR 58843). You further stated that while the lifts installed by your company do not comply with specific requirements of FMVSS No. 403, the lifts as manufactured do provide for safe operation.

In the final rule in which FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established, we stated that individuals that rely on platform lifts should have assurances that lifts are as safe as possible and that these individuals should be protected from the risk associated with using unregulated equipment (67 FR 79418). Providing lift users with such assurances necessitates the uniformity of performance of the regulated lifts. This was in part the purpose for establishing uniform standards applicable to all platform lifts manufactured for installation on motor vehicles and to motor vehicles equipped with such lifts.

The lifts as you described would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Further, a motor vehicle, including a trailer, equipped with a lift as you described would be subject to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 404. In the October 2004 final rule, the agency did state that FMVSS No. 403 would not apply to what some commenters referred to as "special purpose lifts," e.g. , lifts designed specifically to transport gurneys or mobile incubators. We clarified that FMVSS No. 403 is applicable to lifts manufactured to assist individuals that rely on canes, wheelchairs, and other mobility devices (69 FR 58844). The lifts you described are manufactured to transport individuals relying on canes and wheelchairs. Therefore, the lifts would be subject to FMVSS No. 403.

In further support of your assertion that FMVSS No. 403 was not intended to apply to lifts as you described, you noted that the applicability section of FMVSS No. 403 (S3) states that the standard applies to platform lifts that are designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. You stated that because your trailers do not transport people, the individuals that rely on the platform lifts are not passengers. Therefore, you concluded that FMVSS No. 403 does not apply to the lifts manufactured by your company.

The issues associated with safe operation of platform lifts as persons enter and exit a vehicle are not dependent on whether the person is also transported in that vehicle to another location. As stated in S1 of FMVSS No. 403, the standard "specifies requirements for platform lifts used to assist persons with limited mobility in entering or leaving a vehicle". As such, platform lifts installed on trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and those trailers are subject to FMVSS No. 404.

Your letter continued that if FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were applicable to the lifts installed on the trailers manufactured by your company and to the trailers, compliance with several provisions of the standards would conflict with the operation of the trailer as a medical suite. For example, you noted that the audible threshold warning required for public use lifts (S6.1.5 of FMVSS No. 403) could unduly disturb elderly or sedated patients. You also informed Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that the visible threshold warning could prove to be an annoyance.

It is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs. ) must be equipped with a lift that complies with the public lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403. All other vehicles, including trailers, must have a lift that complies with either the public or private use lift requirements. Several of the requirements with which you raised issue, including the audible threshold warning, are specific to public use lifts. The public use lift requirements would not apply to the case addressed here, as your trailers would not be required to be equipped with such lifts.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.11/4/05

ID: 24065.ztv

D.W. Robertson, Captain
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of State Police
491 Southlake Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23236





Dear Captain Robertson:

This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You reported receiving inquiries regarding the legality of brush guards. You further reported that courts in Virginia differ on whether Section 46.2-1002 of the Code of Virginia applies to brush guards, and that "the question they have is, does the brush guards diminish the light output?"

In your view, the brush guard raises three questions. We shall answer each in turn.

"1. Are brush guards on motor vehicles, both front and rear, in compliance with FMVSS 108?"

We would rephrase the question as whether motor vehicles equipped with front and rear brush guards are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. We addressed this issue in a letter of October 27, 1994, to Thomas L. Wright of the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. I enclose a copy for your reference. In brief, paragraph S7.8.5 of FMVSS No. 108 prohibits new motor vehicles from being sold with "any styling ornament or other feature" in front of a headlamp lens; we regard a brush guard as an "other feature" of the type prohibited by S7.8.5. The letter notes that there is no similar direct prohibition in FMVSS No. 108 regarding other vehicle lamps, including front lamps, but that such other lamps must comply with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108 with the brush guards in place. Thus, the installation of front brush guards in front of a lamp other than a headlamp, or rear brush guards, does not per se create a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108.

"2. Do brush guards impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS 108?"

Front brush guards in front of headlamp lenses are prohibited by S7.8.5. As the 1994 letter indicates, other front lamps and rear lamps must comply with photometric requirements with the brush guards in place, and compliance with FMVSS No. 108 would depend on the design and location of the specific brush guard. Compliance also requires that rear lamps meet visibility requirements at certain angles to the right and left of the vehicle.

"3. Are brush guards allowed to be installed on new vehicles by manufacturers?" If not, why?"

A manufacturer must certify that the vehicles it manufactures comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a manufacturer could not certify compliance with FMVSS No. 108 if a vehicle is equipped with brush guards in front of headlamp lenses as prohibited by S7.8.5. The manufacturer could certify compliance with FMVSS No. 108 if brush guards are in front of lamps other than headlamps and if it determines that those lamps meet all applicable photometric and visibility requirements with the brush guards installed.

FMVSS No. 108 is not the only Federal motor vehicle safety standard for which compliance may be affected by installation of front brush guards. I enclose a copy of our letter of July 3, 1997, to Steve Brookmire, discussing the relationship of brush guards to airbag deployment under FMVSS No. 208.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/5/02

ID: nht94-4.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roger W. Cole -- Vice President, Sales, Twin Tire U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/18/94 FROM ROGER W. COLE TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10419)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 18, 1994, received by facsimile transmission, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You asked whether passenger car tires that have the DOT symbol and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings mo lded on the sidewalls may legally be sold in the United States. The short answer is yes, provided that the tires in fact comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. @ 30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as Safety Act), directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equip ment prior to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a) that no person may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification to that effect issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C. @ 30115. The latter section provides in pertinent part that "Certification of equipment may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment . . . ." Thus, any new tire sold by Twin Tire must comply with all applicable FMVSS's, and be certified as doing so.

FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, specifies the minimum standards applicable to new passenger car tires. This standard specifies labeling and performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. If the tires in question fail to comply with Standard No. 109, the manufacturer (or importer of noncomplying tires) must notify the pur chasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

With regard to the situation you present, 49 U.S.C. 30112(b) provides two exceptions to the prohibition of 30112(a) against selling noncomplying equipment, such as tires. The first exception is that the prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that an item of equipment does not comply with applicable FMVSS's. The second exception is for a person who holds a certificate issued by the equipment manufacturer stating that the equipment complies with applicable FMVSS's, provided that the person does not know about the noncompliance. However, if Twin Tire were to sell the tires in question and those tires failed to comply with applicable FMVSS's, it is unlikely that Twin Tire could successfully argue that it qualifies for these exceptions, as a defense to an enforcement action for selling the noncomplying equipment.

You state in your letter that the tire manufacturer "breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premise of US regulations." If the breach concerned the ability of the tires to conform to the requirements of the applicable FMVSS's, Twin Tire would be on notice that there is a reasonable possibility that the tires in question, while labeled with a DOT mark certifying compliance, do not in fact comply. In a situation where a seller has reason to believe the equipment it is selling might not comply with applicable FMVSS's, the seller must ascertain if the certification is bona fide before selling the item.

The following discussion relates to the "DOT" and other markings that you describe on the tires. Paragraph S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 109 provides that:

Each tire shall be labeled with the symbol DOT in the manner specified in Part 574 of this chapter, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (emphasis added).

Similarly, the UTQGS, also applicable only to passenger car tires, found at 49 CFR 575.104 (copy enclosed), provides at 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A):

Except for a tire of a new tire line . . ., each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures specified in paragraph (d) (2) of this section, permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall . . . .

Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

To summarize, the answer to your question is the tires in question can be sold only if they comply with all applicable FMVSSs (including Standard No. 109's labeling and performance requirements) and are so labeled in the prescribed locations with the DOT symbol, the UTQGS grades, and the TIN.

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

ID: 1984-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvia A. Knouse -- Title Clerk, Truck World, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. According to your letter, you are in the business of remanufacturing trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system intact. You stated that a customer purchased two of these reconstructed trailers and then refused to pay for them unless you put maxi-brakes on them. According to your letter, the customer has argued that maxi-brakes are required by Standard No. 121, while you understand that the trailers meet Standard No. 121. In telephone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel, a member of your company's staff indicated that the term "maxi-brakes" was meant to refer to a spring brake, i.e., a mechanically applied parking brake. As discussed below, remanufactured trailers must meet all applicable current safety standards, unless they fall within an exception set forth at 49 CFR 571.7(f). Standard No. 121 is applicable to the vast majority of air-braked trailers and requires such trailers to have a parking brake.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with NHTSA personnel.

49 CFR 571.7(f) reads as follows:

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle,

Thus, each trailer that you have remanufactured is considered new unless each of the following statements is true with respect to the trailer: (1) the trailer running gear assembly was taken from an existing trailer, (2) the identity of that trailer is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number, and (3) you are selling or leasing the trailer to the same person who owned or leased it prior to remanufacture. Assuming that the trailers are considered newly manufactured, they must meet all current safety standards.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 provides that the standard is applicable to trailers equipped with air brake systems, with several very limited exceptions. (You can check that section to see if your trailers come within any of the exceptions. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your convenience.) Assuming that the standard is applicable, section S5.6 requires new air-braked trailers to have a parking brake. The requirement that air-braked trailers have a parking brake has been in effect since January 1, 1975. Manufacturers have met the requirement virtually exclusively by means of spring brakes. If your trailers are considered new under our regulations, they must have a parking brake regardless of whether they had a parking brake when they were originally manufactured.

If the trailers are not considered newly manufactured under 49 CFR 571.7(f), they would not be required to meet current safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does require that businesses such as yours not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any safety standard.

ENC.

TRUCK WORLD, INC.

OCC-1061

August 15, 1984

Fred Berndt Office of Chief Council USDOT (NHTSA) NOA 30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting the legal opinion of your office concerning a current problem that has occured in the operation of our business.

We sell new Marmon tractors, used tractors, and used trailers. In the course of this business we have remanufactured trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system in tact.

These FRP's, as we call them, are then inspected by one of our licensed inspection mechanics and registered with the state of Pennsylvania as reconstructed trailers.

Our problem arises in the fact that a customer purchased two of these FRP trailers and will not pay for them unless we put maxi-brakes on them. He states that under the 121 braking system maxi-brakes are required by Federal law. We have constructed the FRP's with the understanding that they meet FMVSS121.

I have called and discussed this situation with Pat Quigley with the Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in Harrisburg, Pa., John Shaw with the same bureau in Washington, D.C., and Mr. James Clements with the National Highway Traffic System. These gentlemen are of the opinion that I need the assistance of your bureau to resolve this problem.

Any help that you can render in this situation will be greatly appreciated. Time is of the essence, and I would need a reply as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sylvia A. Knouse Title Clerk

ID: ELECBIKEZTV

Mr. Adam Englund
Electric Bicycle Company, LLC
3601 Empire Avenue
Burbank, CA 91505

Dear Mr. Englund:

This responds to an undated letter of yours which we received on October 2, 1995. Initially, you requested interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 108, 116, 119, and 122 as they apply to the "EV Warrior," "an electric/human-powered bicycle" which your company intends to manufacture. Subsequently, on December 12, 1995, you informed Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX that your company (1) had resolved its problems that would have raised questions with respect to Standards Nos. 108 and 119, and (2) only needed answers to its questions concerning Standards Nos. 116 and 122.

The EV Warrior comes within the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of the FMVSSs. Occasionally, the FMVSSs prescribe lesser requirements for a subset of motorcycles with 5 or less horsepower, known as motor driven cycles. Although electric motors are not rated by horsepower, the size of the EV Warrior is consistent with that of a motor driven cycle. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate to consider it as such for purposes of the FMVSS.

The following issues remain:

1. FMVSS No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids.

You stated that the EV Warrior is equipped with a hydraulic disc brake that uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, known as "Shell Naturelle HF-E 15." You further stated that this oil "is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."

Your letter discusses the definitions for "brake fluid" and "hydraulic system mineral oil," argues that your fluid is neither, and concludes that there are no requirements under FMVSS No. 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil used in the EV Warrior's hydraulic brake system.

Although we agree that the synthetic oil does not fall within either of those definitions in FMVSS No. 116, the implication of this fact is not that the use of the synthetic oil is unregulated by the standard. FMVSS No. 116 specifies the types of fluids that may be used in the braking systems of motor vehicles. Section S3, Application, states that FMVSS No. 116 "applies to all fluid for use in hydraulic brake systems of motor vehicles." (emphasis added). Section S5.3 requires each motor vehicle that has a hydraulic brake system to "be equipped with fluid that has been manufactured and packaged in conformity with the requirements of this standard." Since the synthetic oil cannot be manufactured in conformity with the standard, the EV Warrior would not comply with FMVSS No. 116 if its brake system used the oil you have described.

You informed this office that fluid conforming to FMVSS No. 116 may be incompatible with the seals currently specified for use in the EV Warrior's brake system. However, our technical analysis suggests that it might be relatively simple and inexpensive to fabricate seals from materials that are compatible with conforming brake fluids, thus allowing the EV Warrior to be equipped with fluid conforming to FMVSS No. 116 and to comply with S5.3 of the standard.

2. FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems.

You stated that the EV Warrior will have a hydraulic brake system with no master cylinder reservoirs. You contend that because the hydraulic brake system will not have master cylinders, the motorcycle need not have master cylinder reservoirs. You ask whether the EV Warrior therefore will meet FMVSS No. 122. In the alternative, you ask for an interpretation stating that FMVSS No. 122 applies to an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system (in which a reservoir serves no purpose).

FMVSS No. 122 (unlike FMVSS No. 105) does not define a motorcycle hydraulic service brake system, and does not specify design requirements for such. Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 122, specifying requirements for motorcycle hydraulic service brake systems, states that "[e]ach motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2." S5.1.2.1 specifies that each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir and S5.1.2.2 specifies reservoir labeling. S5.1.2.1 may be read as assuming, but not requiring, that a motorcycle hydraulic service brake system will have master cylinders. Therefore, we agree that because your brake system does not have master cylinders, there is no requirement for reservoirs or for reservoir labeling.

Nevertheless, because we understand this brake system can be opened for the purpose of adding or changing the fluid used in it, and because fluid used in the EV Warrior's brake system may be susceptible to contamination, we urge you to inform the purchaser, by a label on the machine or warning in the operator's manual, that care is required when the filler cap is removed.

If you have any further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108#116##119#120#122 d:1/19/96

Your requests for confidentiality, as modified after discussions with this office, were granted on October 27, 1995, by the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law.

ID: 15899.ztv

Mr. Gary Starr
ZAP Electric Bikes
117 Morris Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Starr:

This is in reply to your letters of August 27, 1997, to Secretary Slater and to myself, seeking a determination that the ZAP electric bicycle is not a "motor vehicle." We deferred responding to your letter in order to receive additional information from Dale Kardos, who provided it to us on September 30, 1997. This letter, then, responds to the arguments you raised in your letters of August 27 and September 30.

Your first argument and third arguments, in essence, are that the agency should exclude from regulation the ZAP, which has a maximum speed of 18 miles per hour, because NHTSA does not regulate vehicles with a top speed of less than 20 miles per hour with "abnormal" configurations.

These arguments are based upon the agency's interpretative policy under which motor vehicles with a top speed of 20 miles per hour or less and with an abnormal configuration have been excluded from regulation. Under this policy, as you note, NHTSA has excluded the TWIP electric scooter (letter of October 6, 1993), and the Trans2 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (letter of April 1, 1994), but included a "super golf car" (letter of January 4, 1995). You also say, without identifying the source, that on April 16, 1995, NHTSA said that the policy would apply to on-road golf carts.

You are correct that NHTSA, by interpretation, has excluded "motor vehicles" from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if they had an "abnormal" configuration and if their maximum speed was no greater than 20 miles per hour. However, NHTSA stated in 1996 that it considered the "abnormal" test subjective and arbitrary, and announced its intent to abandon this line of interpretations. In its place, the agency has proposed a regulation that would apply to all four-wheeled motor vehicles with a maximum speed of up to 25 miles per hour, and for faster golf vehicles with a maximum speed between 15 and 25 miles per hour.

As you note, this rulemaking does not cover two-wheeled vehicles. We have reviewed our letter of October 6, 1997, to Peer Enterprises which you cited. This letter concluded that the TWIP electric scooter was not a motor vehicle because it was not intended to be used on the public roads (i.e., in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes). However, the letter further opined that the TWIP would not be a motor vehicle if the interpretative test was applied to it. It had a maximum speed of 9 miles per hour and the scooter could be folded to make it portable. Thus, the agency concluded that "this configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles." The ZAP with a top speed of 18 miles per hour and a configuration similar to that of small motorcycles and mopeds is not "abnormal" under these interpretations. Therefore, the agency cannot apply this interpretation to excuse the ZAP from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We do not believe that the low-speed vehicle rulemaking unfairly discriminates between two and four-wheeled vehicles. NHTSA has always considered bicycles with full time motors to be "motor vehicles," (specifically, a two-wheeled motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less), regardless of their maximum speed, and required their compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor driven cycles. To grant your request would be to deregulate a category of motor vehicle which to all intents and purposes has had no difficulties in complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your second argument is that, if a state does not license a vehicle for on-road use the vehicle should not be considered a "motor vehicle," in accordance with a NHTSA remark of May 17, 1993 (source not cited). Mr. Kardos informs us that 22 states now do not define motorized bicycles as "motor vehicles" and that 21 of these do not require registration of the operator. Similar legislation is said to be pending in New York and six additional states. You also cite NHTSA's exclusion from regulation of mini-bikes as pertinent to your argument, saying that "it must be presumed . . . that this exclusion was based on the fact that many states do not require licenses for mini-bikes and that they travel at speeds less than 20 mph, and not primarily manufactured for highways."

We do not find this argument persuasive. You cited the State of California as one of those that does not consider a motorized bicycle to be a motor vehicle. For whatever purpose California may have decided to exclude motorized bicycles from registration and licensing requirements (perhaps to be used on trails forbidden to motor vehicles), it does not prohibit their use on the public roads. In fact Cal. Veh, Code Sec. 21200 makes motorized bicycles subject to the rules of the road. Most importantly, motorized bicycles must conform to NHTSA's requirements for motor driven cycles (or those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for bicycles).

Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 24016(a)(1) requires a motorized bicycle to

"Comply with the equipment and manufacturing requirements for bicycles adopted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (18 C.F.R. 1512.1, et seq.) or the requirements adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (49 C.F.R. 571.1, et seq.) in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1381, et seq.) for motor driven cycles."

Under the Safety Act's preemption provisions (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)), a state may not establish or continue in effect a state standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Thus, California law is consistent with NHTSA's present line of interpretations that distinguish between bicycles with a power assist, which are not motor vehicles under Federal law but subject to the regulations of the CPSC, and motorized bicycles which are motor vehicles under Federal law and subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although Sec. 24016(a)(1) is expressed in the disjunctive, it cannot be read as affording manufacturers of motorized bicycles the option of meeting either NHTSA or CPSC standards, since this is inconsistent with NHTSA interpretations of Federal law and is therefore preempted by Sec. 30103(b). This state law must be interpreted as following Federal law, and as requiring motorized bicycles (but not bicycles with power assists) to meet Federal standards applicable to motor driven cycles if they are to be used on California roads, even if they are not motor vehicles for purposes of other California laws.

Further, we do not consider mini-bike safety apposite to the question of the safety of motorized bicycles. Mini-bikes are smaller vehicles driven by younger operators. The agency has cogently expressed its concerns, in a letter of February 23, 1971 to Thomas Ferlito:

"One dilemma this agency faced in formulating its decision on mini-bikes was the possibility that prescribing Federal safety standards would lead to an increased use of these vehicles on the public roads. The imposition of safety standards might create a false sense of security in the vehicle operator, encouraging him to drive his mini-bike on the street. Because of their small size and slow speed mini-bikes are inherently unsafe in a traffic environment which includes heavier and faster vehicles and their use on the public roads is to be discouraged under any circumstances.

It is our conclusion that the problem of mini-bike safety is one which can be best met at the local rather than Federal level, through enactment and strict enforcement of laws prohibiting the registration and use of mini-bikes on the public ways, and through adequate parental supervision."

Your fourth argument is that the ZAP is not a motor vehicle because it is not manufactured for use on highways. According to your letter "they are allowed on some public roads but not highways. And the definition clearly says primarily for public streets, roads and highways." We do not agree with this argument either. It would be contrary to the mission of NHTSA to reduce crashes, deaths, and injuries if NHTSA parsed the statutory definition to exclude from regulation those motor vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the "public streets and roads," but which were not allowed on "highways", particularly since the definition of these terms may vary among the states.

There are other aspects of your letter that deserve a reply. You believe that "it is important to note that most prior sales were ZAP kits, that is motor systems, that the user applied to their own bikes and not complete vehicles." Under the agency's kit car interpretations, if the kit supplier provides all parts necessary for the vehicle, and all parts are new, the kit supplier is regarded as the manufacturer of the kit car and required to ensure that, when assembled, it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Similarly, if ZAP is providing the engine to a purchaser of a bicycle at the time of its sale, for later installation by the purchaser, we would regard ZAP as the manufacturer of a motor driven cycle that must meet Federal requirements. However, if ZAP sells the motor alone and not as part of a transaction involving the sale of a new bicycle, there would be no compliance responsibility imposed by Federal law on ZAP.

You have also commented that the CPSC specifies that bicycles have the rear brake control on the right handlebar "yet motor vehicle standards require the front brake control by the left-hand control." You have been misinformed. If a motorcycle has a front brake control, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 "Motorcycle Controls and Displays" requires it to be on the right handlebar (Item 10, Table 1).

Finally, you argue that "if the government requires pedaling, this will clearly be discrimination against the disabled," in contravention of "The American Disability Act." What the government is requiring is that motorized bicycles be provided the same level of safety performance as motor driven cycles. This protects all citizens, regardless of whether they are or are not disabled.

While this letter was being prepared, we also received your letter of November 3, 1997, to Taylor Vinson, titled "Supplemental information for ZAP indicating that ZAP should not be a motor vehicle." We were interested to learn of the requirements of the CPSC for bicycles but we continue to believe that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are more appropriate for bicycles that are motor driven.

We appreciate the offer of Mr. Kardos to provide a ZAP for our inspection, but it will not be required at this time. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson 202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Senator Feinstein

Rep. Lynn Woolsey
(Lauren Kelly)

Dale Kardos

ref:123#VSA
d.11/20/97

ID: nht90-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/19/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LINDA L. CONRAD -- NIVES FORD, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED AUGUST 17, 1989 TO S. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM L. CONRAD, NIVES FORD, INC., ATTACHED; [OCC-3863]

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking what legal obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side a ir bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to rep lace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car.

In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle; (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so; and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, th at is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, begin ning with 1987

model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and a passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies 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 veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory r equirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or 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." In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Fede ral law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor veh icle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle . . . will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags, except a s needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a funct ioning air bag before you resell the car.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that use d vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, y ou may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note tha t every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems in tact and functional.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restorat ion, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars.

While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles ar e designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purc haser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may we ll expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacement of deployed air bags.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.