Interpretation ID: 1983-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lansing Auto Glass Co. -- Anthony M. Peterson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to the replacement of vehicle windshields by motor vehicle repair businesses.

As explained in my letter of September 3, 1981, to Mr. Stanley, the agency does not consider fixing a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative of the windshield with respect to Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. That letter did caution that if a repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield, renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A).

You specifically asked whether in replacing a windshield a repair shop must use the same method (e.g., setting the glass with urethane) the original equipment manufacturer used to maintain the integrity of the installation. The agency does not consider the replacement of a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, which establishes windshield retention requirements for new vehicles, regardless of the method used to maintain the integrity of the windshield.

Although section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would not apply to the replacement of a damaged windshield, product liability concerns dictate that a repair shop ensure that the replace- ment windshield is mounted securely. Mounting the windshield with the same method used by the vehicle manufacturer presum- ably would ensure that the replacement windshield had the same integrity as the original windshield installation.

You also asked about the effect of section 108(a)(2)(A) on a repair shop that replaces a windshield for a dealer who will resell the vehicle and a replacement of a windshield for an insurance company for one of its policyholders. Assuming that the repair shop is replacing a damaged windshield, section 108(a)(2)(A) would not apply.

I hope this discussion is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-1834).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Lansing Auto Glass Co.

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Att. Mr. Frank Berndt. Chief Council

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am in receipt of a copy of a letter you addressed to Mr.Robert W. Stanley, then Executive Vice President of the National Glass Dealers Assoc, in Sept. of 1981. It concerned the legal use of repairing damaged windshield with plasticizers or epoxy mixtures covered by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974, Safety Standard No. 205 which established performance requirements for automotive glazing.

My question deals with the replacement of the windshield rather than the repair of it. You state that Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits various concerns, but in our interest more specifically, motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering 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 Standard. You also take me aware that the person repairing a damaged windshield does not render it inoperative as that was done by whatever did the original damage but that should he damage or change something else on the vehicle while make a repair he could violate the act.

I suppose that the methods used by the manufacturer of the automobile in installing the original windshield is covered and established in Safety Standard No. 205. If this is the case I would also suppose that any person who replaces broken windshield by removing the original one from the vehicle and installing a new one in its place would be required to use the same method as the original equipment manafacturer used so as to retain the integrity of the installation and meet the requirements dictated by Standard No. 205. This is to say that if the original glass was set with urethane then the replacement glass must be set with urethane. Is this indeed the case?

If this is so what effect does the law have on the replacement of a windshield for a deal" who will resell the vehicle and on the replacement of a windshield for an an insurance company for one of their individual clients? In the latter case the vehicle may not be resold for several months or even years but the repairs, if not done properly would render the automobile inoperative or better said the windshield inoperative.

I will sincerely appreciate your answer to these questions and any clarification of the law you can extend me.

Anthony M. Peterson.