ID: nht93-1.24

DATE: February 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joanna L. Campfield -- Vice President, Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/18/92 from Joanna L. Campfield to Paul J. Rice (0CC 8033)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an "approval" letter for your method of repairing cracks in windshields. As explained below, this agency does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, this letter does discuss Federal safety requirements in connection with windshield repairs.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1392) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR S 571.205) which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing used in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement glazing for motor vehicles. Neither Standard No. 205 nor any other FMVSS establishes performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Ultra B-0-N-D method, used to repair cracks in broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield prior to the first consumer purchase which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulations (Part 567). As an alterer, the person would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205.

In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In discussing the applicability of section 108 (a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action

by the person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. I note, however, that if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle 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).

In addition, the manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please be aware that the laws of the individual States may be relevant to the repair of motor vehicle glazing. For more information about these laws, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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: nht92-7.42

DATE: April 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/24/92 from Neil Friedkin to Erica Z. Jones (OCC 7027)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the certification of a converted vehicle. You explained that your client leased a 1986 Mercedes and that as part of the lease agreement, Coachbuilders Ltd converted the vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. In a pending lawsuit, your client is alleging that Coachbuilders did not recertify the vehicle after conversion and that the conversion did not conform with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked the agency to explain our regulations about conversion and recertification. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The agency's certification regulation requires the manufacturer of a new vehicle to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture (S567.4 and S567.5). Persons that alter certified vehicles before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale are required to allow the original certification label to remain in place and to add an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered continues to conform to all applicable standards (S567.7).

Once a vehicle is purchased for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement for an alterer to certify the vehicle's compliance with the standards. The Safety Act, in S114, requires manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles to certify the vehicles' compliance, but does not extend this requirement to other persons. The Safety Act further provides, in S108 (b)(1), that the requirement for a vehicle to comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

In this case, we would consider the purchase by the leasing company to be the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. If the modifications were made before that purchase, the modifier would have been required by S567.7 to certify that the altered vehicle continued to conform with the applicable safety standards. If, however, the modifications were made after the leasing company had purchased the vehicle, the modifier would not have been required to make any certification that the modified vehicle continued to conform to all applicable safety standards.

If modifications were made after the leasing company purchased the vehicle, the only provision of Federal law that would apply would be section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides in relevant part 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 vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle complies with those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

In the case of your client's 1986 Mercedes, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition if the car, as modified, complied with those standards that were applicable to 1986 convertible passenger cars.

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

ID: nht76-3.23

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: BRUCE McDONALD

TO: Walter Motor Truck Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1976 providing us your views with respect to defect notification. You appear to have concluded that you were not required to provide either a certification label or an incomplete vehicle document to Advance Mixer, Inc. (AMI) with respect to the 50 mixer trucks in question, but acknowledge the fact that "the label furnished by us was . . . incorrect." You wish to correct the error "by requesting that the customer (AMI) remove the incorrect data plate from the vehicle."

We have reviewed the information supplied with your letter and your argument that Walter acted as a sub-contractor to AMI for the purposes of constructing and assembling a proprietary item. They do not alter our conclusion expressed on June 10, 1976, that Walter, as the certifying manufacturer of a motor vehicle, has the obligation to inform the purchaser of the defect in the vehicle, and to remedy it.

Mixer trucks are vehicles manufactured in two or more stages as that term is employed in 49 CFR Part 568. Their manufacture is begun by an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" (Walter) and completed by a "final-stage manufacturer" (AMI). Certification of the completed vehicle, which is required by @ 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, may be accomplished by either party. If the final stage manufacturer is to certify the completed vehicle, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required by @ 568.4 to furnish an incomplete vehicle document with its incomplete vehicle. No such document need be supplied where the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is the certifying party. Regardless of what you believe to be the "unusual circumstances" surrounding the construction of the 50 trucks, it appears that Walter nevertheless allowed itself to be the certifier of the trucks and supplied the incorrect labels that were affixed to them. Under those circumstances we believe that a court of law would find persuasive our argument that Walter was an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that had assumed "legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act . . . with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . ." within the meaning of @ 568.7(a), or alternatively that, it had failed to provide the incomplete vehicle document required by Part 568.

One of the certifying party's obligations is to notify vehicle owners and remedy the defect upon determination of the existence of a safety-related defect in a motor vehicle. We assume, of course, that AMI will cooperate in providing Walter appropriate weight rating information for the labels and a list of the purchasers of the 50 trucks. To expedite this matter I am providing AMI's Washington counsel with a copy of your letter of June 18 and this response.

As you know, pursuant to Section 109 of the Act a maximum civil penalty of $ 1,000 may be imposed for each violation, and there are 50 trucks involved here. Since the error apparently "resulted from Walter's administrative misinterpretation" and not from an attempt to evade responsibilities, we would be willing to close our file without imposing civil penalties provided Walter conducts a suitable notification campaign. Otherwise we may institute proceedings under Section 152 to compel notice.

We request your further views within 20 days after receipt of this letter. We would be willing to help you initiate the campaign by critiquing a draft notification letter should you wish to submit it with your response.

ID: nht91-3.10

DATE: April 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: DS America, Inc.; Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-90 from Anthony Riani and David Mitchell to To Whom it May Concern (OCC 5841)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "1990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which became effective January 31, 1990. I enclose a copy of the 1966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the 1988 Act are found at section 108 (1397), subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, 1990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees).

The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, 1989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-1980s, Mexican Beetles were imported

for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the 1988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the 1988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Attachment

Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment dated September 1985. (Text omitted)

Attachment

U.S. Department of Transportation

NHTSA

FISCAL YEAR 1991 REGISTERED IMPORTERS OF NON-CONFORMING MOTOR VEHICLES 49 CFR PART 592

The following firms have been approved as Registered Importers of non-conforming motor vehicles under the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 592, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991. Additional applications have been received, and if there are further approvals, this list will be updated. The agency does not endorse or recommend any firm listed herein, and does not guarantee or imply that any work or service performed for any individual customer will necessarily be satisfactory.

REGISTERED IMPORTER ADDRESS TELEPHONE

A. Eastern United States

Bonair USA 500 Hollister Rd. 201-288-5333 Teterboro, NJ 07608

Champagne Imports of 200 West 5th St. 215-361-1304 Pennsylvania Lansdale, PA 19446

ICI International 4490 35th Street 407-839-3663 Orlando, FL 32811

J.K. Motors P.O. Box 178 301-366-6332 Kingsville, MD 21087

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Dr. 516-588-8288 Ronkonkoma, NY 11779

B. Western United States

Europa International 1570 B-2 Pacheco St. 505-984-8888 Santa Fe, NM 87501

G&K Automotive 1061 N. Grove St. 714-632-8100 Conversion Anaheim, CA 92806

Wallace Environmental 2140 Wirtcrest 713-956-7705 Testing Laboratories Houston, TX 77055

(Revised Jan. 18, 1991)

cc: US Customs Service, Washington, DC Environmental Protection Agency Department of the Army, DALO-TSP

ID: 571-208--low risk deployment--Toyota

ID: nht88-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SA FETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the siping of tires. You asked whether "there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires," under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is respond ed to below, to the extent that it concerns regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We note that your letter indicates that you have also discussed this issue with officials of the Federal Highway Administration.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that it s motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

As noted by your letter, the term "siping" should be distinguished from "grooving." You stated that grooving is a "process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release." You stated that siping is "a process of cross c utting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, 1/32" or less, with a fine knife -- either four or five cuts to the inch -- that does not remove rubber."

Section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale, introducting or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States, any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The prohibitions of section 108 (a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. (Section 108(b)(1).)

NHTSA has issued several safety standards for tires. Standard No. 109 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; Standard No. 117 specifies performance and

labeling requirements for retreaded pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; and Standard No. 119 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The siping of new tires (including retreaded tires) is permissible only if that operation does not adversely affect the compliance of the tire with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable. If a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires (including ne w retreaded tires) that have been siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable, the dealer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each tire that did not comply.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in an item of motor vehicle equipment in compli ance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, any persons or businesses within the above categories that perform siping should ensure that the siping does not render inoperative the compliance of tires with applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standards.

You should also be aware that the agency's regulation on regrooved tires (49 CFR Part 569) specifies requirements concerning regrooved tires and regroovable tires which have been siped. See section 569.7(a)(2)(vii) and 569.7(b).

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht94-1.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry R. Lynch -- AT & D Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/93 from Larry R. Lynch to John Womack (OCC-9281)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal safety standards would apply to the "AeroCon System," a new product being developed by your firm. You state that this product is an air deflector/fairing that provides aerodynamic braking. According to you r letter, "By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor." (emphasis in original)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the 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 does not have any specific regulations about air deflectors or fairings. However, since the AeroCon System "utilizes the auxiliary air system," it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the AeroCon System is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor v ehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingl y render inoperative, in whole or in 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. 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). You may w ish to

determine whether the AeroCon System adversely affects compliance with any of the requirements in Standard No. 121.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the AeroCon System would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the r ecall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for no tifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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: nht94-7.45

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry R. Lynch -- AT & D Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/93 from Larry R. Lynch to John Womack (OCC-9281)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal safety standards would apply to the "AeroCon System," a new product being developed by your firm. You state that this product is an air deflector/fairing that provides aerodynamic braking. According to your letter, "By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor." (emphasis in original)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the 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 does not have any specific regulations about air deflectors or fairings. However, since the AeroCon System "utilizes the auxiliary air system," it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the AeroCon System is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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. 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). You may wish to

determine whether the AeroCon System adversely affects compliance with any of the requirements in Standard No. 121.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the AeroCon System would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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: 9281

Mr. Larry R. Lynch
AT & D Corporation
One Pasco Center
San Antonio, FL 33576

Dear Mr. Lynch:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal safety standards would apply to the "AeroCon System," a new product being developed by your firm. You state that this product is an air deflector/fairing that provides aerodynamic braking. According to your letter, "By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor." (emphasis in original)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the 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 does not have any specific regulations about air deflectors or fairings. However, since the AeroCon System "utilizes the auxiliary air system," it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the AeroCon System is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). You may wish to determine whether the AeroCon System adversely affects compliance with any of the requirements in Standard No. 121.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the AeroCon System would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:121 d:3/10/94

ID: 77-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grand Teton Trading Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1977, requesting information concerning the certification requirements for acrylic glazing to be used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you are interested in the separate certification responsibilities of the company that manufactures the acrylic sheets, the company that cuts and shapes the acrylic, and the company that constructs aluminum frames around the acrylic and sells windows to the customized van market.

Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing that is for use in motor vehicles in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) and with section 6 of the ANS Z26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy acrylic sheets, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in the same fashion as your supplier (paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205). Please note, however, that under section 6 of ANS Z26 your company is required to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was cut. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to the certification markings on the acrylic sheets you purchased.

The company that constructs aluminum around the glazing and sells windows to the customized van market would be required to certify its product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

GRAND TETON TRADING CO.

September 12, 1977

Guy Hunter Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

I have been advised by Mr. Bradley Marks of your Colorado office to write you concerning clarifications of the Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205.

We are a company who intends to purchase acrylic sheets from a manufacturer that states his product has been certified to meet the requirements of ANSI-Z26. We intend to cut sections of the acrylic sheets to various shapes that will be used as window inserts. Our customer will construct aluminum frames around the acrylic insert and market the window to the customized van market.

Based upon the situation stated above, I have the following questions:

1. What should I expect from the manufacturer of the acrylic sheets in the area of ANSI-Z26 certification?

2. What is our company required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

3. What is our customer required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

This is a new market area for our company and we would appreciate any information and clarification you can provide.

Robert P. Ducey