ID: 1982-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

TWO VERSIONS OF NHTSA LETTER:

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc. 1730 Walton Road P.O. Box 1102 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

On the top of the switch is the fan symbol specified by Table 1 of the standard and an arrow pointed upward. When the top of the switch is depressed, the heater fan is activated to recirculate cab air without heating it. On the bottom of the switch is a flame symbol and an arrow pointing downward. When the bottom of the switch is depressed, the heater, including the heater fan, is activated. As explained below, use of the flame symbol for the heater does not meet the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of ...any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold - [NO FURTHER TEXT AVAILABLE]

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pt be identified by words or color coding. I will separately discuss the identification required for the two functions of the auxiliary heater toggle switch.

Depressing the top of the switch activates the fan in order to recirculate air without heating it. This function may be characterized either as recirculation of air or as an on-off switch for the fan. Under the latter characterization, the fan symbol should be used since Table 1 specifies that symbol for a heating and/or air conditioning fan. Thus, the identification on the top of the toggle switch meets the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Depressing the bottom of the toggle switch activates both the fan and the heater in order to circulate and heat air. Since neither Table 1 nor Table 2 specify identification for the heating function, it must be in word form. (As explained below, color coding is not appropriate in this instance.) Use of the fan symbol in addition to words identifying the heating function is not necessary, even though the fan operates as part of the heating function, since there is no separate control for the fan. Since the bottom of the toggle switch does not identify the heating function by using words, it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you desire to use the flame symbol for purposes of international harmonization, noting that is the symbol specified by ISO for heat. While Standard No. 101-80 specifies a number of other ISO symbols, it does not specify that symbol. Section S5.2.1(a) of the standard does permit the use of additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity, so long as the words or symbols specified by the standard are used. Thus, you may use the ISO flame symbol if you also identify the bottom of the toggle switch by using words. Since you indicated that you are already producing the vehicles in question, we suggest that you consider simply adding a label with the words "AUX. HEAT" (or other identifying words) adjacent to the bottom of the toggle switch.

In the above-mentioned telephone conversation, you asked whether coloring the bottom of the toggle switch "red" would be considered color coding as that phrase is used in S5.2.2. The answer is no, since the use of any one color by itself does not constitute color coding. We interpret section S5.2.2 (quoted above) to require that color coding must be readily understandable. Although there may be other appropriate uses of color coding, the standard's example of using red and blue to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control is the only one that comes to mind. The use of red for the hot extreme is readily understood only when used in conjunction with blue for the cold extreme.

As you may know, it is the policy of this agency to both promote international harmonization and avoid unnecessary design restrictions. If you wish to produce vehicles using ISO symbols not specified by Standard No. 101-80, you may wish to consider filing a petition for rulemaking on that issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 8, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Frank Berndt

Subject: 49 CFR 571.101-80 Controls and Displays File: S.203.101

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is installing an auxiliary heating system, which is completely independant of the standard heater, in some units of our vehicle line. Please find enclosed a drawing of the control switch that is used to activate the different auxiliary heater functions. The control button, when depressed in the upper mode, operates the fan only for recirculation of in cab air when the control button is depressed in the lower mode, the fan and heater are both activated.

Per FMVSS101-S5.21 (Identification) "Any hand operated control listed in column 1 of table that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol."

Per S5.2.2 "Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed control and any heating and air conditioning system control...."

We believe the control button shown on the attached drawing meets both of the requirements as stated above, since the fan symbol applies to par. S.5.2.1 and the flame symbol applies to par. S.5.2.2.

Our only question relates to the "heat and fan" condition where only the ISO symbol for flame (the auxiliary heater is a flame burner type) is shown. We believe that since this is one multi-function switch, (off, fan on only, fan and heater on) another fan symbol in the lower section would be redundant although the fan must be operating when the flame is on.

Would you please confirm our opinion in this matter.

Respectfully yours,

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer

EGP:smt

Attachment

Eberspacker Auxiliary Heater Toggle Switch

Depress top of toggle switch to activate heater fan only to recirculate in cab air.

Depress bottom of toggle switch to activate both the heater and the heater fan.

ID: 24461redactedogm

[      ]




Dear [        ]:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as they relate to a device being developed by your company. I note first that your letter requests that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accord confidential treatment for certain materials related to your request. As these materials are not needed to respond to your questions and you have agreed to their return, we are enclosing them with this response.

According to your letter, the device, which you describe as the [                           ], would prevent the shift mechanism of a vehicle from being moved out of the "Park" position until the "driver and/or passenger seat belts are fastened." The device would also sound an audible alarm as long as the seat belts are not fastened when the vehicle's shift mechanism is not in the "Park" position. Specifically, you ask if the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA would prohibit sale or use of the [       ] under a number of different conditions:

1. Original Equipment Manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an after-market device at dealerships after the vehicle has been purchased.
2. Original Equipment Manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an option during production.
3. The technology being offered on the Federal Supply Schedule for retrofitting on government vehicles.
4. The [    ] being offered commercially as an after-market device.

The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

Requirements for audible and visual warnings for seat belts are established in S7 of FMVSS 208.  S7.3 specifies that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

On October 27, 1974, President Ford signed into law a bill that prohibited any Federal motor vehicle safety standard from requiring or permitting as a means of compliance any seat belt interlock system. The language in this bill was later codified as 49 U.S.C. 30124. This section states:

A motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using a safety belt interlock designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not using a safety belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the "start" or "on" position.

Given this statutory provision, NHTSA does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an interlock system that prevents a vehicle from being operated if an occupant's seat belt remains unfastened. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing such an interlock or a system that sounds an audible signal outside the 8 second period.

In a letter dated June 7, 2001 to Mr. Bob Archer of Longacre Associates, we indicated that a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8 second period specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 208 and 30124 may do so, but must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. We suggested that such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

It is our position that a device such as your [    ], if installed in addition to, rather than in place of, the warning system required by S7.3, may be offered either as an original equipment option or an aftermarket item if the device is configured such that it is differentiated from the warning system required by NHTSA. Therefore, any audible warning provided by the device should either sound after the required warning or have a different sound.

Your letter asks whether the sale of the [    ], or a similar device, would be permissible under four different scenarios:

1. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] for installation at dealerships after the vehicle has been purchased.
2. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an option on new vehicles and installing the device during production.
3. Installation of the device on vehicles owned by the government.
4. The [    ] being offered commercially as an after-market device.

In the first scenario, where the device would be installed by a new vehicle dealer after the vehicle has been purchased, the [    ] could be incorporated into new vehicles in the manner we describe.  However, installation of the [    ] by the dealer must not negatively impact any required safety system. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in that vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Although this section expressly states that the prohibition does not apply to seat belt interlocks or buzzers (49 U.S.C. 30122(d)), dealers and repair businesses installing the [    ] may not make other required safety equipment inoperative. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

In addition, if installed after sale of the vehicle, the [    ] would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products that have safety defects. Therefore, if the [    ] proved to contain a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of record, presumably the vehicle manufacturer, would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

In the second scenario, where the [    ] is installed in a vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer during production, the manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle, with the [    ] installed, complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the event that the [    ] contained a defect that related to motor vehicle safety or the vehicle did not comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for conducting a recall campaign.

The third scenario, which involves installation of the device on vehicles owned by the Federal government, would not differ from the fourth scenario, where the device is offered for sale to consumers. In both cases, the "make inoperative" provisions would apply if the device is installed by a repair business or dealer but would not apply if the owner performed the installation. In addition, where the [    ] is offered for sale for installation as an aftermarket item, i.e. for installation in a vehicle that has already been sold to an end user, it would be considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products that have safety defects. Therefore, if the [    ] contained a safety defect, the manufacturer of the device would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

Finally, I note that your letter asks what procedures are available for modifying or repealing 49 U.S.C. 30124. NHTSA welcomes the adoption of technology that results in increases in seat belt use. You may contact your elected representatives about this or any other issue relating to our agency.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.9/13/02

ID: 10-005845 Sorrell drn.doc

ID: 10440

Mr. Scott E. Peters
Director, Regulations & Compliance
U.S. Electricar
5355 Skylane Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Dear Mr. Peters:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:110 d:2/13/95

ID: 10464tra

Ms. Lois Castillo
Travel Tray, Inc.
P.O. Box 395
Pleasant Grove, UT 84062

Dear Ms. Castillo:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff, asking about safety regulations for the "Travel Tray," a product you wish to manufacture. The brochure you enclosed with your letter states that the Travel Tray is a plastic tray that is designed to lay across the top of a child's car seat. The tray attaches to the car seat by the use of straps with "velcro" ends. Children would use the tray to "play on with their toys or to eat on."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.213.) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seats," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if the Travel Tray were marketed as part of a car seat, the car seat would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard, with the tray attached.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. Your tray is incapable of restraining a test dummy in a crash. Since the tray is unable to restrain the dummy, a car seat with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a car seat could not sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child seats, the tray would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard applies to new child restraint systems, or car seats, that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not be designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

While no FMVSS applies to the Travel Tray, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative ... any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of car seat owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in the categories listed in section 30122, that would constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of section 30122.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:1/9/95

ID: 86-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ron Marion

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, L. P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your May 21, 1986 letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as it applies to safety belts on large school buses. You asked first whether it is acceptable to install two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat. Your second question asked whether such a seat would be designated as a two- or three-passenger seat.

In response to your first question, Standard No. 222 currently does not prohibit you from providing two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat. This is because NHTSA does not require or set specifications for safety belts installed for passengers on large school buses, but for the requirement that the installation method not interfere with vehicles' compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency is currently considering an amendment to Standard No. 222 which would affect the voluntary installation of safety belts on 39-inch bench seats. If we adopt changes to the standard proposed in a notice published on October 10, 1985, safety belts voluntarily installed on large school buses must meet requirements similar to those established for safety belts on small school buses. Under the proposed requirements, manufacturers voluntarily installing safety belts would have to install three safety belts on a 39-inch seat. We are currently evaluating comments received on the proposal, and final action is anticipated in the near future.

In response to your second question, since your current option to install voluntarily two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat does not affect your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to manufacture school buses which comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, the 39-inch bench seat to which you refer must be designated as a 3-passenger seat under S4.1 of the standard. You as a manufacturer must ensure that the seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on calculations of three seating positions and the requisite force applications. While your bench seat might be occupied by fewer persons due to the safety belts, that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number.

We note further that since under S4.1 a 39-inch bench seat is considered to have three designated seating positions, manufacturers must not provide more than three safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat or otherwise imply that the seat is capable of carrying more than three passengers.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 21, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

Thomas Built Buses, L.P. would like to request an interpretation of a situation which has surfaced, regarding seat belts installed on larger school buses. (GVVWR over 10,000 pounds)

As required by FMVSS-222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, section 4.1, Thomas considers our 39 inch bench seat a three (3) passenger seat.

We have been asked by a school district, to place these 39 inch seats in a larger school bus, and install two seat belts per seat.

My questions are:

1) Is this acceptable? 2) What would be the passenger capacity of this seat?

Typically Thomas lists the passenger capacity on the data plate which is installed in the vehicle, therefore it is necessary that we know how we should view such a situation.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Thomas Built Buses, L.P.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jw

ID: 8033

Ms. Joanna L. Campfield
Vice President
Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc.
11151 Pierce Street
Riverside, CA 92505

Dear Ms. Campfield:

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. 1392) 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 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-O-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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d.2/1/93

ID: 1984-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McGraw-Edison Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering McGraw-Edison Company 18448 Craig Road St. Louis, Missouri 63146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. You asked whether paper labels on brake fluid containers are sufficient to comply with the "indelibly marked" requirements of the standard. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, I would note that NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine that its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 states:

Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . .

It is our opinion that this section requires the relevant information to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. This is clear both from the plain language of the section and from the Federal Register notices proposing and adopting that language.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 30, 1970, NHTSA proposed the following language as part of the packaging and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids:

S4.2.2.2 Each packager of brake fluid shall furnish to each distributor or dealer to whom he sells brake fluid, the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, or on a label or tag firmly attached to each such container. . . . 35 FR 15229, 15231.

The final rule, published on June 24, 1971, did not adopt the proposed alternative of permitting the information to be provided on a label or tag firmly attached to the container, but instead required the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. The language as adopted, which is very similar to the current language, was:

S5.2.2.2 Each packager of motor vehicle brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . . 36 FR 11987, 11989.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 5, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you with regard to paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 which reads in part as follows:

"Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, . . . . "

I have observed a number of brands of brake fluids in the marketplace packaged in containers having a loose-fitting paper sleeve for the label. In the past we have been requested to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels and have declined to do so on the basis that in my judgment a paper label does not comply with the requirement "indelibly marked".

Within the past few weeks we have been approached once again to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels. We are reluctant to pursue this matter unless we have some assurance that a paper label does, indeed, comply with the "indelibly marked" provision of paragraph S5.2.2.2 FMVSS-116.

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER DIVISION McGRAW-EDISON COMPANY

R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering RGB:ab

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: nht74-2.43

DATE: 05/24/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dorsey Trailers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 3, 1974, question concerning the certification responsibility of a manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You ask if the substitution of parts not specified by an axle manufacturer will affect certification if the parts are nearly identical in their specifications and performance to the recommended parts.

In the case of substitution of parts, you must simply satisfy yourself that your vehicles are capable of meeting the requirements of the standard in a test by the NHTSA. If you are satisfied that the supplier's recommended package will meet the requirements, and you determine that a substitution would not adversely affect the vehicle's performance to the point where it no longer would meet the requirements, you are free to make the substitution. It would be advisable to make some record of your calculations of the effect of such substitutions.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 3, 1974

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Dorsey Trailers, Inc. has selected Wagner Electric Corporation and The Berg Manufacturing Company to supply the air actuation and anti-skid equipment for all trailers manufactured by this company. Other companies have been reviewed as suppliers on special customer request but our Engineering and Production techniques are only developed for the above two suppliers at this time. Both of the suppliers have assured us of adequate inventory of the required material to start shipping trailers by September 1, 1974 with the F.M.V.S.S. 121 specifications.

The two major axle suppliers which we use, Kershaw Axle Division of C. & M. Spring Company and Standard Forg and Axle Company, have both promised axles with brakes to meet the 121 specifications by September 1, 1974.

The problem that concerns us is the dynamometer brake rating. We have just been given a new interpretation of the requirements for the dynamometer rating, stating that if any portion of the combinations of components such as air chambers, slack adjusters, brake drums, etc. is changed from the exact specified part number and brand name used in certifying an axle with a given brake lining, the certification is voided and not acceptable. If this is true, then there does not seem to be enough dynamometer time available to meet a deadline even by January 1, 1975 for all combinations of parts available to the trailer industry.

As a smaller manufacturer of trailers we do not enjoy the luxury of telling our customers that certain parts are our standard materials and we won't furnish other components. Our customers usually have their own part specifications to simplify their maintenance.

If we had an axle certified with B-W slack adjusters, 6" long and B-W type 30 spring brake chambers, but our customer specified his axles must have Berg 6" slack adjusters and Berg Type 30 spring brake chambers, would this affect the certified axle? The substitution would be of equal parts and performance but different brand names.

Another example would be an axle certified with a Webb #66518 drum weighing 96 pounds and the customer specifying a Webb #67518 drum which weighs 106 pounds. The addition of the 10 pounds of weight would increase the fade-away characteristics by better heat dissipation but would this change require another dynamometer test?

Some customers specify cast brake shoes while others prefer fabricated brake shoes. With all other components being the same, would the change in brake shoes require a new certification?

If our suppliers meet their commitments, we could offer certain of our options to meet "121" specs on September 1, 1974. To certify all of the options that we are required to furnish, there could possibly not be enough dynamometer time available by January 1, 1975. Please give us an interpretation on varying the components and how this would effect the certifications.

Due to material shortages, the privilege of switching suppliers of certain assemblies is almost prohibitive since allocation of material is very common. This problem will only multiply the above problem of dynamometer testing time. If your regular supplier does not have his own dynamometer, it will be very difficult to secure time on an independent test machine and impossible to get the service of your competitors' equipment.

Yours very truly,

DORSEY TRAILERS; Roy C. Belcer - Vice President -- Manufacturing and Engineering

CC: G. L. Collier