ID: nht72-4.6

DATE: 03/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you asked to be referred to the information on which we based our statement in the notice of February 24, 1972, that systems meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 are available using current seat belt technology.

Research data on the capabilities of seat belts are found in several places in the public docket, notably in the progress reports from our Safety Systems Laboratory and from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (69-7 General Reference Nos. 74, 75, 83, 96, 102, 117, 120 and 135). There are records of vehicle tests in which current lap and shoulder belt systems have met the injury criteria (see, e.g. N<13>-69-7-20; N<13>-69-7-37). Also, the record contains information on energy absorbing webbing and anchorages, both of which are improvements within the current state of the art (see, for example, the 6th progress report from Cornell, runs no. 625-630, 69-7 General Reference No. 135; the data from Toyota in N<13>-69-7-23; and the Takata Koyjo data in N<16>-16-69-7-1).

Although the behavior of the head seems to be a greater problem for belt systems than the behavior of the chest, due in part to the effects of rebound, we have proposed changes in the head injury criterion that should ease the problem considerably.

ID: aiam0892

Dear Mr. Dandy: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972, concerning th application of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 to an upper torso anchorage bolt used to attach a seat belt assembly that has a continuous length of webbing for upper torso and pelvic restraint.; Our letter of July 20, 1972, to Standard Triumph, to which you refer did not rule directly on the question of whether a bolt on the upper torso side of a continuous loop assembly would be considered to secure the pelvic restraint' within the meaning of S4.3(c). It is our opinion that some part of the pelvic force is transmitted to such a bolt and that it is therefore required to conform to S4.3(c). Because the bolt cannot be used for more than one assembly, the applicable force requirement is 5,000 pounds.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K. Shimamura -- (Shiramura) -- Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mazda (North America), Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Dear Mr. Shiramura: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You described a proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display and asked whether controls mounted on such a unit must be illuminated. As discusse d below, the answer to your question is no.

By war of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turing to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standard. The following represent our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 55.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states that "(e)xcept for foot-operated control; or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or 55.2.2 of any con trol . . . shall be illuminated . . . ."

The primary issue raises by your letter is whether the controls mounted on your proposed steering column/dashboard display come within section @5.3.1's exception for controls mounted upon the steering column and therefore need not be illuminated. You des cribed your proposed design as follows:

". . . In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays ( such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base on the upper section and on top of thy lower column. . . ."

A drawing enclosed with a subsequent letter indicates that the upper section described above is mounted by brackets onto the energy absorbing shaft, below the steering wheel and above the pivot used to adjust the steering wheel.

Thus, as the steering wheel is adjusted, the upper section is also adjusted, maintaining the same relative position to the steering wheel.

You suggest that the proposed integrated unit can be considered to be a "steering column," citing the definition of that term used in Standard No. 204. We note that Standard No. 204's definition of steering column' does not apply to Standard No. 101. Mor eover, the upper section itself need not be considered a steering column in order to come within Standard No. 101's exception. In a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1971, NHTSA stated the following about similar language in an earlier version of Standard No. 10".

Ford has asked whether steering-wheel mounted controls are exempt from illumination requirements. Since the steering wheel itself is mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls ext ends to those mounted on the steering wheel as well. 36 ER 8297, May 4, 1971. Since the upper section in your proposed design is, at the least, mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the upper section as well. Therefore, cont rols mounted on the upper section need not be illuminated. We note that it is unnecessary for us to reach a determination of whether the upper section can be considered to be a steering column for purposes of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20550

Re: Request for Interpretation-Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Sections 571.100 and 571.101; Controls and Displays Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America), Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration consider an interpretive question relating to the above captioned Safety Standard. Although Mazda is aw are that the agency is not authorized to pass on the conformity of and specific product design prior to introduction of that product into the marketplace. the comments of you and your staff have in the past been extremely helpful in better understanding the requirements of the various safety Standards. It is this assistance that is again requested.

The question Mazda submits relates to the provisions of FMVSS 100/101, S5.3.1. Illumination. This section states, "(except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor. Floor console, or steering column, or in the windshiel d area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or @5.2.2. or any control...shall be illuminated..."

Mazda has conceived a proposed steering column design that incorporates several unique features. In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays (such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base of the upper section and on top of the lower column trim panel. These controls will not be illuminated. 49 CFR Part 571.204, Steering Control Reward Displacement explains in @1. that a "steering column" is a "struc tural housing that surrounds a steering shaft (a component that transmits steering torque from the steering wheel to the steering gear.) Mazda's question, therefore is twofold. Does the proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display constitute a s teering column and, based on the answer to the first question, must controls mounted on this unit be illuminated?

We have considered this question internally and have tentatively concluded that the proposed integrated unit can be defined as a steering column applying the criteria of FMVSS 204. To our knowledge, FMVSS 204 provide; the only official definition of stee ring column provided through the public record. Insofar as this term is specified in FMVSS 100/101. it would seen reasonable to apply this definition. By so doing, it is apparent that the integrated steering column molding is a "structural" housing in th at it provides for the location,

June 17, 1987

Mr. Edward Glancy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC. 20590

Re: Supplemental Information - Request for Interpretation Regarding FMVSS 100/101, Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Glancy:

Please find attached a rendering of Mazda's new steering column design which is the subject our April 8, 1987 request for interpretation. The illustration depicts the relevant assemblies and corresponding mounting locations that you indicated would be he lpful in your deliberations.

We trust this information will be useful. However; if you should have any other further questions related to the structure and configuration of our new system or on any other topic applicable to this question, please do not hesitate to contact me at this letterhead or telephone the number above.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Steve L. Underwood Assistant Manager Safety Engineering

ID: 1985-02.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/85

FROM: JOFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HAYLEY ALEXANDER -- MARKETING CONSULTANT THE LONDONCOACH CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 11/16/88 FROM TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBES TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; REF 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION; OCC 2857

TEXT: Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1985, asking for our comments on your planned London Taxi marketing program.

Under the program, products of Carbodies Ltd. of Coventry, England, would be imported "devoid of an engine, transmission, and finished interior." LondonCoach would then install "an [American] engine, transmission and driveshaft, interior seats, coverings and details, and various exterior cosmetic trim items." However, a "representative" vehicle with the modifications mentioned above will have undergone all testing necessitated by the standards, at the Motor Industry Research Association in England. Vehicles would be certified by Carbodies as meeting the standards prior to importation, and LondonCoach Co., Inc., in the role of alterer, would attach the label attesting to continued compliance required by 49 CFR Section 567.7 upon completion of the modifications.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, certification of compliance of a motor vehicle can only be provided by the manufacturer or importer of a completed motor vehicle. Certification of compliance with at least four Federal motor vehicle safety standards is directly dependent upon the manner in which the Carbodies vehicles are completed by LondonCoach: Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems; Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Therefore, LondonCoach is the only party who can certify compliance of the completed vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As the manufacturer, LondonCoach is also responsible for assigning and affixing the vehicle identification number (VIN) to each vehicle, according to the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number -- Basic Requirements, and 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number -- Content Requirements.

The Carbodies products are an assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and should be labeled as equipment items for importation into the United States. Carbodies should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard

complies with such standard. Those items are brake hoses, now pneumatic tires, brake fluid, surface glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This certification should free LondonCoach, as the importer, from the obligation under 19 CFR 12.80 to post a compliance bond upon entry into the United States.

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-2.24

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Severy, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. James J. Schultz Severy, Incorporated 2233 El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, California 90245

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether a 4-wheel drive pickup truck must comply with Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. You also ask whether the definitions of vehicle classifications under Federal regulations are mutually exclusive.

The application section of Safety Standard No. 216, section 3, specifies that the standard applies to passenger cars. This means that the standard applies only to passenger cars. Therefore, the standard does not apply to a pickup truck.

The definitions of the basic vehicle classifications found in 49 CFR Part 571.3 are mutually exclusive. If a vehicle falls within the definition of a "truck," the vehicle is not also within the definition of a "passenger car." The definition of a passenger car does not specifically exclude trucks because the definition is based on the function of the vehicle. Thus, a passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying persons. A truck, on the other hand, is defined as a vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Since a pickup is designed primarily for carrying property and not persons, it is a truck and not a passenger car. Each motor vehicle has a certification label attached to its door which specifies the vehicle's classification.

I hope this has clarified any questions you had concerning vehicle classification under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 15, 1981

Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 ATTENTlON: MR. OATES

Gentlemen:

We have been retained in numerous instances in litigation which involve the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular their application. The issues usually involve the definitions of various vehicle types ad to what category a given vehicle belongs. Currently we are working on a case that involves a 4-wheel drive pickup truck with bucket seats. The allegations being made are that this vehicle must conform with FMVSS 216 since the definition of passenger car does not exclude this type of pickup. In order to satisfy that question and others, please send me a letter of interpretation that is specific for this instance and also general to cover other such questions. These questions are:

(1) Does federal law require a 4-wheel drive pickup with either bucket seats or a bench seat to conform to FMVSS 216?

(2) Are the definitions of vehicles in the act mutually exclusive and if so, how does one determine which category applies to any given vehicle.

Please have the letter of interpretation made official and certified.

Very truly yours,

James J. Schultz

JJS:ln

ID: nht75-2.26

DATE: 11/10/75

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

TO: DPD Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1975, requesting information concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to automatic cruise control devices.

As you were advised by telephone, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, does not preclude the use of cruise control units. While Standard No. 124 requires that the accelerator control device return to "idle" when the operator removes his foot from the accelerator or when the system itself fails, the term "idle position" is defined in S4.1 of the standard to include the position set by a throttle setting device. The rationale for not regulating automatic speed control devices is found in the preamble to the standard, issued on April 8, 1972 (37 FR 7097), which states:

The rule does not contain requirements for automatic speed control devices. It was found that although nine recall campaigns involving 61,176 vehicles have concerned these devices, no relationship to accelerator overspeed accidents could be established from automatic speed controls. Of the 540 multi-disciplinary accident reports that were studied in formulating the final rule, none mentioned the automatic system.

There are no other Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are concerned with the use of automatic cruise control devices.

I trust this information will be useful to you. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 124 for your future reference.

YOURS TRULY,

September 22, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

Enclosed is a copy of our request to you for automatic cruise control safety standards.

Your telcon to us revealed that there were no safety standards applicable to cruise control. However, we need this information, in writing, to provide to our customers s required.

Thank you for an early reply.

DPD MFG. CO., INC.

O. D. Hunter Director of Training and Publications

May 21, 1975

U.S. Department of Transporation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

We are embarked on a project to manufacture automobile, automatic cruise control devices. Accordingly, please forward appropriate safety standards for our guidance.

Thank you for an early reply.

DPD MFG. CO., INC.

O. D. Hunter Director of Training and Publications

ID: nht92-8.50

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Russell J. Eisert

COPYEE: American International Conversions

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/25/91 from Russell J. Eisert to Steve Kratze (OCC 6617)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 25, 1991, requesting a waiver from the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards so that you can purchase a new vehicle that has been modified to allow you to operate the vehicle from your wheelchair.

The safety requirements for new light trucks and vans were upgraded as of September 1, 1991. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, this agency granted that petition. You should understand that the granting of a petition for rulemaking signifies that the agency believes a further review of the issues raised in the petition appears to have merit, but it is not a determination that the light truck and van crash test requirement should be amended. Any determination to amend the crash test requirement would be made in the course of a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. By addressing the issue comprehensively, in response to this petition for rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to each of the individual requests, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, we are aware that you and others need more immediate relief than rulemaking can offer. To afford more immediate relief, we announced in a January 21, 1992 letter to Representative Porter Goss that this agency will not conduct any crash testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending.

We have also notified the van converter mentioned in your letter of rulemaking action is pending.

With regard to your request for a waiver to have the rear seats in the van you will purchase moved rearward of the side door, the agency is not aware of any reason that would prevent a van converter from making this modification in such a way that the rear seats would continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after they were moved. There is, therefore, no need for us to grant such a waiver.

If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 3006yy

James E. Rooks, Jr., Esq.
Staff Attorney
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
1050 31st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007-4499

Dear Mr. Rooks:

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1991 concerning the applicability of various motor vehicle safety standards to the repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle windshields. You enclosed a copy of the "Legal Advisory" column from the November 1986 issue of Glass magazine. That column stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") advised the National Glass Association that "federal windshield safety standards are not applicable to replacement windshield installations once vehicles have left their new car dealers' lots." The column went on to state that "no kind or amount of work on a damaged windshield renders it inoperable in violation of federal law."

Your letter asked whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to two Federal motor vehicle safety standards: Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. In a subsequent telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office, you asked the agency also to address the applicability of these principles to Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Act"), 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, introduce into interstate commerce or import any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), that prohibition does not apply "after the first purchase of [the vehicle or equipment] in good faith for purposes other than resale." On the other hand, section 108(a)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

With respect to Standards 212 and 216, which impose requirements applicable to completed motor vehicles, a manufacturer is not required to assure that the vehicles it manufactures remain in compliance after they have been sold for purposes other than resale. Moreover, a repair business that replaced a windshield that was previously damaged could not violate the "render inoperative" provision of the Act, regardless of what sealant was used. As NHTSA stated in a September 3, l98l letter to the National Glass Dealers Association, even if it were somehow determined that the repaired vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 212 or No. 216, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Act. This is because the object or event that damaged the windshield in the first place had already rendered the windshield "inoperative" with respect to these standards. See also an October 5, 1983 letter to Anthony M. Peterson of Lansing Auto Glass Company. However, if for some reason a repair business were to replace a windshield that was not previously damaged, it could be held liable under section 108(a)(2) if it knew that its action caused the vehicle to no longer comply with either standard.

I would also like to deal with a relatively unlikely scenario. If a windshield needs to be repaired or replaced prior to the first sale to a consumer (e.g., due to breakage while en route from the manufacturer's factory to the dealer's showroom), the seller is required by section 108(a)(1)(A) to assure that the vehicle is brought into compliance with all applicable standards.

The situation is somewhat different with respect to Standard No. 205, which establishes, inter alia, strength and light transmittance performance requirements that must be met by glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Not only must the glazing in new vehicles meet this standard, replacement glass must also comply. Thus, any person who installs motor vehicle glazing that is not certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 205 would violate section 108(a)(1)(A), regardless of whether the vehicle is new. This would be because the installer would be selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (i.e., the glazing) that did not comply with an applicable safety standard. We have stated this interpretation in previous letters (most recently in our letter of March 14, 1991 to Loren Thompson).

Finally, you asked in your letter "whether these positions have yet been tested in court." We are not aware of any litigation in which any of the interpretation letters cited above have been considered. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/Ref:205, 212, 216, VSA d:5/29/9l

ID: nht91-4.8

DATE: May 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James E. Rooks, Jr. -- Staff Attorney, Association of Trial Lawyers of America

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-27-91 from James E. Rooks, Jr. to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5876)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1991 concerning the applicability of various motor vehicle safety standards to the repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle windshields. You enclosed a copy of the "Legal Advisory" column from the November 1986 issue of Glass magazine. That column stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") advised the National Glass Association that "federal windshield safety standards are not applicable to replacement windshield installations once vehicles have left their new car dealers' lots." The column went on to state that "no kind or amount of work on a damaged windshield renders it inoperable in violation of federal law."

Your letter asked whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to two Federal motor vehicle safety standards: Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. In a subsequent telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office, you asked the agency also to address the applicability of these principles to Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Act"), 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, introduce into interstate commerce or import any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), that prohibition does not apply "after the first purchase of (the vehicle or equipment) in good faith for purposes other than resale." On the other hand, section 108(a)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . . "

With respect to Standards 212 and 216, which impose requirements applicable to completed motor vehicles, a manufacturer is not required to assure that the vehicles it manufactures remain in compliance after they have been sold for purposes other than resale. Moreover, a repair business that replaced a windshield that was previously damaged could not violate the "render inoperative" provision of the Act, regardless of what sealant was used. As NHTSA stated in a September 3, 1981 letter to the National Glass Dealers Association, even if it were somehow determined that the repaired vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of Standard No.

212 or No. 216, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Act. This is because the object or event that damaged the windshield in the first place had already rendered the windshield "inoperative" with respect to these standards. See also an October 5, 1983 letter to Anthony M. Peterson of Lansing Auto Glass Company. However, if for some reason a repair business were to replace a windshield that was not previously damaged, it could be held liable under section 108(a)(2) if it knew that its action caused the vehicle to no longer comply with either standard.

I would also like to deal with a relatively unlikely scenario. If a windshield needs to be repaired or replaced prior to the first sale to a consumer (e.g., due to breakage while en route from the manufacturer's factory to the dealer's showroom), the seller is required by section 108(a)(1)(A) to assure that the vehicle is brought into compliance with all applicable standards.

The situation is somewhat different with respect to Standard No. 205, which establishes, inter alia, strength and light transmittance performance requirements that must be met by glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Not only must the glazing in new vehicles meet this standard, replacement glass must also comply. Thus, any person who installs motor vehicle glazing that is not certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 205 would violate section 108(a)(1)(A), regardless of whether the vehicle is new. This would be because the installer would be selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (i.e the glazing) that did not comply with an applicable safety standard. We have stated this interpretation in previous letters (most recently in our letter of March 14, 1991 to Loren Thompson).

Finally, you asked in your letter "whether these positions have yet been tested in court." We are not aware of any litigation in which any of the interpretation letters cited above have been considered.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 366-2992.

ID: 09-002608 403&404