ID: 86-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry Alexander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry Alexander Senior Product Manager Consumer Products Division Tuck Industries, Inc. Lefevre Lane New Rochelle, NY 10801

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of October 1, 1985 asking whether any of your pressure sensitive tapes packaged for the automotive aftermarket are subject to any regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have been asked by one of your customers to certify that your tape meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

You provide four types of tapes: lens repair tape (for temporary use until a broken lens is replaced), hose repair tape (for temporary repair of leaks in water hoses), clear patch tape (for repair of upholstery), and carpet tape (used to hold carpets in place). This agency has jurisdiction over items of motor vehicle equipment, which are defined in part as:

"any system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle...."

Your tape could be regarded as an "addition" to a motor vehicle but even assuming that it is an item of motor vehicle equipment, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would apply to it. Therefore, no manufacturer certification is required, and you may so inform your customer. Further, any such certification could be viewed as a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by being certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, stating compliance with standards which are, in fact, non-existent.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 1, 1985

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are a large manufacturer of pressure Sensitive Tapes, some of which are packaged for the Retail Automotive After-market.

One of our Retail Automotive customers has asked us to certify that our tape sold in this market meets all applicable standards and regulations of the Traffic Safety Administration. These products are:

1. Lens Repair Tape - A plastic transparent tape used to repair plastic lenses on broken directional signals as a temporary measure, until they are replaced. Available in amber and red.

2. Hose Repair Tape - A special duct tape used in emergency to temporarily stop a leak in a water hose until it can be repaired.

3. Clear Patch Tape - A clear polyethylene plastic tape us for interior patching of upholstery.

4. Carpet Tape - A double coated plastic tape used to hold carpets in place or keep the edges down.

Please advise if there are any rules or regulations affecting these products sold to the consumer through Retail Outlets, and please forward a copy of such regulations if they apply.

Very truly yours,

TUCK INDUSTRIES, INC.

Larry Alexander Senior Product Mgr. Consumer Products Div.

LA:jas cc: John Iodice Ted Levine

ID: 86-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Miller -- Sales Manager, Arizona Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Sales Manager Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. 4001 South 34th Street P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, Arizona 85036

This responds to your February 27, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking us to clarify Federal requirements applying to the sale of school buses. You first asked whether a dealership that sells 15-passenger vans to a private school violates Federal law if the vans do not comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. the answer to your question is yes. As we explained in our previous letter to you dated June 24, 1985, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under Federal law, a "bus" is a vehicle designed to carry children to and from school or school-related events. We require persons selling new buses to ensure that those vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold for purposes that include carrying school children. A person who sells a new bus for pupil transportation purposes would be subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act if the bus does not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Your second question asked whether the lease between the dealership and the school could be dissolved since the sale involved noncomplying buses. While we have no regulations which void or "dissolve" sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased or modified to meet Federal school bus safety standards. In addition, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law. Your final question asked about an October 15, 1982 memorandum from Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division regarding Arizona's school bus definition to buses used to carry school children to school-related activities. You believed that this interpretation conflicted with Federal law and asked for clarification of the matter. It is important to separate NHTSA's regulations for school buses from state school bus regulations. State regulations apply to the use of motor vehicles. Your state's definition of a "school bus" is thus relevant for determining the state requirements applicable to school bus use. The consequence of Arizona determining that activity buses could not be considered "school buses" under state law was to exclude those vehicles from its vehicle use laws for school buses. On the other hand, as explained above, Federal regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Our "school bus" definition is relevant for determining manufacturers' compliance with certifying their vehicles to the school bus safety standards and sellers' compliance with Federal requirements to sell complying school buses. Since our "school bus" definition includes buses sold to transport school children to school-related events, persons who sell new vehicles designed to carry 10 or more passengers to persons intending to use the buses for that purpose must sell complying school buses. Whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations does not affect the responsibility of manufacturers and sellers to comply with Federal law. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert P. Horbatt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert P. Horbatt President Semperit Tire Company 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Horbatt:

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in which you stated your interpretation of the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S575.104: "UTQGS"). You stated that your company is introducing a new all-season tire to the United States market, and that you would like to import the first six months' production without the UTQGS grades molded onto the sidewall of the tires, but with paper labels showing those grades. This course of action is expressly permitted by the UTQGS.

First, the UTQGS is applicable to all-season tires. Section 575.104(c)(1) specifies that the UTQGS does not apply to "winter-type snow tires." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has explained that winter-type snow tires refers only to tires with a deep tread rubber and tread design which are inadvisable for year-round use on passenger automobiles. Since all-season tires are not "winter-type snow tires," they are subject to the requirements of the UTQGS. See 44 FR 30139, at 30140: May 24, 1979.

The requirement that the grades assigned under the UTQGS be permanently molded onto one sidewall of each passenger car tire is set forth in 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(A). However, that section reads: "Except for a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line, each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures ... permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall...." A tire line introduced for the first time into the United States is considered a new tire line for the purposes of this section. Therefore, our UTQGS regulation does not require you to mold the assigned grades onto a sidewall of those tires manufactured within the first six months of production. Such tires are subject to the requirement that a paper label, showing the UTQGS grades assigned to the tire, be affixed to its tread surface (49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), and that the grades assigned to those tires appear in the information furnished to prospective purchasers of the tires (49 CFR S575.6 (c)).

If you have any further questions or need more information of this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 27, 1986

Mr. Steven Kratske Office of Chief Council NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratske:

Semperit Reifen A.G. in Austria, our parent company, would like to introduce a new All Season Tire to the United States market.

In accordance with the DOT regulations, we would like to import the initial first six months' production without engraving the UTQG ratings in the sidewall but with a label listing UTQG ratings.

In the meantime, we are in the process of permanently engraving the UTQG ratings in the molds to comply with the regulations.

Yours truly,

SEMPERIT TIRE COMPANY

Robert P. Horbatt President

RPH:ms

ID: 86-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey, Esq. Dean Hansell, Esq. Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1985, concerning the applicability of S7.4.5 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to manual Type 2 safety belts in passenger cars. As explained below, S7.4.5 is not currently applicable to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars. However, as a result of a recent amendment to Standard No. 208, the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard will be applied to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars, beginning on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirements are rescinded.

As you pointed out, S7.4(b) of Standard No. 208 requires vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard, including the requirements of S7.4.5. However, S7.4(b) specifically excludes manual Type 2 safety belts installed in the front seats of passenger cars from the comfort and convenience requirements. Thus, you are correct that a manual Type 2 safety belt installed in the front outboard seating position of a passenger car currently does not have to meet the requirements of S7.4.5.

In April of this year, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (50 FR 14580) proposing that if the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 are rescinded for passenger cars, then manual Type 2 safety belt systems in those vehicles would have to meet all of the comfort and convenience requirements, including the requirement of S7.4.5, beginning on September 1, 1989. On November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056), the agency issued a final rule adopting that requirement.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 12, 1985

Jeffrey Miller, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

We seek your opinion about a portion of Standard 208. Specifically, we wish to confirm that Part S7.4.5 of Standard 208 is not applicable to passenger cars.

According to Part S7.4(b) of Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, vehicles with gross vehicle weights of 10,000 pounds or less must, inter alia, meet Part S7.4.5. However, Part S7.4(b) excludes manual Type 2 seat belts in the front seat. Part S7.4.5, on the other hand, appears to apply only to Type 2 seat belts in the front outboard seating position. Further, there is no reference to Part S7.4.5 in the regulations other than the one in S7.4(b).

Our review of these two standards leads us to conclude that Standard S7.4.5 does not apply to passenger cars, but is rather limited to trucks and buses. Our subsequent discussions with Mr. Oesch in your office have reinforced this conclusion.

We would appreciate your confirming our conclusion.

Yours truly,

Stephen T. Waimey

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq. Stephen L. Oesch, Esq.

ID: 86-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Sidney K. Saksenberg -- Manager of Regulatory Affairs, CSA Limited, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Sidney R. Saksenberg Manager of Regulatory Affairs CSA Limited, Inc. P.O. Box 690347 Houston, Texas 77269-0347

This responds to your November 12 1985 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance concerning the packaging requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 Brake Fluid . You asked whether the brake fluid container 'you enclosed would comply with the standard. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

By way of background information, I must explain that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on your letter and enclosure.

The sample container you enclosed is plastic and has a resealable screw cap. The cap is attached to a plastic band, or ring, encircling the opening of the container, and the attachment is broken when the cap is twisted open. The cap itself is lined with an inner seal which you have indicated is impervious to the packaged brake fluid.

Standard No. 116 specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids and their containers. Paragraph S5.2.1 of the standard sets forth specific requirements for container sealing of brake fluid packages:

Each brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil container with a capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided with a resealable closure that has an inner seal impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The container closure shall include a tamper-proof feature that will either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.

The container you enclosed appears to be provided with a resealable closure, i.e., the twist-off cap, and an impervious inner seal. The cap's tamper-proof feature is the attachment to the plastic ring that would be broken (and thus "destroyed or substantially altered") when the cap is initially opened. Although not required by the standard, you have taken the commendable extra step of including a statement on the cap that warns purchasers not to accept the container if the seal is broken, we would suggest that you ensure that the warning is clearly legible.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 12, 1985

To: John Messera (NES-32) Nat. Hwy. Safety Adm. 400 7th St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Messera:

With reference to our recent phone conversation:

Enclosed find several bottles and caps we would like to use to package DOT-3 Brake Fluid.

I would like an opinion as to the acceptability of these bottles and caps for packaging DOT-3 Brake Fluid.

Sincerely yours,

Sidney K. Saksenberg Manager of Regulatory Affairs Enc.

SKS/rdc

ID: 86-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karen Finkel -- Executive Director, National School Transportation Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Karen Finkel

Executive Director National School Transportation Association P.O. Box 26 Springfield Virginia 22152

This response to your March 3, 1986 letter to our office concerning requirements applicable to front seat restraining barriers on school buses. You asked whether the barriers meet the same Federal motor vehicle safety standards as the school bus seats. Specifically you are interested in barrier-seat separation and barrier performance requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, establishes requirements for school bus seats and restraining barriers. Included in Standard No. 222 are paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.3 which specifically apply to restraining barriers on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Since restraining barriers function to compartmentalize passengers in the same manner as school bus seats, the requirements of Standard No. 222 for barrier-seat separation distances and barrier strength are similar to the spacing and strength requirements for school bus seats. For example, S5.2.1 specifies that the distance between a restraining barrier's rear surface and the seating reference point of the first seat to the rear of the barrier must not be more than 24 inches. Also, under S5.2.3, barriers are tested for compliance with the forward performance requirements in the same manner as school bus seats. Both must withstand similar forces while maintaining component integrity. Force/deflection curves for seat backs and restraining barriers must fall within the zone specified in Figure 1 of Standard No. 222, and seat back and restraining barrier deflection must not exceed 14 inches. Further, restraining barriers and seat backs must meet the same impact zone requirements (S5.3) of the standard. Additional requirements for restraining barriers are specified in Standard No. 222. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your convenience.

You asked whether the front seat barrier is secured to the floor of the school bus in a different manner than the seats. Standard No. 222 does not specify how school bus restraining barriers or seats are to be secured to the floor of the bus. Manufacturers are free to select the manner of securing barriers and seats to the bus floor as long as those structures meet all applicable requirements of our safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact our office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 3, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

A member of the National School Transportation Association has requested a legal opinion as to whether the front seat barriers on school buses have to meet the same federal motor vehicle safety standards as the seats.

He's specifically interested in distance, flexibility-rigidness, the angle of the barrier and whether the barrier is secured to the floor in a different manner than the seats.

Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you need any further information.

Sincerely,

Karen Finkel Executive Director

KF/sb

cc: Robert Christian

ID: 86-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jon F. Gasper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jon F. Gasper Box 13 Fairbury, NE 68352

Dear Mr. Gasper:

This is in reply to Your letter of January 21, 1986, to the Office of Standards Enforcement of this agency with respect to the applicability of Federal regulations to "a kit car, especially a turn key unit".

For purposes of discussion, I shall assume that a "turn key" kit car is one that is assembled by the kit car supplier before its sale or delivery, even though it may also be available in kit form. If a person is manufacturing or supplying all parts necessary to produce a completed motor vehicle, and all those parts are newly fabricated, that motor vehicle must comply upon assembly with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to its vehicle type (e.g. passenger car, truck). In this situation, the kit supplier is regarded as the "manufacturer" responsible for compliance, and for attaching a certification label to the vehicle attesting to its compliance. If final assembly is performed by a person other than the kit supplier, the supplier nonetheless under agency interpretations must provide a certification label in the kit, and instructions sufficient to inform the assembler what must be done so that the vehicle conforms to Federal requirements when it is assembled.

If the "turn key" kit car is assembled using the chassis of a motor vehicle previously in use, and which is likely to retain its original title, then it is regarded as a "used vehicle". A familiar example of this type of vehicle is one comprising a new body placed upon the chassis of a Volkswagen Beetle. If the chassis has been purchased without the body, no Federal motor vehicle safety standards will apply to the vehicle upon its completion, nor will it have to be certified. However, if the operation entails removal of the old body and the installation of a new one, and the person removing the body (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) is the person installing the new one, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to comply with standards effective upon its original manufacture (for example, a vehicle comprised of a 1986 body mounted upon a 1972 chassis must meet all applicable 1972 safety standards). A few individual parts such as tires, glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, and seat belt assemblies are subject to standards at the time of their manufacture and must comply regardless of the age of the vehicle for which they are intended (for example, the windshield in the 1986/1972 hybrid must meet the 1986 glazing standard if it is newly manufactured, but meet only the 1972 safety standard on windshield retention).

There are some fact situations in which combinations of new and used parts different than those discussed above are used, and for which no general answer applies. However, I hope that this letter has been sufficiently clear to provide an answer for you.

Finally, a manufacturer of vehicles or equipment items will be responsible for notification of purchasers and remedy of any safety related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that exists in its products.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

cc (NEF 30) Armstrong/Shifflett

ID: 86-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 27, 1876 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48108 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment i accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response. First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to the performance requirements for labels, set forth in 541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in 541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings "must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1 0 of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section" (Emphasis added). this requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in 541.5(d)(1). Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisfy the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's "opinions and comments" on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft" prevention standard would be highly appreciated. As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c))requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's markings system complied with theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion. You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears to comply with the "footprint" requirement specified for labels in 541.5(d)(v)(B). that section requires that removal of the label must "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present." For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a "footprint". At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the "footprint" would be if these labels were removed, and whether such "footprint" would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present. Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation of our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in 541.5(d)(v)(B). Sincerely, Original Signed by Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Joy Binkley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1986 Ms. Joy Binkley MJB Windshield Repair 3765 South Acoma Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Ms. Binkley: Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1986, concerning the application of our regulations to a product your company uses. The product, which is called the Novus method of windshield repair, is used to fill in breaks in vehicle windshields with a liquid resin. You explained that several companies in your area have asked whether the U.S. Department of Transportation has approved the use of the Novus product. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation which has been delegated the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 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 other alleged safety-related defects. NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and location requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Standard No. 205 does not contain performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Novus method, which are used to repair broken glazing. However,use of such a material or process in a new windshield which required 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 regulation on certification (Part 567). As an alterer, the person must certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205. In case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 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 a 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. The manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frederick Goldfeder, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick Goldfeder, Esq. Legal Proceedings Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, New York 12232

Dear Mr. Goldfeder:

This responds to your January 28, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the definition of "truck" set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3 of our regulations. You asked whether manufacturers may certify "passenger vans," which have seating capacities of more than 10 persons, as trucks.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), the classification of a motor vehicle is determined by its manufacturer. Part 567 requires manufacturers to certify that their motor vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and classify their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations. The agency may, of course, question a manufacturer's classification of its vehicle if it appears that the vehicle has not been properly certified under our regulations. This would generally arise in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings.

We define a "truck" in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle ... designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Based on the information in your letter, it does not appear that the vans meet that definition, given their passenger capacities. Our regulatory definition of a truck would be only appropriate for vehicles designed primarily for transporting property or equipment, which does not appear to be the case for the vans you described.

The situation you described appears to raise question of compliance with Federal law by the persons certifying the vehicles. We are interested in learning more about the sale of the vans, and would appreciate your contacting NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with any information you may have, at the address given above.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 28, 1986

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would Appreciate An interpretation of the term "truck" (49 CFR S371.3).

Specifically, we have in mind vehicles commonly known as a "passenger van" having s seating capacity of more than ten persons.

These vehicles are commonly sold, by a dealer, with the manufacturers' certification being that of a "truck". In this connection, we note that the definition of "bus" in said section is:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than ten persons."

The vehicles sold as a "passenger van" do not meet all of the specifications of a "bus" as set forth in Part 571.

May a manufacturer properly certify such "passenger van" as a truck, under Federal Statutes and Regulations?

This question is arising with great frequency in connection with our safety certification of vehicles operating intrastate New York. Accordingly, your interpretation of your regulations would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

FREDERICK GOLDFEDER Associate Attorney Legal Proceedings Bureau