ID: nht70-2.15

DATE: 06/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Cristales Inastillables de Mexico S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1970, requesting the National Highway Safety Bureau's approval or comments on an Electrical Testing Laboratories Report No. 411430, concerning your CM-20 safety glazing material. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or confirm whether specific motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment comply with Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for ensuring that his product complies with applicable standards. Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1402), furthermore, requires manufacturers to "certify" that their products comply with applicable standards, and specifies how this certification is to be accomplished. A notice published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1967, further explained how manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment may comply with this requirement. I enclose a copy of this notice and the aforementioned Act, with the appropriate sections marked for your information.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 (S3.4) provides an additional method by which manufacturers of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles may certify that their products comply with that standard. This method may be used as a substitute for the methods specified in section 114 and the enclosed notice. It consists of labeling the glazing material with a label that meets the requirements of Section 6 of ASA Z.26.1-1966, "Marking of Safety Glazing Materials", but to which has been added the symbol "DOT", and a manufacturer's code number which assigned by the Bureau on request. The label which you furnish in the appendix to your ETL

Report No. 411430, provided the required "AS"-designation, glazing-model number, and assigned DOT code mark are at least 0.070 inch in height, will meet this requirement. Should you desire to certify your glazing in this manner, we will furnish you with a manufacturer's code number.

Although the Bureau does not furnish approvals of glazing materials, many states do require some form of approval before specific glazing material can be used in motor vehicles subject to their jurisdiction. For information regarding such approvals and assistance in obtaining them I suggest you write to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Attention: Mr. Armand Cardarelli, Suite 500, 1828 L Streets N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, you are required by section 110(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(a)) to designate an agent for service of process purposes. The designation must conform to regulations governing its making (49 CFR 551.45), and I enclose a copy also with appropriate sections marked for your reference.

ID: nht81-3.8

DATE: 08/17/81

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

TO: Antonio Cano - Sales Representative

COPYEE: F. BRENDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEVE WOOD

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your question, raised during a meeting with Carl Clark, Vernon Bloom, Harry Thompson and Edward Glancy, whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device called "Hyperblock." The device works by preventing release of the brakes. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft devices that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of Hyperblock requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of Hyperblock, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of Hyperblock would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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. . .

You indicated at the aforementioned meeting that installation of Hyperblock does not affect a vehicle's braking performance. You also indicated that Hyperblock maintains the integrity of a vehicle's split system. In addition to requirements in those areas, Standard No. 105 establishes brake system integrity requirements, requiring that a braking system be able to withstand a series of spike stops. You may wish to consider testing Hyperblock as to whether it affects a vehicle's compliance with the spike stop test requirements, if you have not done so already. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard.

While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particular device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

ID: 14305a.mls

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Co., Ltd.
139 Copernicus Blvd.
Brantford, Ontario
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, asking about Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for vacuum brake hoses. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in the agency's response.

According to your letter, your company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nichirin Co. Ltd. Japan. Your company manufactures and sells vacuum brake hoses and assemblies to vehicle manufacturers, including Honda.

You state that the "current registered trademark" (which we understand to be the manufacturer's designation required by S9.1 of Standard 106) that is imprinted on one brake hose end fitting is "NNI." The hose is marked "NCRN," which is the designation registered with NHTSA for your parent company. You are currently supplying vacuum brake hoses to Honda that are manufactured in Japan with the NCRN designation. In the future, you plan to have the bulk hose "licensed to a USA based hose manufacturer who [you] will buy it from, assemble valves, clips, etc. and supply it to Honda."

You first ask whether you need to register a designation for vacuum brake hose assemblies under S9.1.3 of Standard 106, even though you have "NNI" registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The answer is no. Because you already are registered for hydraulic brake hose assemblies, you do not need to register again with NHTSA. The purpose of registering your designation with the agency is to help us identify you in case of a recall resulting from a safety-related defect or a noncompliance. Please note that we have examined a sample product you submitted which does not appear to be a "brake hose assembly" as defined in Standard No. 106 because it has clamps only, and no end fittings. Therefore, it is not required to be labeled in accordance with S9.1.3 of Standard No. 106.

You then ask whether you or the licensee would be considered the manufacturer of the hose for purposes of registering the manufacturer's designation. You note that the hose is to be manufactured under license to your material and manufacturing specifications. I have enclosed a May 12, 1994 letter to Russell Performance Products which addresses the same issue. As the agency explained in that interpretation, only the licensee's designation is required to be marked, since the licensee is the entity that will actually manufacture the brake hose. Such a designation will identify the licensee as the manufacturer of the brake hose in the event of a possible defect or noncompliance with the hose.

Please note that HBD Industries (HBD), the proposed licensee, has not registered a designation with the agency. Therefore, HBD should file its planned designation with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.
7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:106
d:5/6/97

ID: 1984-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1984, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically inquired about the application of the requirements of section S3.5 of the standard to four possible inner door panel designs Mazda is considering.

You explained that manufacturer-installed armrests originally were simple in design and only extended a short distance sufficient to provide actual support for the arm or elbow of an occupant, but that currently manufacturers "employ inner door panel designs that embody a continous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience." You are concerned about whether the entire inner panel design would be considered an armrest.

You enclosed a drawing of four potential designs for an "inner door panel projection...that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest, ...other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls." You asked whether the entire designs would have to comply with section S3.5.1(b), which you understand applies to the whole armrest. You also asked how the designs could be changed to comply with section S3.5.1(a) or (c) and whether the agency's interpretation would differ if the designs were changed so that certain portions of the design were separate components.

First, I want to confirm that the requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), of the standard apply to the entire armrest, while S3.5.1(c) is limited to a portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area. Based on a review of the four designs, we have concluded that the shaded and unshaded portions of each design would be considered an armrest since each design is an integral unit which provides an area for an occupant to rest his or her arm. We cannot comment on how these designs could be changed to comply with sections S3.5.1(a) or (c) since your letter does not explain why you consider it impracticable to meet the requirements of those sections of the standard.

The agency's answer would differ if the designs shown in Figures 1, 2 and 4 were changed so that the shaded areas of those designs were a separate component located away from what you have labeled the literal armrest and had features, such as power window switches, installed in them which would preclude their use as a conventional armrest. As to Figure 3, if the shaded portion of the design which does not have a portion of the "literal armrest" on top of it were likewise moved and included functions to preclude its use to rest the arm, the agency would not consider it an armrest. It would appear that, because of the large size of the entire shaded area shown in Figure 3, you might not be able to separate it and include sufficient design features to preclude its use as an armrest. If that could be done, the agency, again, would not consider it an armrest.

As shown by your careful discussion of the purpose of the armrest requirements of the standard, you are aware that the agency is concerned about reducing injuries caused by any protrusion in the vehicle. If you decide to modify your designs so that certain portions would not be considered armrests covered by the standard, I urge you to utilize a design which will minimize occupant injuries.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 3 August 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Mazda respectfully requests consideration of this letter seeking the interpretation of terminology used in S3.5, Armrests, of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda understands that the requirements of S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest". This term has been generically used to define a protrusion mounted on the inner door panel and situated in such a manner as to allow an occupant to comfortably and conveniently rest their arm or elbow. The goal was to relieve the occupant of the fatigue that often accompanies automobile trips of extended length and provide a stable platform for the driver that decreases uneven and unnecessary movement. Originally, manufacturers installed "armrests" that were quite simple in design and extended along the length of the door only a significant distance to actually provide support to the occupant. Currently, however, many manufacturers employ inner door panel designs that embody a continuous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience.

It is in this context that some confusion arises. The obvious intent of S3.5.1 was and is to protect the occupant from potentially injurious collisions with the inner door panel. Indeed, S3.5.1(c) refers specifically to the "pelvic impact area", presumably as the location of greatest possible risk. However, S3.5.1(a) and S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest" and, in the case of designs mentioned previously, could thereby be applicable to the entire length of the inner door panel, including those locations of the inner door panel that the lower body of an occupant would not contact under an impact situation. Therefore, a possible design that could assist in the overall goal of providing occupant convenience may be prohibited by strict implementation of the term "armrest".

Mazda has conceived four possible design configurations for an inner door panel projection (see Figures 1-4) that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest and therefore in compliance with S3.5.1 (b) (Mazda currently considers it impractical to utilize the requirements of S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) relative to the depicted configurations), other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls.

Therefore, upon consideration of the preceding remarks, please examine the inner door panel configurations depicted and discuss them individually. Also, please offer any comments, suggestions or recommendations that might serve to insure adequate occupant protection, compliance with FMVSS 201, S3.5.1 (b) and maximum design flexibility. Further, please comment on the efficacy of modifying the configurations depicted so that compliance with S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) might be possible. Finally, please discuss any relevance that the continuity of the projection might impart on your interpretation; for example, the shaded area shown in Figures 1-4 being a separate component or piece.

Your consideration is most appreciated.

Thank you.

H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mls

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rodger I. Bloch, Sales & Marketing Director, Scott Air, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director Lavelle Road, P.O. Box 1745 Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Block:

This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to an air conditioning system you supply to school bus manufacturers. You explained that your system taps into the fuel system of the school bus. If your system is installed by a manufacturer as an item of original equipment on a school bus, the manufacturer of the bus, is required by Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle with the auxiliary air conditioner complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301.

If you are installing the air conditioners on the vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer and under Part 567.7 be required to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable standards.

In addition, you, in effect, asked about how a manufacturer or alterer demonstrates that it has exercised due care in making its certification of compliance. The agency has recently written Blue Bird Body Co. concerning this issue and I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 15, 1984

Dear Mr. Burndt:

Scott Air is a manufacturer of bus air comfort systems (air conditioning). It has been called to our attention by a manufacturer of school buses, that FMVSS 301-75 relating to fuel integrity was a concern to them. They have taken all steps to certify compliance to this standard. We are now supplying a self contained air conditioning system that is skirt mounted on the drivers side.

Our system is mounted to the chasis of the vehicle and incased in a steel housing, it is protected also by the steel brackets, by which it is mounted, as well as, the vehicle itself. Please see the enclosed photo's. We are tapping into the original certified fuel system of the vehicle and our system holds only about 6.5 ounces of fuel.

I have been talking to Mr. Taylor Vincent of your staff and also Mr. Tom Grubbs with the engineering department. They have both indicated we should be able to secure a DO CARE certification. Would you or your staff be so kind as to issue instructions to me, so I can proceed in this matter.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director ds Enclosure: omitted.

ID: 1983-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Peterson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Lansing Auto Glass Co.

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

Att. Mr. Frank Berndt. Chief Council

Dear Mr. Berndt:

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony M. Peterson.

ID: 2907yy

Mr. Andy Tanner
Glas-Weld of Jacksonville, Inc.
7901 Baymeadows Way, Suite #14
Jacksonville, Florida 32257

Dear Mr. Tanner:

This responds to your letter regarding labeling of glazing materials. You explained that your company restores marred bus windows and renders them in like-new condition in accordance with the ANSI Z26.1 standards. You asked if your "remanufactured" windows must indicate the materials manufacturer or whether a "generic designation which would [exclude] the origination information" would be acceptable. You also asked whether, if the windows are basically unchanged, you could keep the original labeling or must instead restate the "unaltered properties" in your own labeling.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing, as an "addition to the motor vehicle," is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment (Section 102(4) of the Safety Act). New glazing material for use in motor vehicles is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

Based on the information provided in your letter, your company would not be considered a "manufacturer" of new glazing material under agency regulations. You stated that your company restores or reconditions marred bus window glazing to a like-new condition. The agency has previously determined that reconditioners need not certify that reconditioned motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with the safety standards that apply only to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle equipment. In your case, the reconditioned glazing is considered to be the same glazing as originally manufactured.

However, your company would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act . That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "render[ing] inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to Federal safety standards. The "render inoperative" provision of the law means that you are not allowed to recondition or restore glazing if that restoration would cause the glazing to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, you should examine the glazing you "restore" to determine whether the glazing continues to comply with Standard No. 205.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. As a repair business, you must ensure that the reconditioned glazing continues to be marked in accordance with ANSI Z26.1. ANS Z26.1 requires that all glazing be marked with a a DOT code mark, a unique number assigned by the agency to identify each prime glazing material manufacturer. The DOT code mark is used in defect or noncompliance recall campaigns to identify the manufacturer. In addition, ANS Z26.1 requires that all glazing have the distinctive designation or trademark of the prime glazing material manufacturer. However, NHTSA has previously concluded that the designation or trademark on the glazing need not be that of the prime glazing material manufacturer, if the glazing is marked with the prime glazing material manufacturer's DOT code mark (Letter to Terry E. Quinn, May 31, 1988). NHTSA can easily and accurately identify the prime glazing material manufacturer from the DOT code mark, regardless of the distinctive designation or trademark that appears on the glazing. Thus, if the original prime glazing material manufacturer's DOT code mark remains on the glazing material, you may either use the prime glazing material manufacturer's or your own distinctive designation or trademark. You may not, however, use a "generic designation" that does not have a distinctive designation or trademark.

Because, as stated above, reconditioned glazing is considered to be the same glazing as originally manufactured, you may keep the original ANS Z26.1 marking and need not restate the unaltered properties in your own labeling. However, if the existing DOT code mark is removed during reconditioning, you must re-mark the glazing in accordance with the original mark. The agency has previously determined that removal of a DOT identification number from a tire is considered rendering inoperative an element of design of the tire (Letter to Jeffrey Libman, January 21, 1980). Like the DOT code mark for glazing, the DOT identification number is used in defect or noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, the agency considers the removal of a DOT code mark from a piece of glazing to be the rendering inoperative an element of design of the glazing.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. John Rigby of this office at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:205 d:4/3/9l

ID: nht91-3.8

DATE: April 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Andy Tanner -- Glas-Weld of Jacksonville, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Andy Tanner to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5758)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter regarding labeling of glazing materials. You explained that your company restores marred bus windows and renders them in like-new condition in accordance with the ANSI Z26.1 standards. You asked if your "remanufactured" windows must indicate the materials manufacturer or whether a "generic designation which would (exclude) the origination information" would be acceptable. You also asked whether, if the windows are basically unchanged, you could keep the original labeling or must instead restate the "unaltered properties" in your own labeling.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing, as an "addition to the motor vehicle," is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment (Section 102(4) of the Safety Act). New glazing material for use in motor vehicles is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205).

Based on the information provided in your letter, your company would not be considered a "manufacturer" of new glazing material under agency regulations. You stated that your company restores or reconditions marred bus window glazing to a like-new condition. The agency has previously determined that reconditioners need not certify that reconditioned motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with the safety standards that apply only to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle equipment. In your case, the reconditioned glazing is considered to be the same glazing as originally manufactured.

However, your company would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "render(ing) inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to Federal safety standards. The "render inoperative" provision of the law means that you are not allowed to recondition or restore glazing if that restoration would cause the glazing to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, you should examine the glazing you "restore" to determine whether the glazing continues to comply with Standard No. 205.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety

Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. As a repair business, you must ensure that the reconditioned glazing continues to be marked in accordance with ANSI Z26.1. ANS Z26.1 requires that all glazing be marked with a a DOT code mark, a unique number assigned by the agency to identify each prime glazing material manufacturer. The DOT code mark is used in defect or noncompliance recall campaigns to identify the manufacturer. In addition, ANS Z26.1 requires that all glazing have the distinctive designation or trademark of the prime glazing material manufacturer. However, NHTSA has previously concluded that the designation or trademark on the glazing need not be that of the prime glazing material manufacturer, if the glazing is marked with the prime glazing material manufacturer's DOT code mark (Letter to Terry E. Quinn, May 31, 1988). NHTSA can easily and accurately identify the prime glazing material manufacturer from the DOT code mark, regardless of the distinctive designation or trademark that appears on the glazing. Thus, if the original prime glazing material manufacturer's DOT code mark remains on the glazing material, you may either use the prime glazing material manufacturer's or your own distinctive designation or trademark. You may not, however, use a "generic designation" that does not have a distinctive designation or trademark.

Because, as stated above, reconditioned glazing is considered to be the same glazing as originally manufactured, you may keep the original ANS Z26.1 marking and need not restate the unaltered properties in your own labeling. However, if the existing DOT code mark is removed during reconditioning, you must re-mark the glazing in accordance with the original mark. The agency has previously determined that removal of a DOT identification number from a tire is considered rendering inoperative an element of design of the tire (Letter to Jeffrey Libman, January 21, 1980). Like the DOT code mark for glazing, the DOT identification number is used in defect or noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, the agency considers the removal of a DOT code mark from a piece of glazing to be the rendering inoperative an element of design of the glazing.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. John Rigby of this office at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glenn J. Vick, -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/15/95 LETTER FROM GLENN J. VICK TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufa cturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's de livery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriatel y be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Stand ard No. 221. n1 n1 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 56 7.5(e).

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is j oined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the finalstage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the ma nner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of th e incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glenn J. Vick, -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/15/95 LETTER FROM GLENN J. VICK TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221. n1 n1 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 567.5(e).

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the finalstage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11175a

Mr. Glenn J. Vick, National Account Manager
Marketing and Sales Office
Commercial Truck Vehicle Center
Ford Automotive Operations
Regent Court, Suite 950
16800 Executive Plaza Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut- away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221.

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the final-stage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:221#567#568 d:10/20/95 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 567.5(e).