ID: 2898yy

Liam J. Moran, Esq.
Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran
310 K Street, Suite 704
Anchorage, Alaska 99501

RE: Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. Your File No.: 3571

Dear Mr. Moran:

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). More specifically, you noted that S5.5.2(g) requires add-on child restraint systems to be permanently labeled with the following:

WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located [Insert the location of the instruction booklet].

You also noted that Standard No. 213 requires the installation instruction booklet to "explain the primary consequences of not following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system." Parenthetically, I note that your letter erroneously identified S5.6.3 as the source of this requirement. You told Mr. Kratzke in your telephone conversation that your litigation involves an add-on child restraint system. S5.6.3 applies solely to built-in child restraint systems. However, the identical requirement is set forth for add-on child restraint systems in S5.6.1.3 of Standard No. 213.

You asked whether the explanation in the instruction booklet of the primary consequences of not following the warnings labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.6.1.3) is required to be something more than the statement required to be labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.5.2(g)). The answer is no.

NHTSA explicitly addressed this question in the rulemaking that established the current labeling requirements. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on May 18, 1978 (43 FR 21470). This proposal did not include any proposed regulatory text to require a label on the child restraint system warning users about the failure to follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer. However, the preamble did have the following discussion:

Comments are also requested on whether a brief explanation should be given of the primary consequences of not following the warnings and instructions provided by the manufacturer on the restraint. An example of such an explanation is that failure to attach the tether on systems having top tethers may result in the top part of the system bending forward during a crash and striking the dashboard or back of the front seat, depending on where the restraint is installed. Another example would be to explain that failure to adjust belts snugly may result in the child coming entirely out of the restraint during a crash or in crash forces being placed on the wrong portions of the child's body. (Emphasis added).

43 Fed. Reg. 21476. This request for comments was addressed solely to information that should be labeled on the restaint itself. There is no indication in the proposal that the agency sought comments on or otherwise considered requiring information in addition to this to be provided in the instuction booklet.

A final rule implementing this proposal was published on December 13, 1979 (44 FR 72131). That rule included the following discussion:

Many commenters (citation omitted) supported the proposed requirement that manufacturers inform consumers about the primary consequences of not following the manufacturer's warning about the correct use of the restraint. Therefore, the visible label must state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint. The same information would also have to be included in the instruction manual accompanying the restraint. (Emphasis added).

44 Fed. Reg. 72137. The regulatory language that was added to the labeling requirement for child restraints in the final rule to "state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint" was the warning now in S5.5.2(g) of Standard No. 213. The last sentence in the above-quoted section of the preamble expressly states that the instruction booklet that accompanies the child restraint must include the same warning that is required to be labeled on the child restraint. There is, therefore, no basis for the assertion that the instruction booklet must include some warning in addition to the warning required to be labeled on the child restraint system.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:3/l9/9l

ID: 2899yy

Mr. Jerry Tassan
177 Airport Blvd
San Francisco, CA 94080

Dear Mr. Tassan:

This responds to a telephone inquiry in which you explained to Mr. Stephen Wood, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, that your truck rental company is considering lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of some of its used trucks so that a renter need not have a commercial driver's license to operate them. You asked how the regulations of this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), would apply to such an action. As explained below, because only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, any modification of a vehicle's GVWR by parties that are not manufacturers would have no legal effect.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The Certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 require each manufacturer to affix to the vehicle a label containing, among other things, the vehicle's GVWR. Under Part 567, the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer (567.4(g)(3)), a final stage manufacturer (567.5(c)(5)), or an alterer (567.7(b)). Modifications of GVWR by any other parties would have no legal effect under Part 567. Accordingly, a vehicle owner that performs no manufacturing operations on a vehicle cannot modify the GVWR of the vehicle.

You should also be aware that another Federal authority - the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Office of Motor Carrier Standards - may regulate your attempts to lower a vehicle's GVWR. The FHWA regulates the licensing of operators of "commercial motor vehicles" under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. I recommend you contact Mr. James Scapellato, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-1, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 if you have any further questions about driver licensing.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref: 567 d:3/l9/9l

ID: 2900yy

Mr. Chris Lawrence
Chang & Lawrence
P.O. Box 105-55
Taipei
Taiwan R.O.C.

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency. Though dated January 5, 1991, we did not receive it until March 7.

With respect to your wish to produce an electronic sign board for installation in the rear window area, or on the rear, of a passenger car, I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated August 17, l989, regarding such a device. Although the interpretation is restricted to an interior-mounted electronic sign board, our conclusion would not be changed were the device to be mounted on the outside of the rear of the vehicle. In that location, and as an item of original equipment, we believe that it would impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment by its potential to distract following drivers from the signals sent by the rear lamps when they and the sign board are operated simultaneously. Although the considerations for aftermarket devices are expressed differently, as explained in the August l989 letter, the potential for distraction would appear to create a partial inoperability of the rear lamps within the meaning of the prohibition.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l08#VSA d:3/2l/9l

ID: 2901yy

Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki
2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237
Phoenix, AZ 80058

Dear Mr. Dembecki:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991, asking for an "evaluation" of your "Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: "complete" one and two bulb units "for l984 and older vehicles", and one and two "electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991." In your opinion, "since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed."

We understand that your "complete" unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the "electronic module" intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer.

Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. l08 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. l08 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard.

With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. l08 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps.

Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:3/25/9l

ID: 2902yy

Ms. Nancy J. Hunt
Bankston & McDowell
3700 Chevron Tower
1301 McKinney
Houston, TX 77010

Dear Ms. Hunt:

This responds to your letter requesting information about test conditions in Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (49 CFR 571.301; copy enclosed). In particular, you asked whether the spare tire must be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing. You also asked whether the spare tire must be in the vehicle during other types of vehicle testing. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures and are available through the NHTSA Technical Reference Library. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 301 when they are tested in accordance with the test conditions set forth in section S7 of the standard. This section specifies the general test conditions under Standard No. 301. However, this section does not specify whether a spare tire must be included during the testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 301 may be based on tests with or without the spare tire, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 301 are satisfied.

You should be aware that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that if the spare tire is standard equipment, it should be inflated to the vehicle manufacturer's specifications and be in the vehicle during the agency's compliance testing (see page 27 of the "OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures," copy enclosed). Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to include a spare tire that is standard equipment, absence of a spare tire might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the requirements of Standard No. 301.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/Ref: 301 d:3/25/9l

ID: 2903yy

Mr. Saburo Inui
Corporate Manager
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20.

Standard No. l08 defines an "integral beam headlamp" as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a "headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source." You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are "integral beam headlamps" as defined by Standard No. 108.

These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a "starter" affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a "converter," which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a "hard wire" while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by "hard wires" that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are "integral beam headlamps."

The phrase "optical assembly" in the definition of "integral beam headlamp", in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an "optical assembly" includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered "indivisible," and the starter could be considered to be "integral" with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it "integral" within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter.

However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both "integral" and "indivisible" if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:3/25/9l

ID: 2904yy

Mr. Earl C. Lempke
President, Delavan Industries, Inc.
1728 Walden Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14225

Dear Mr. Lempke:

This responds to your letter of March 6, l991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether there is "any Federal ruling stating that Trailer Clearance Lights are considered as Safety Equipment and as such are not be be included as part of the overall width of the vehicle." You have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 323.20, the clearance lamp regulation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the observation that "this section does not answer the question."

I am pleased to clarify this situation for you. As the FHWA regulation states, "Clearance lamps shall be mounted so as to indicate the extreme width of the motor vehicle . . . ." This requirement is virtually identical to that in Table II of this agency's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." In l976, NHTSA issued an interpretation that was published in the Federal Register on August 23 of that year stating that "The term 'overall width' refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . marker lamps" such as clearance lamps. I enclose a copy for your information.

The FHWA concurs with this interpretation, and has provided us with some additional comments. Federal width limits apply only on the National Network highways (23 CFR 658, Section A). The width of commercial trailers operated on these highways is to be measured across the sidemost load carrying structures, support members, and structural fasteners, as stated in an interpretation published on March 13, l987, a copy of which I enclose. That proceeding also determined that side marker lamps and any other "non load-carrying safety appurtenance" which extended beyond these limits were excluded from width measurements. This would include clearance lamps, and thus exclude them also from width measurements. In December 1989, FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to consider if a new approach should be adopted to determine which devices to exclude from measurements of vehicle length and width. I also enclose a copy of that notice. FHWA advises that its next notice on the subject should be issued soon.

Although under FHWA regulations, the States determine whether safety equipment is to be excluded from the measurement of vehicle width, we believe that the State determination must be identical to the NHTSA position. Federal law (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibits a State from enacting or maintaining in effect any regulation covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal requirement. We believe that a State must also interpret an identical regulation in a manner identical to NHTSA's interpretation. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#l08 d:3/27/9l

ID: 2905yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l

ID: 2906yy

Mr. H. Hurley Haywood
Vice President
Brumos Motor Cars, Inc.
10231 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32225

Dear Mr. Haywood:

This responds to your letter of March 20, 1991 with respect to "the sale of a very limited number of specially built cars in the U.S." Components would be manufactured by Porsche. The chassis would be "a carbon fiber 962 racing tub" with a hand built body. The car could be imported either as an assembled vehicle or as a kit and assembled here. You have asked for information regarding "low volume manufacturers exemptions from certain DOT regulations, emissions, passive restraints, bumper height, and all other pertinent information regarding manufacturing and sale of vehicles in the U.S."

You have not enclosed a photo of the car but your remark that the chassis is a "racing tub" raises the possibility that the vehicle may be intended for racing purposes. Single-seat vehicles imported for competition on closed circuit courses and not used on the public roads are generally not "motor vehicles" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no regulations apply to them. If you wish to pursue this possibility further, please send us more information on the vehicle.

Assuming that the car is subject to the Safety Act, its manufacturer is eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on several grounds. Exemptions of up to three years may be provided a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production was 10,000 units or less in the year preceding the filing of its petition. Alternatively, exemptions of up to two years may be provided covering up to 2,500 vehicles per year if the manufacturer-petitioner can demonstrate that the exemption would facilitate the field evaluation of innovative safety features or low-emission vehicles, or if, in the absence of an exemption, the manufacturer would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is at least equivalent to that of a vehicle complying with all the safety standards. However, the exemption authority extends only to the safety standards. The bumper height standard was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which contains no exemption provisions. The emission standards are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not part of the Department of Transportation, and you will have to contact them as to their requirements.

If the intent is to import a fully assembled motor vehicle into the United States, at the time of entry it will have to bear the certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards (the certification label must also list the standards from which exemptions may have been provided).

If the intent is to ship the vehicle in a disassembled state for assembly by the purchaser or manufacturer's agent in the United States, and if the kit contains l00% of the parts necessary for assembly, we regard the foreign supplier as the "manufacturer", responsible for ensuring compliance with all Federal requirements, including provision of certification.

I enclose an information sheet with respect to the regulations that we administer, and will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. If you prefer to telephone, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/3/9l

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