ID: 77-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harman International Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Gromer -- Vice President, Timpte

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTSA regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As you are aware, Part 567 of regulations requires a statement by the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (@ 567.4(g)(4)). The term "GAWR" is defined in @ 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.

Standard No. 120 specifies that "each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]" (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.

In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.

With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty new trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and @ 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.

SINCERELY, TIMPTE, INC.

JANUARY 11, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

AS MANUFACTURERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS, WE ARE CERTIFYING VIRTUALLY 100% OF OUR PRODUCTION TO ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. ONE PROBLEM DEVELOPS OCCASIONALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION ON THIS MATTER.

THE CONDITION IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE BUILT A SEMI-TRAILER FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND THAT CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO FURNISH THE TIRES. IN OUR MANUFACTURE, WE WILL SPECIFY THE AXLE SUSPENSION AND OTHER COMPONENTS AS WELL AS INDICATING THE TIRE SIZE WHICH THE CUSTOMER WILL FURNISH. OCCASIONALLY, THE NEW TIRES ARE NOT SENT TO OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY HERE, BUT RATHER, TIRES ARE INSTALLED BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME HE TAKES THE TRAILER TO HIS OWN FACILITY. PICK UP OF THE TRAILER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A DRIVER WITH A TRUCK TRACTOR BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMER AND HE MAY BRING WITH HIM ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES WHICH ARE ON THE "RUN OUT" VARIETY. THEY REQUEST US TO INSTALL THESE ON THE VEHICLE AND CHAIN UP THE REAR AXLE OF THE TANDEM SO THAT THE DRIVER CAN THEN TAKE THE NEW TRAILER EQUIPPED WITH ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES IN LIEU OF EIGHT BACK TO HIS FACILITY. NOW, OUR CERTIFICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE FOR THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF TIRES AND THE GAWR RATINGS AS WELL AS THE GVWR RATINGS WOULD BE STAMPED ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL AS IF THE TRAILER WERE EQUIPPED WITH THE INTENDED RUBBER.

BY COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST AND INSTALLING OLD TIRES AID FEWER TIRES THAN INTENDED FOR THE TRAILER AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM OUR PREMISES, ARE WE MAKING OURSELVES LIBEL IN ANY WAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER? UNDERSTAND PLEASE, THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE AT CUSTOMER REQUEST AND INSTRUCTION WITH HIS FULL INTENTION BEING TO EQUIP THE TRAILER WITH A FULL SET OF GOOD TIRES, POSSIBLY RECAPS, AT THE TIME THAT HE GETS IT TO HIS FACILITY.

CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A COMPROMISING POSITION AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUR INTENT TO DEVIATE OR BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE NHTSA REGULATIONS; AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMODATE OUR CUSTOMERS SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPINION FROM YOU REGARDING THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. IT IS AN INFREQUENT ONE; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING

ID: 77-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your frank letter of January 13, 1977, commenting upon the lack of clarity you feel exists in my letter to you of December 6, 1976, interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a lawyer it is obvious to me that the best regulatory practice is to be as specific as possible in establishing requirements and prohibitions. When a regulation itself is unclear, however, its interpretation may necessarily be imprecise. Because the term "optical combination" in S4.4.1 is not defined, my answers were necessarily worded in general terms though with the thought of establishing a general framework of guidance for you. They were not intended to be "a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words." My letter meant, in plain English, that where tail lamps and clearance lamps are in a single compartment we don't want one lamp to perform, or to be perceived as performing, the function of the other. It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

January 13, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30 Your letter of December 6, 1976

A combination of a Christmas holiday with the family in Arizona and year end activity here in our plant has prevented our sending you a reply to the referenced letter at an earlier date.

As far as we are concerned, your response to our October 28 letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words and one which avoids positive answers or defensible positions on the specific questions we submitted.

Discussing first your lengthy second paragraph; from line 6 we quote: ". . . . Standard 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e. and opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps . . . " Perhaps you can give some scientific explanation how two lamps can be in the same compartment and not interfere optically with one another. The degree of candlepower emanating from each bulb is dependent on their respective candlepowers and in the case of tail and clearance lamp bulbs, the lumens generated are not very far apart since clearance lamp bulbs deliver 2 c.p. and tail lamp bulbs 3 c.p. If tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs were positioned relatively close together in the single compartment (a condition you state is permissible) I submit that a "driver in a following vehicle" could not possibly interpret one lamp from the other.

May we refer you to line 15 of the second paragraph of your letter and we quote: "there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp . . . " To any engineer or attorney involved with compliance regulations, the words "appreciable amount" are incongruous when applied to a standard such as 108, the purpose of which is to spell out specific optical values, tests, and locations for lights. DOT 108 standard permits no deviation from the SAE standards referenced, which standards positively indicate optical values for lamps. Nor does DOT 108 permit any option on the number and types of lamps required on a trailer or where these lamps shall be located. "Appreciable" has no measureable value, therefore, we ask, whose judgement will prevail when evaluating the design and testing of a lamp, the manufacturer or your compliance people. How would you legally defend your position that a light has an "appreciable" amount of spill, hence is illegal, in the absence of an applicable photometric standard.

We also object to the language: "The amount of light spill appears to be so small . . ." (sce para. 2 line 17). What numerical candlepower value do you assign to the words "appears to" as a measure of whether or not a lamp conforms to the published standard? Would we receive approval from your compliance group on a lamp we have marked "DOT" on the basis of our contention that to us the lamp "appears to" meet the photometric standards?

How evasive can a response to our specific question be than your blanket reply of: "If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked, then I think you will have the answers."

We refer you to page 2, lines 2, 3, and 4 of your letter, which we quote: "The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions." Of course we didn't specify "candlepower output". Those values are specified in DOT 108. Or perhaps you were unaware that clearance lamp bulbs and tail lamp bulbs are manufactured to *SAE J573f which specified: Typical Service Trade No. Mean Spherical Candela M ** 57 2 candlepower at 14 volts T *** 1157 3 candlepower at 14 volts

* Photometric tests performed under SAE J592e and SAE J585d are always made using 2 c.p. and 3 c.p. bulb respectively.

** M - Marker, Clearance, Identification

*** T - Tail

These are the lamps and respective candlepowers you will find in all tail lamps and clearance lamps.

Therefore, with such a small candlepower difference between clearance and tail lamp output, the "spill" (to quote your letter) from one to the other, with bulbs exposed in the same compartment, equate one another.

We read with surprise in your letter that "certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance." We would like to believe that statement, but the actual experiences of many trailer manufacturers with your compliance people, doesn't bear out what you say. The compliance man recognizes but one criteria: does it or does it not meet the specific requirements of the published standard.

At this moment in time the DOT is quibbling over a specific interpretation of S 4.4.1 with such indecisive language as: "appears to be", "appreciable amount", "good faith". It could be that your indefinite position merely covers a too hasty interpretation by one of your staff, but whatever the reason, please either resolve this problem in terms of specific numbers, or rewrite S 4.4.1 so that there can be no possible misinterpretation of your requirements.

You asked the writer to comment on combining tail and clearance lamp. This combination for boat trailers and some camping trailers is an extremely sensible approach. The 108 standard blankets big semi trailers and small duck boat trailers with the same sets of rules, which rules for a semi trailer are as totally practical as they are totally impractical for a small boat trailer.

In the matter of boat trailers, the over 80" lighting requirements are almost impossible to meet. For example, consider a boat trailer carrying a sail boat. It is virtually impossible to locate an identification light bar that won't be swept off or severely bent when the boat is launched. Use of an identification light bar on a trailer should be eliminated. Very few are operable after a launching.

The trailer manufacturer certifies his trailer as meeting the DOT standards, when it leaves his plant. The dimensions of the boats that trailer may carry vary wiedely and many a trailer's actual width is exceeded by the hull it carries. This is knowledge the trailer manufacturer would not have when he produced the trailer.

It would be economical as well as practical to permit a boat trailer manufacturer to mount his tail lamp in such a position that it would serve the dual purpose of clearance and tail lamp, with no detriment to safety. If anything, we would consider such an arrangement a safer condition than the use of seperate lights.

In conclusion, would you please give us specific answers to the questions posed in paragraph 6 of letter of October 28, 1976, at your earliest convenience. For your convenience a copy of same is attached.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLOR NELSON

ID: 77-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1976 asking for a clarification of the statement in my letter to you dated December 3, 1976, that "the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function."

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over form one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

Trailer manufacturers association

December 20, 1976

Mr. Frank A. Berndt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Further to my letter of October 29th, and yours of December 3, 1976 (N 40 - 30), the 47 Series Tite Lite contains a No. 57 2 CP bulb serving the clearance and sidemarker lamp functions and a No. 1157 3/32cp bulb serving the remaining functions.

Our question concerning this light was limited to whether the clearance lamp function is considered "optically combined."

Your December 3rd letter indicates that "the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function." We don't understand the meaning of this statement. In the 47 Series Tite-Lite, the No. 57 bulb provides the clearance lamp design function, yet the No. 1157 bulb which is always lit simultaneously certainly augments the light emitted by the clearance lamp, and will light the clearance lamp lens an appreciable amount if the design bulb was burned out. That would seem a safety feature.

An early response will be appreciated.

Director of Engineering

Donald I. Reed

ID: 77-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dry Launch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1) "permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp" as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.

The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only. If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.

Yours Truly,

DRY LAUNCH

December 27, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration In a recent discussion with an Engineer at the California Highway Petrol's Certification Office in Sacramento, we discussed combining of lighting functions. He had a copy of a letter from you to Mr. B. A. Weber of Wesber Corporation dated October 7, 1976. As a result of reading this, the following two questions come to mind - the third question I have been intending to write you about.

1. Question and Answer to No. 2 was the following:

"Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

I ask if no barrier existed between the two functions and both photometric tests simultaneously, (that is, neither were over maximums or under minimums) and both passed their tests when the other one was extinquished (that is, not over maximums or not under minimums), why must the opaque wall exist at all? In view of public safety, it would appear to enhance it as well as save money and weight by omitting the opaque wall.

2. If an opaque wall must exist between clearance light and tail light, there is bound to be a certain amount of "spill over" of one compartment's light into the next. In this case what limit of "spill over" might exist realistically?

3. Recently, an amendment to Federal 108 allowed the covering of the 45 degrees sector of a clearance light that was inboard (S4.3.1.1.1). Does this permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp as long as all other rules of Federal 108 are met and they are properly mounted?

I would appreciate a prompt reply as your answers affect two decisions for new lights that we are working on.

Dennis G. Moore

ID: 77-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK W. ALLEN -- ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, General Motors Corp.

TITLE: N40-30[TWH]

TEXT: Dear Mr Allen:

General Motors Corporation advised the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a March 16, 1976, letter that it disagrees with the agency's construction of the phrase "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance" as it is found in @ 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 (2)). The construction appeared in the preamble to an amendment of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, (41 FR 2392, January 16, 1976) and stated:

"Minimum" performance standards do not equate with "minimal" performance standards, as implied by General Motors and Wagner. The word "minimum" in the statutory definition of motor vehicle safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1391(2)), does not refer to the substantive content of the standards but rather to their legal status -- that the products covered must not fall short of them.

Your letter stated that GM disagrees and believes that the word "minimum" in the definition of "motor vehicle safety standards" refers solely to the substantive content of the safety standards and not to their legal effect.

As the term "minimum" concerns this discussion, it is found in two places in the Act. "Motor vehicle safety standards" are defined in @ 102(2) to mean (in relevant part) "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance." Section 103(i)(1) (A) directs the proposal of school bus standards that "include minimum standards" for enumerated aspects of performance. While the adjective "minimum" has both of the meanings that our constructions would give it, it cannot, in the agency's opinion, be used in the sense of "least possible" or "minimal," given the context of the Act's provisions and their legislative history.

2

Your argument that the "minimum" performance standards contemplated by the Act should be the "least possible" levels of performance that accomplish a stated safety goal is not logically supportable because of the nature of the stated goal. That goal, meeting the need for motor vehicle safety, is not unitary or otherwise bounded in such a way that certain actions (or a level of action) can accomplish the goal. Rather, "meeting the need" is a goal that admits of a virtually infinite number of actions that meet the need in part but don't accomplish the need in its entirety. Thus, in the agency's view, no "minimum" standard is conceptually able to constitute the "least possible" requirement or level of performance that carries out the purposes of the Act.

Beyond this logical difficulty, it is our opinion that various aspects of the Act and its legislative history make clear that "minimum standards" were conceived of as legal thresholds that a manufacturer would be required to meet or exceed. This view also conforms to the general approach to consumer safety regulation utilized in the United States.

The hearings on motor vehicle and tire safety that preceded enactment of the Safety Act demonstrate that witnesses and legislators generally viewed "minimum standards for performance" as thresholds of performance to be met or exceeded by the manufacturers. Senator Nelson and Federal Trade Commission Chaiman Paul Rand Dixon discussed the "proper interpretation of minimum safety" contemplated for tires and appeared to that no absoulute safety level could be required for each safety need but that a threshold should be established, permitting competition in premium tires for greater levels of safety (Hearings on S. 1643 Before the Committee on Commerce, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. Ser. 89-37, at 27, 28 (1965)) (hereinafter referred to as Hearing 1643).

On page 31 of Hearing 1643, the National Bureau of Standards representative discussed "certain minimum specifications which are substantially more stringent than, for example, [industry] specifications for tires." In this context, "minimal" or "least possible" cannot logically be substituted for "minimum" as your construction would require. The General Services Administration (from which many NHTSA initial standards derive) used the term "minimum" in the sense of "least allowable" in describing its requirements for tires with a "minimum tread life" (page 51 of Hearing 1643). These examples are not intended to imply that no other construction can be put on other references to "minimum" in the hearings. The majority of references, however, support the agency's construction.

3

In other hearings, Senator Magnuson discussed two-stage implementation of "interim minimum safety standards" that must be upgraded within two years (Hearings on S. 3005 Before the Committee on Commerce, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., ser 89-49, at 1, 2. (1965) (hereinafter referred to as Hearing 3005)). It is clear that use of the term "minimum standards" for the second series of requirements contemplated a level of requirement greater than "minimal" or "least possible". Society of Automotive Engineers standards, in contrast, were described by the Department of Commerce as "minimal in nature" (Hearing 3005, at 64).

The Secretary of Commerce, then contemplated as the person who would administer the Act, expressed the view that the vehicle "meets or exceeds the established safety performance standards." (Hearing 3005, at 67). The Secretary, in discussing economic practicability, noted the definition of standards as "minimum standards" and stated "I would think that it would be impracticable for the Secretary to determine upon a minimum standard that would up the price of the total automobile to such an amount that most Americans wouldn't be able to afford to buy it". This consideration of a stringent and expensive "minimum standard" can only mean that more than minimal changes were considered possible.

The Automobile Manufacturers Association (the AMA, and now the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) accepted the view that improvement in safety performance evolves continually, with the implication that minimal standards were not contemplated. For example, the Chairman of the AMA's safety administrative committee testified: "While the safety standards of American automobiles have improved significantly over the years, the present traffic accident problem requires that the pace of achievement be further accelerated." (Hearing 3005, at 384). This AMA representative noted that "The aim of title I [of the Act] is to get safety performance standards that guarantee an optimum safety in the vehicles . . . ." (Hearing 3005, at 411).

The Senate and House Reports confirm the agency's view that "minimum" standards refer to "least allowable" performance levels. In the Senate Report, the statement is made that, while American cars were among the world's safest and demonstrated marked improvement over earlier models, further improvement would be needed (S. Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong. 2nd Sess., at 2-5 (1966). Your construction of the term "minimum standard" as the "least possible" level of safety performance that meets a safety

need is not consistent with the Senate finding. On page 5 of the House Report is a description of the two-stage statutory provision for the imposition of "interim" standards followed by "new and revised" standards as "safety research and development mature." This statement is followed by the building code analogy cited in your letter:

. . . . Such standards will be analogous to a building code which specifies the minimum load-carrying characteristics of the structural members of a building wall, but leaves the building free to choose his own materials and design.

Our conclusion is that the analogy is directed to the concept of minimum standards as a "threshold" specifying a level of performance to be met or exceeded. It is apparent from the quoted material that the minimum "thresholds" of performance were considered as a means to avoid stifling design.

The House report also emphasises the concept of initial standards that would be followed by "new and revised" standards at a later date (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong, 2nd Sess., at 19 (1966)). Finally, of course, @ 103 (h) of the Act mandates issuance of interim standards to be followed by upgraded standards.

It is also meaningful that the criteria for a "minimum standard" set forth in @ 103 (a) do not include the concept of their being the "minimal" or "least possible" level that meets a safety need. Sections 103(d) and 103(f) dealing with Federal preemption of State and other regulations both discuss a "higher standard of performance" that implies the "threshold" or "least possible" meaning for minimum standards. A similar construction can be put on the grounds for statutory exemption in @ 123 of the Act that refer to a higher "overall level of safety performance" as grounds for exemption.

While it is arguable that a "minimal" standard can also convey logically the idea of a "threshold" that can be exceeded, the agency finds it difficult to accept that the word "minimum" was intended by Congress to carry both meanings simultaneously. If it is assumed that "minimum" only carries the concept of "least possible", one would then have to accept that the standards are stated as exact "minimal" values. While this line of reasoning is possible, its logical conclusion is that a vehicles only "complies" in the sense of @ 108(a)(1)(A) if it conform exactly to the performance values stated, and that it

5 neither falls short of nor exceeds them. This construction runs counter to the general statutory opinions and interpretations rendered by the NHTSA and accepted by the manufacturers since the Act went into effect. Moreover, making a certification (as required by @ 114 of the Act) that each vehicle complies exactly with the stated requirements would be a physical impossibility, given material, assembly, test condition, and instrumentation variations.

The NHTSA concludes, therefore, that a reasonable construction of the various provisions of the Act does not support the construction put forward by General Motors in your March 16, 1976, letter.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trean Mfg. Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 4, 1977, question whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to materials supplied to the aftermarket for use in vans.

Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket materials or components. As a vehicle standard it applies only to those original components or materials of new vehicles specified in paragraph S4.1 of the standard and installed in a vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)). Therefore, materials that you supply to the final vehicle purchaser are not subject to the requirements of the standard.

I would also note that, with regard to the installation of interior materials in motor vehicles after the first sale for purposes other than resale, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative a device or element of design (such as flame retardant materials) installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (2) (A)). Therefore, although the materials you produce may not always be required to meet the requirements of the standard when sold in the aftermarket, there may be situations in which the materials could not be legally installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business unless they were in compliance with the standard.

SINCERELY,

Treon Mfg. Corp.

FEBRUARY 4TH, 1977

CHIEF COUNSEL FRANK BERNDT

AS PER MY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. BOB WILLIAMS OF NHTSA, I AM WRITING TO YOU FOR LEGAL INTERPRETATION.

MY COMPANY MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIES VAN INTERIOR SOFT PARTS TO THE AFTER MARKET. OUR DISTRIBUTION IS EITHER DIRECT TO CONSUMER OR THROUGH WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTORS, WHO IN TURN SERVE THE VAN OWNER.

WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THE USE OF FORMULA 302 TREATMENT IN FABRICS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THESE PRODUCTS.

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ANY COURTESIES EXTENDED.

ARTHUR WOLINSKY PRESIDENT

ID: 77-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exits required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exits in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exits. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 8, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217

The latest New York state specifications require emergency doors as follow: Capacity Rear Emerg. LH Emerg. Door RH Emerg. Door Door Rear of Center Rear of Center 17-30 X 31-48 X X 49-66 X X 67 & up X X X

At a recent meeting of the New York State Bus Body Association we understand that it was stated: "The rear emergency door will be described in the future as a primary emergency exit and the side emergency door defined as a secondary exit. The only requirement for the secondary emergency door will be that the ellipsoid defined in Federal Specifications will pass through the side emergency door without obstruction."

Is this statement correct regarding a side emergency door when it is in addition to a rear emergency door (FMVSS 217 - S5.4.2.1(b))? This would allow the seat back in front of the side emergency door to extend into the door opening in this case.

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: 77-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1977, concerning the symbol "DOT" as a certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 108.

The symbol "DOT" is permitted by the Standard to be placed on the item of equipment in lieu of the certification requirements of Section 114 of the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966," which states, in part ". . . In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered . . ."

"DOT" on the individual container does not meet the certification requirements. The label or tag must state that the item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

STANLEY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.

February 14, 1977

E. T. Driver -- Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Motor, Vehicle Programs,

U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Driver,

Our lighting equipment to which F.M.V.S.S. 108 is applicable are now being directly labeled with symbol "DOT" as a certification of compliance to that standard.

We are now considering to label this symbol "DOT" on an individual container in which each item of equipment is packaged, instead of labelling it on the item itself.

Please let us have your comment on whether the labelling with symbol "DOT" container is acceptable or not.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Yours faithfully, H. Miyazawa -- Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Dept.