ID: 04-006678drn

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request of August 26, 2004 that we extend the date at which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will begin enforcing a May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, addressed to Jaguar Cars, on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. As explained below, we have decided to grant your request.

In our letter to you of March 31, 2004, in which we denied your request for reconsideration of the May 6, 2003, interpretation, we acknowledged that there has been some confusion in industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening". We stated that we would begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

In your letter of August 26, 2004, you stated that "substantial work" will be needed on some vehicle models to meet the May 6, 2003 interpretation letter. You stated that some wiper systems may have to be redesigned to increase the wiped area and that windshield redesign may be required. You indicated "substantial costs can be avoided" if, for those models that need reworking, the wiper system and windshield redesigns can be accomplished at the same time as scheduled platform changes. You asked that the agency provide manufacturers until September 1, 2007, to permit an orderly transition to designs that comply with the interpretation.

Two vehicle manufacturers subsequently submitted additional information in support of your organizations request. They focused on the work that will be needed for some vehicle models to meet FMVSS No. 104s requirement that windshield wiping systems wipe at least 94% of "Area B".

One manufacturer indicated that, taking account of the agencys May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, seven of its vehicles will not meet the 94% requirement. The other manufacturer indicated that five of its vehicles will be below 94% (but at or above 93.2%) for the wiped Area B. That manufacturer stated that it is not easy to increase the 93.2% area because the wiped areas have already been optimized to maximize the wiped surfaces. Even the small increases required to bring the wiped Area B to meet 94% cannot be done with simple changes in the wiper system. The manufacturer stated that some vehicles will require a complete redesign of the wiper geometry, including changes to the sheet metal stampings. Such changes are normally only done when a complete redesign of a model is scheduled because changes to the stamping tools are always expensive.

After carefully considering your request and the additional information provided by the two manufacturers, and to minimize the costs of compliance, we agree to provide the requested additional time. While we believe the original date of September 1, 2005 was sufficient to enable manufacturers to make simple changes in wiper systems, we are persuaded that more significant design changes will be needed for a number of vehicles. Therefore, we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2007.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.1/7/05

ID: nht94-1.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Charlie Hott (OCC-9045)

TEXT:

This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to b e able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system HAS THE ABILITY to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system HAS BEEN adjusted?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards usi ng the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testin g a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle.

Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward?

In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane ).

The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, AND OF THAT AREA OF THE GROUND WHICH EXTENDS REARWARD FROM THE MIRROR SURFACE n ot less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added).

Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend

Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: 12008.WKM

Mr. Guy Fuoco
Vice President, MJF Corporation
5001 North Odell
Harwood Heights, IL 60656

Dear Mr. Fuoco:

This responds to your May 25, 1996, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you request NHTSA's endorsement of your product. You have developed an aftermarket reflector which is designed to be installed in the tread grooves of most automobile and truck tires.

NHTSA cannot endorse your product as you request. This agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, NHTSA does not certify, endorse, approve, or give assurances of compliance of any vehicle or item of vehicle equipment.

You indicate that your reflector is an aftermarket item, but did not say whether it can be installed by the vehicle owner or whether it must be professionally installed. Section 30122 of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in accordance with a safety standard. This provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on a vehicle or item of equipment by the vehicle owner.

This agency has issued three standards that establish requirements for tires and lighting equipment for motor vehicles. If your reflector covered the treadwear indicators required by Standard Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, so that the indicators could not be seen when the tread depth became worn to the level of the indicators, a commercial facility installing your reflector could be subject to sanctions for violation of §30122.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment, requires motor vehicles to be equipped with certain specified lamps and reflectors. No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. The principal inquiry with aftermarket lighting and reflecting equipment is whether it is likely to confuse or distract other motorists from the message sent by the original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as stop lamps and back up lamps, and in that sense, make the required lighting and reflecting equipment inoperative. Your letter doesn't indicate the color of the reflectors, but we note that they may impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment if they were other than red (for the tires on the rear) or amber (for the front tires). These are the equipment colors which, with few exceptions, are specified by Standard No. 108 for rear and front lighting and reflecting equipment.

If your product does not "make inoperative" any device or element of design on the tire or if it is installed by the vehicle owner, the product may be subject to the laws of the states in which it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on state laws and recommend that you consult the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which you intend to market your reflector.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions with respect to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers (202-366-2992) for tire questions or Taylor Vinson for questions pertaining to reflective surfaces (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

Ref:108#109#119
d:7/24/96

ID: nht94-8.11

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Charlie Hott (OCC-9045)

TEXT:

This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system HAS THE ABILITY to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system HAS BEEN adjusted?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle.

Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward?

In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane).

The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, AND OF THAT AREA OF THE GROUND WHICH EXTENDS REARWARD FROM THE MIRROR SURFACE not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added).

Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend

Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: armor23160

Mr. Charlie Cao
Armor USA, Inc.
611 Forest Hill Drive
Coppell, TX 75019





Dear Mr. Cao:

This responds to your letter received on May 22, 2001 asking for information about the application of glazing marking requirements. More specifically, you ask whether it is optional or mandatory to have a DOT number for bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles. As discussed below, a DOT number is required for the bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of all vehicles, including armored vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205), specifies requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance, location, marking, and certification requirements. Therefore, the glazing to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles, whether bullet-resistant or not, must be marked in accordance with the marking requirements of FMVSS No. 205, as discussed below.

S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. S6.1 requires every Aprime glazing material manufacturer@ (defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as Aone who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material@) to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard ASafety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways@ Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (AANS Z26"). S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of our statute at 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

Each manufacturer or distributor who would not be considered a Aprime glazing material manufacturer,@ but who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing that are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA=

s Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:205
d.8/1/01

ID: nht80-1.10

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requested an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacement sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.

Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean that NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group November 16, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Gentlemen:

We are considering marking our P-series tires with the alpha-numeric size they replace shown below in parenthesis. An example would be as follows:

P205/75 R15 (replaces FR78-15)

Similarly, we are considering marking our 230-15 tire as follows:

230-15 (replaces 225-15)

The 230-15 can be used on all cars that are fitted with 225-15.

Please advise us if such markings would be in violation of FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. Standard.

Your quick response would be appreciated since we are planning to start these programs shortly.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: 22311new

Mr. Takashi Yoshie
General Manager
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036





Dear Mr. Yoshie:

This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Specifically, you state that you believe that S7.11, Brake Power Unit or Brake Power Assist Unit Inoperative (System Depleted), of Standard No. 135 does not require a human test driver to apply the brake during the test, and that a brake testing unit may be used by vehicle manufacturers for in-house testing and by NHTSA for compliance testing. The issues you raise are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

We expect manufacturers to have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Under current law, certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, or computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written; i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service and parking brake systems in order to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions. It applies to passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States on or after September 1, 2000, and to multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2002. The test procedures for vehicles equipped with one or more brake power units or brake power assist units

are set forth in S7.11 of the standard. These procedures specify that the load applied to the brakes is less than or equal to 500 N (112.4 pounds).

You state that Toyota has observed large testing variability between test drivers with respect to the load that is applied during the S7.11 test. To reduce this variability, Toyota has developed a brake testing unit (BTU) that applies a pre-determined load onto the brake pedal to allow for consistent and repeatable brake applications. You state that for purposes of the test specified in S7.11, the BTU can be programmed to apply a load of, for example, 490 N to ensure that the 500 N limit is not exceeded. You believe that the use of a BTU complies with the test procedures set forth in S7.11 of Standard No. 135.

You are correct that Standard No. 135 does not specify that a human test driver be used to apply the brake during the S7.11 test. I note, however, that NHTSA does not currently have any plans to use a BTU in conducting compliance tests.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.3/8/01

ID: 17374.drn

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
131 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Clyde L. Simpson, General Manager of Autotech USA in Park City, asking about requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that apply to Autotech's spare wheel covers for sport utility vehicles. I sincerely regret that Mr. Simpson's earlier letter to the agency was lost.

Mr. Simpson describes Autotech's spare wheel cover, called "The Original Brilliant Cover," as consisting of a stainless steel outer ring assembly, with a stainless steel latch with an integrated lock, and a plastic faceplate assembly with a continuous safety strap. The strap fits the faceplate by passing the strap through two slots which are located opposite each other at the outer perimeter of the faceplate. The strap is placed behind the spare tire and wheel assembly, preventing the faceplate from falling off if the ring assembly should become unlatched or if the spare tire should deflate. Mr. Simpson explains that the product has European approval, and describes some specifications that the product had to meet to receive the approval. He also states that the product has a locking mechanism to ensure its faceplates do not fall off and become a safety hazard.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

While "The Original Brilliant Cover" is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards for spare wheel covers. However, there are certain responsibilities that apply to Autotech, which are briefly described in the enclosed information sheet. For example, Autotech, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is responsible for ensuring that its products are free of safety-related defects. This responsibility is set forth in sections 30118-30120 of our statute (at Title 49 of the United States Code). In the event Autotech or NHTSA determines that the wheel cover contains a safety-related defect, Autotech would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the wheel cover is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

Other legal requirements may apply depending on how "The Original Brilliant Cover" is sold. If the wheel cover were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the spare wheel cover, meets all safety standards. In addition, if the spare wheel cover were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business on a new or used vehicle, 30122(b) of our statute prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition subjects the violator to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install Autotech's spare wheel cover on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to somehow result in the vehicle no longer meeting a safety standard. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so Autotech may wish to consult State regulations to see whether its product would be permitted.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your constituent's questions. If there is anything else I can do, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.3/13/98

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: nht76-4.35

DATE: 07/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1976, request that Madico solar protective polyester film be "designated as acceptable" under Ford Motor Company's DOT code number for the Ford product "Privacy Glass" or, in the alternative, that the Madico product be assigned a separate DOT glazing code number. You state that the Madico film achieves the same effect as "Privacy Glass" for reduction of solar heat, glare and fading.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Section S6 of the standard outlines the procedures required for certification and marking of glazing materials, to certify that the glazing complies with all the requirements of the standard. Paragraph S6.2 of that section requires certain manufacturers to mark their glazing materials with the "DOT" symbol and a manufacturer's code number, which is assigned to the manufacturer by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration upon written request. Each code number is the unique mark of a single manufacturer, and is intended to facilitiate the traceability of the glazing to the original manufacturer. Therefore, Ford's code number (DOT - 75 FM-M73) cannot be used by Madico or by another glazing manufacturer or distributor.

Your letter states that the Madico product is a solar protective film that is "bonded or laminated to existing, installed clear glass." We conclude that this "protective film" is not glazing material and is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Therefore, a glazing manufacturer's code number cannot be assigned for the product.

Whether or not the Madico protective film is otherwise subject to Federal requirements depends upon who uses the product. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, he must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

On the other hand, the vehicle owner may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. The owner could install the protective film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205. It should be noted, however, that section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business may knowingly install the Madico protective film on a vehicle for its owner in a manner that would destroy the conformity of the glazing with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SUN CONTROL PRODUCTS OF VIRGINIA, INC.

June 11, 1976

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

It is my understanding and observation that the Ford Motor Company is supplying and selling as an option their "Privacy Glass" for their Club Wagons and Econoline Vans in the 1976 Model year.

The "Privacy Glass" carries the following identification on the installed glass:

"Laminated Safety Glass, 'Carlite', F-6D, R-AS3, DOT-75 FM-M73"

It is my further understanding that the DOT Code number above indicates that certain Solar Optical Properties of the "Privacy Glass" have been supplied by Ford Motor Company (Or the Glass manufacturer) to DOT before DOT issued the code number.

Attached is a copy of the manufacturer's (MADICO) Product Specification sheet of solar protective polyester film, Non-Reflective Laminated FADE SHIELD SERIES FSLW 100-20 Gray. This solar protective film is bonded or laminated to existing, installed clear glass, and attains the same effect as the "Privacy Glass" for reduction of solar heat-gain, solar glare and solar fading.

It is my understanding that the solar optical properties of MADICO'S FSLW-100-20 Gray are equal to or within reasonable tolerance and range of the solar properties of the Ford Motor Company's "Privacy Glass" under DOT-75 FM-M-73.

Accordingly, it is requested that MADICO'S FSLW-100-20 Gray, solar protective film be assigned or designated as acceptable under DOT-75 FM-M73, as an alternate to "Privacy Glass" for installation on existing clear glass of vehicles under the same provisions.

If it is not possible for FSLW-100-20 Gray, solar protective film to be included under DOT-75 FM-M73, it is requested that a DOT CODE NUMBER be issued for FSLW-100-20 Gray.

Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to an an early reply.

Cordially, Mark T. Lerche President

[PRODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEET OMITTED]