ID: 86-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville, FL 32217 Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with you letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended cover a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product. Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA , however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically test vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. these requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one enclosed in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles. If you need further information, please let me know. I an returning, under separate cover, the sample you sent. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-1.6

DATE: 12/15/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bud Shuster - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable Bud Shuster House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Shuster:

This responds to your inquiry dated November 29, 1978, on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. C. Stake, requesting information about Federal safety standards concerning door locks on automobiles. Specifically, Mr. Stake is concerned that the doors on his 1977 Mercury Monarch can be unlocked by a child from the inside by lifting the door handle.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 572.206), which specifies performance requirements for side door locks and side door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact. That standard specifies that each door on a passenger car shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3.1 of the standard specifies that when the locking mechanism on a side front door is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. For side rear doors, however, paragraph S4.1.3.2 requires both the outside and inside door handles to be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

This latter requirement was specifically included in the standard to address Mr. Stake's concern, that is, to prevent children from unlocking rear doors by means of the door handle. The design restriction was limited to rear doors on the basis that the danger arises primarily with unattended children sitting in the rear seat. A child sitting in the front seat is likely under the watchful eye of the driver. Further, there is the consideration that in emergency situations the driver may need to unlock his front door as easily and quickly as possible.

Since the Standard No. 206 requirements have been in effect for some time, we assume that the situation Mr. Stake describes is true only of the front doors of his Mercury Monarch. As noted above, however, there are competing safety considerations involved with door locks on front side doors.

Please contact our office if your constituent has any further questions concerning this matter, or have him contact us directly.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

DATE November 29, 1978

FROM: BUD SHUSTER, M. C.

Room 1112 Longworth Building Washington, D. C. 20515

TO: Department of Transportation Congressional Laison Office 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

NAME OF SUBJECT Mr. Clair Stake

SS OR OTHER CLAIM #

ADDRESS Box 115

Spring Run, Pennsylvania 17262

PROBLEM:

Mr. Stake has contacted me concerning car door lock safety standards. He owns a 1977 Mercury Monarch. When the door is locked (by pushing the button on the inside of the door) he finds that his young child can still open the door by pulling on the door handle.

This concernins him because be beleives that there should be safety standards which should require the door handle to be immobile until the lock button is pulled up.

Will you please send me any information on door lock standards? Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht79-4.17

DATE: 05/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whether Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of-sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.

SINCERELY,

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION

April 27, 1979

Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Attached is the information I talked to you on April 27, 1979. Please make any correction or changes so this letter will fall within the D. O. T. guideline.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation

DOT QUALITY GRADES ALL PASSENGER CAR TIRES MUST CONFORM TO FEDERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THESE GRADES TREADWEAR

The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course. For example, a tire graded 150 would wear one and a half (1-1/2) times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices and differences in road characteristics and climate.

TRACTION

The traction grades, from highest to lowest are A, B, and C, and they represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this tire is based on braking (straightahead) traction tests and does not include cornering (turning) traction.

TEMPERATURE

The temperature grades are A (the highest), B, and C representing the tire's resistance to the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat when tested under controlled conditions on a specified indoor laboratory test wheel. Sustained high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire failure. The grade C corresponds to a level of performance which all passenger car tires must meet under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Grades B and A represent higher levels of performance on the laboratory test wheel than the minimum required by law. Warning: The temperature grade for this tire is established for a tire that is properly inflated and not overloaded. Excessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading, either separately or in combination, can cause heat buildup and possible tire failure. Tire Size Load Tread Tubeless/ Trd Designation Range Pattern Tube Type Side Wall Wear Traction Temp. 155S13/6.15 $ 13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B B 4PR 155-13/6.15-13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 4PR 165S13/6.45S13 B Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B B 4PR 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B C H78-15 B Y820 Tubeless Black 80 B C

ID: nht79-4.39

DATE: 08/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions about the test procedures of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention, as they apply to buses you manufacture.

First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determining the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.

Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested for window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.

SINCERELY,

Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

JULY 16, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This company was the designer and manufacturer of the Orion Mid size Transit bus.

More recently the deliveries to the U.S. market have been taken over by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation of Roswell, New Mexico, who manufacture and market the buses in the U.S.A. under the "Citycruiser" trade name.

A query has arisen concerning the application of MVSS 217 to this model bus on a point that was raised before the introduction of the model and for which a verbal answer was given when the prototype was presented in Washington on October 5th 1977.

The point at issue was to what extent and under what Criteria the service doors can be considered as "unobstructed openings for emergency exit" as required in S 5.2 (provision of emergency exits) and more particularly the "side exits" as required in S 5.2.1 (Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds).

It was verbally confirmed at the time that service doors could be regarded as side exits for emergency exit, provided they met the requirements of S 5.3 (Emergency exit release), S 5.4 (Emergency exit extension) and S 5.5 (Emergency exit identification). Official confirmation of the above is hereby requested.

Finally, a clear ruling was not given on the application of S 5.1 Window retention when applied to the glazing in service doors. It is reasonably clear that the glass in the door frame should meet the requirements. It is less obvious that the door in its frame, when used as a service door, must meet this requirement, ie. the glass be tested in the door, the door being in the bus.

If not, does this requirement become mandatory, when the service door is designated as a side exit?

The doors are presently being constructed so as to meet this requirement, but a ruling on this point is hereby requested.

CC: E. CUMMINGS -- TRANSPORTATION MFG. CO.

ID: nht87-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1986, with reference to the distance between a front turn signal lamp and a lower beam headlamp.

In brief, SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 requires a minimum separation distance of 4 inches between the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lo wer bean headlamp. You have pointed out that a replaceable bulb headlamp does not have a retaining ring, and you have presented two possible substitutes as a measuring point. The first (your Item A) is the outer edge of the headlamp, and the second (your Item B) is the end of the effective area of the reflector. You believe that Item B is the more appropriate.

We concur with your interpretation. Of the two options, the distance to the edge of the effective area of the reflector is the one most similar to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. The basis for this interpretation is the assumption that the headlamp lens between the outer edge of the headlamp and the edge of the effective area of the reflector is not used for production of the lamp's bean, has mo significant luminance, and therefore will not mask the turn signal.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Distance between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp)

In Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N0.108, Paragraph 4.3.1.7, the following is prescribed:

S4.3.1.7 The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamps Measured at the test point within each group listed in Figure 1c is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

According to the SAE Standard J588e, the distance is defined as from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This definition applies only to a standardized headlamp. What definition is appropriate for a replaceable bulb headlamp, in other words, an unstandardized headlamp? We think B in the following definition is appropriate.

A : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the outer edge of a low beam headlamp

B : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the end of the effective area of the reflector of a low beam headlamp

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

ID: nht81-1.15

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. L. Lubatti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1980

N.H.T.S.A.

ATTENTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. x

John L. Lubatti Branch Manager

Police report omitted.

ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht81-1.40

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Zemaitis; NHTSA

TO: Poly Dyne Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Date: March 16 1981 NO9-00

Subject: Poly Dyne Engineering P.O. Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

From: Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX

To: Office of Chief Counsel NOA-30

Enclosed is a letter dated March 6, 1981, and an attached brochure illustrating a reflective device.

We would appreciate your response to the subject.

Joseph Zemaitis

Enclosure

Poly Dyne Engineering Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

March 6, 1981

Joseph F. Zemaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Mr. Zemaitis:

Recently, we have requested copies of regulations pertaining to standards and usage of triangle type flares of warning signals as related to overland trucks. Your office has been helpful in supplying us with copies of current DOT regulations along with procedures to follow for possible amendments.

The purpose of this letter and prior inquiries was to initiate some action that would allow the use of our new patented triangle signal either in addition to or in place of the type that now is carried by truckers to be set on the ground in proper orientation to disabled or parked trucks.

Our product, photos and literature enclosed, has been designed for either rear or side mount on trucks, RVs or any other vehicle and is automatically deployed into its triangular configuration upon withdrawal from the case. Not only is the signal weather tight, but it is permanently mounted on a vehicle and can be rapidly deployed in a matter of seconds or re-encased in the same amount of time. Naturally, the product has been designed to meet DOT specifications for size, reflective surface area, reflectivity and environmental requirements. We have found that a signal of this type mounted a minimum of 3 to 5 feet above the road surface becomes highly visible to approaching traffic from far greater distances than those sitting on the ground. Additionally, they are not subject to the effects of high winds, theft, or the all too common breakage from passing traffic and, by the ease with which they can be deployed, would encourage their use by truckers as well as by RV owners, truck and trailer rental companies, delivery services, etc...We believe that more extensive use of this type of warning device would add significantly to traffic safety.

Needless to say, we are enthused about our new warning signal and have received unusually enthusiastic response from truckers and fleet owners who have seen this device and would like to see it used in place of those now required for road surface display.

We would appreciate your review of the enclosed information as well as your opinion of its benefits and your estimate of the amount of time and effort that may be involved in obtaining DOT approval for its use.

O. Vandewege, Pres. PolyDyne Engineering

OVbb

ID: 86-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ray August -- Auto Trends

TEXT:

Mr. Ray August Auto Trends 9818 Grinnell Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48213

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking "what is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, to be equipped with a supplementary stop lamp mounted on the centerline of the vehicle not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches if it is a convertible). The standard specifies that the lamp shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, and that it shall meet minimum candela values at certain specified test points. Under Federal law, the lamp must meet these requirements at the time the new car is sold. Thus, if the vehicle manufacturer or new car dealer equips a passenger car with a trunk rack, care must be taken to insure that the requirements are still met (obviously this depends both upon the location of the lamp and the configuration of the rack). If the rack prohibits the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it complies with all requirements of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle, the owner may modify his car without reference to Federal law but a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business cannot make modifications that "render inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment relating to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view dealer installation of a trunk rack on a used car with an original equipment center stop lamp as subject to this prohibition if the rack affects compliance with photometric and visibility requirements.

The question is frequently asked us whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no: compliance is determined without the load in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Dec. 12, 1985

Taylor Vinson Legal Consul NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: New Brake Light - Rear Window

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In my discussion with Mr. Kagy of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, he recommended I write to you for a legal opinion in this matter.

Auto Trends is a manufacturer of luggage racks, both roof racks and trunk racks. What is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Ray August, Plant Manager RA:ks cc:ra

ID: 8744

Mr. Richard Glover
Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co.
1801 Commerce Dr.
Piqua, OH 45356

Dear Mr. Glover:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard.

You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on "date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents." You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible "mis-keying" of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded "quiet zone" to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded.

It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following:

No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a.

The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be

reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not.

Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form.

We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words "please print" after the instructions to the consumer "just fill in your name and address." "Please print" is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, "please print" is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:10/20/93