Interpretation ID: 1984-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/84

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN S. CUCHERAN -- VICE PRESIDENT DESIGN & ENGINEERING JAC PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1984, addressed to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The reply that Mr. Vinson had drafted was misplaced while being circulated for comment, and we greatly regret any inconvenience that this may have caused you. We are also replying to a telephone call Mr. Vinson made to you on June 14.

You have informed us, in essence, that there appear to be certain vehicle configurations in which photometric requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp, at the 5 degree down position, will not be met when such vehicles are equipped with a deck-mounted luggage rack of the type manufactured by JAC Products. You have asked for an interpretation "exempting deck rack cross rails from compliance to the 5 degree down cone area"; alternatively, you request that we "consider a new rule exempting the 5 degree down cone requirements for vehicles supplied with deck mounted luggage carriers". You have also informed us that General Motors intends to use the new lamp on some of its 1985 model lines, and that because of this requirement the company will drop the rack as an optional accessory.

General Motors petitioned the agency to reconsider this requirement, asking for a modified level of performance if a vehicle is unable to meet the original values and test points at 5 degrees down. The agency denied this petition on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed).

Absent a change in the language of the standard, we have no authority to exempt, on our own motion, "deck rack cross rails from compliance". Temporary exemptions are granted only to manufacturers of vehicles, upon their petition, and only for a limited purpose, after a period of public comment. Given the rule concerned and the factual situation you present, we see no viable basis for such an exemption petition.

We understand that your company is a manufacturer of luggage racks for motor vehicles, and General Motors intends to offer these racks on certain of its 1985 J-model passenger cars, which will be equipped with the new stop lamp as standard equipment. The J-cars will meet all the requirements in Standard No. 108 with the luggage rack installed. However, you have received inquiries as to the permissibility of blockage of the lamp by a duffel or other load on the luggage rack.

A manufacturer certifies conformance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108 in the state that it is sold to the consumer and not on the basis of how the consumer may use it. This means that the vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 with any factory option installed, or dealer option installed before sale. For example, if GM offered the J-car with both a luggage rack and a duffel, a car would have to meet center high-mounted lamp requirements with both rack and duffel in place. But there is no Federal requirement that the lamp meet requirements if the duffel is supplied by the vehicle owner. If there is any prohibition, it would be contained in a State law or municipal ordinance.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,