ID: 11-001987 nelson.may18

ID: 18121.ztv

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of June 4, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a rear lamp that ITT Automotive Europe is developing.

You have asked the factors that must be taken into consideration, the photometric requirements that must be met, "which requirements exist if one LED" fails, and which regulation will be used.

The rear lamp specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment are based upon incandescent bulb technology where requirements are generally met by using one bulb for each lighted section of the lamp. The specification of 32 candela per lighted section that appear in certain SAE materials incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 is based upon the highest output of incandescent signal lamp bulbs at the time that the SAE standards were written. When requirements are intended to be met by limited flux light sources such as LEDs, the light output specification cannot be provided by a single light source but must be provided by multiple light sources. However, current interpretations of what is necessary to comply with Standard No. 108 do not contain any differentiation based on type of light source. Thus, if 20 LEDs provide the same illumination as a single filament bulb, a lamp equipped with the former is considered a lamp with three lighted sections for purposes of compliance, not a single-section lamp. To meet the photometric requirements for three-section lamps, manufacturers must use an overly bright and costly array of LEDs.

You have asked what are the requirements if one LED fails. Failure of one light source in a taillamp or a stop lamp with more than one light source is not addressed by Standard No. 108. If a light source fails in a turn signal lamp on a vehicle that is not equipped to tow a trailer, Standard No. 108 requires that the failure be indicated to the driver. We are not aware of any LED turn signals in use, or how manufacturers would design such a unit to comply with this requirement. However, we believe that a failure should be indicated to the driver at the point where an LED turn signal ceases to furnish the minimum photometric performance required by Standard No. 108. In general, the laws of the individual states require all lamps to be fully functional on vehicles in operation but the failure of a single LED is likely to pass unnoticed.

On June 24, 1998, the agency proposed to amend Standard No. 108 to accommodate LED technology (63 FR 34350). Instead of being designed to conform to the photometric requirements based on the number of lighted sections specified in relevant SAE materials, NHTSA has proposed that a lamp equipped with LEDs that needs more than one light source to achieve compliance with the photometric performance required of a single lighted section, shall be designed to conform to photometric requirements based on the dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area for the function being tested. A lamp would be regarded as having one lighted section if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp is less than 150 mm, two lighted sections if the dimension is 150-300 mm, and three lighted sections if the dimension is greater than 300 mm.

Comments are due on the proposal not later than August 10, 1998. The proposed effective date is one year after publication of the final rule. I enclose a copy of the proposed rule for your information. We are sending this response by mail, rather than by fax, to ensure that you receive a clear copy.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/10/98
ref:108

ID: 11893.DF

Mr. Simon Clarke
Clarke Safety Products
621 Bayshore Dr.
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

Dear Mr. Clarke:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about the responsibilities associated with Agrooving windshields.@ We assume you refer to the process of grinding grooves into the lower portion of a windshield. The purpose of the grooves is to improve the efficacy of the windshield wipers.

I have enclosed copies of two letters on this subject, both addressed to Mr. Andrew Kallman, dated March 1, 1985 and October 28, 1988. These letters explain how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) regulations would apply if the grooves are ground into a windshield of a new vehicle, into a windshield sold as an item of replacement equipment, or into a windshield of a used vehicle.

Those letters address the issues you raise, and I will refer to them from time to time in answering your specific questions.

Question 1. Are you able to alter a previously certified item of motor vehicle equipment covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205?

Answer: Our answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met. As explained in the enclosed March 1985 letter, if the grooves are ground into the windshield of a new vehicle or into a new windshield sold as replacement equipment, the person making the grooves would have to ensure that the glazing continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard 205. If the grooves are ground into the windshield of a used vehicle, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business must not make inoperative the compliance of the vehicle=s glazing with Standard 205. Individual owners may alter their vehicles as they please, as long as they adhere to all State requirements.

Question 2. If you did alter a previously certified item, could you now be construed the manufacturer and should now be perceived a Glazing Manufacturer with an I.D.#?

The answer depends on how the glazing is altered. NHTSA issues a manufacturer=s code mark only to "prime glazing manufacturers," which is defined at S6.1 as Aone who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your company does not alter glazing in those ways (and merely adding grooves does not), you would not need, and NHTSA would not issue, a manufacturer=s code mark.

Question 3. If one now is to become a Glazing Manufacturer, how does one do so and how does one receive a Glazing I.D.#?

Prime glazing material manufacturers may receive a manufacturer=s code mark by writing NHTSA at the following address: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, Room 6111, Washington D.C., 20590 (telephone (202) 366-2832).

Question 4. For me now to proceed and groove windshields, what steps must I take to abide by the law and to hold my liabilities to a minimum and not be deemed negligent?

Our statute does not permit NHTSA to assure any person or entity that its product or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to Aapprove@ some product or process. Instead, our statute requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, and to ensure they are free of safety-related defects.

The enclosed copies of the Kellman letters discuss your responsibilities for meeting NHTSA=s requirements, including Standard 205. You should also be aware of State requirements. In addition, you may want to check with a private attorney for your responsibilities under State tort law.

Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:205 d:6/18/96

2

ID: 11497AWKM

Mr. Kenneth W. Obrycki
2433 Arlington Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15209

Dear Mr. Obrycki:

This responds to your January 16, 1996 letter to this agency suggesting that tire safety would be improved if we were to require a yellow line approximately 1/4 of an inch wide across the width of tires at the 3/32 of an inch tread depth level. You stated that such a requirement could enable consumers to tell when tires are unsafe and could enable state police and inspection stations to readily observe dangerous tread levels. You believe that this would enhance passenger safety because worn tires would be replaced sooner.

We have carefully reviewed your letter, but do not agree that the requirement you suggest is warranted at this time. Our decision is explained below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, such standards must be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which they are prescribed. Once a vehicle or item of equipment is sold to the consumer, NHTSA's authority generally terminates and with certain exceptions, use of that vehicle or item of equipment then becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to tires, the pertinent ones here being FMVSS Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Both standards require that all tires have treadwear indicators molded into the tread at the 2/32 of an inch tread depth level. This level was selected by NHTSA based on early studies that showed that when tread is worn to 2/32 of an inch, a tire rapidly loses its traction characteristics, thereby becoming unsafe. Although states, not NHTSA, have the authority to enforce tire removal when the tread depth becomes worn below a certain level, the agency has issued vehicle in use inspection standards at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 570, for states to use as a guide in establishing their own vehicle inspection requirements.

You stated in your letter that Pennsylvania, and perhaps other states, has established minimum tread depth requirements at 3/32 of an inch. The state has the authority to do that, since it has jurisdiction over the use of vehicles and equipment. NHTSA has retained the 2/32 of an inch requirement for tread depth indicators, however, and recently denied a petition to raise the tread depth indicators to 3/32 of an inch because there was no proven safety need to do so. A copy of the denial notice is enclosed.

Although NHTSA has the authority to require a yellow line across the tire to highlight the tread depth indicators, the agency has no data suggesting a safety need for such action. The tread depth indicators currently required, even though unobtrusive from a distance, have been shown to be effective in alerting motorists, inspection stations, and law enforcement personnel to unsafe tire wear. Accordingly, without further data showing a safety need to do so, NHTSA does not believe that requiring yellow tread wear markings in addition to those already required would be reasonable at this time.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:109#119 ref:2/22/96

ID: 1982-2.25

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. S. Woolley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 26 1982

Mr. Phillip S. Woolley 10769 63rd Way N. Pinellas Park, FL 33565

Dear Mr. Woolley:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking what you must do pursuant to Federal regulations as a manufacturer of taillamps for boat trailers.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard you must consider is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflection Devices, and Associated Equipment. (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, S571.108) Under its terms, every vehicle taillamp must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail lamps (Rear Postion Lamps), September 1977, and the SAE materials referenced in J585e, except that paragraph S4.1.1.12 of Standard No. 108 establishes alternative photometric equipment. The standard does not establish per se a minimum lens area for a taillamp. However, a vehicle manufacturer is required to ensure that when a tail lamp is installed, "the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex," at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle" (paragraph 4, J585e).

As a manufacturer, you are required to certify compliance of each taillamp with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which may be by labelling the lamp with the symbol DOT, or by a statement on the lamp or on its shipping container (paragraph S4.7.2, Standard No. 108). You are also required to file an identification statement with the agency (49 CFR Part 566). In the event any taillamp fails to comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporates a safety-related defect, you must notify purchasers and remedy the problem in the manner specified by 49 CFR Part 577, after filing a report with the agency (Part 573).

You may obtain a copy of all Federal requirements by sending a check for $8 to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 and asking for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations - Parts 400 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1981."

For further information on the SAE materials, write "Technical Division, SAE, 400 Commonweath Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096 (or call 412-776-4841). In addition to J585e, you will need copies of J575e Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August 1970; J576d Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts Such as Lenses and Reflection of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, June 1976; and J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, June 1977.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Phillip S. Woolley 10769 63rd Way N. Pinellas Park, Fl. 33565

July 8, 1982

Mr. Taylor Vinson - F.M.V.S.S. - 108 Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assoc. Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Our company intends to manufacture tail lights for boat trailers and we need to know in laymans terms exactly what we have to do to comply with the rules and regulations set by the Federal Department of Transportations section 108. Are there any rules regarding square inches of lens surface area?

Thank you very much,

Phillip S. Woolley

P.S. Your name was referred to me by the National Highway Transportation Dept.

PSW/kw

ID: 14516.ztv

Mr. Larry C. Lavender
Fleetline Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 298
Springfield, TN 37172

Dear Mr. Lavender:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You state that you have received "verbal" answers to certain questions from the Office of Safety Performance Standards and need a written confirmation of these answers from the Office of Chief Counsel. You wish to supply parts to "heavy duty truck manufacturers" that meet Standard No. 108, and are concerned with sheeting to be applied to the rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap support brackets.

My initial comment is that we encourage manufacturers to seek written interpretations directly from the Office of Chief Counsel. Only the written interpretations of the Office of Chief Counsel are binding.

My second comment is to note that the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 apply only to heavy trailers and to truck tractors that are 80 or more inches in overall width. Thus, a manufacturer wishing to add conspicuity sheeting to rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap brackets of a straight truck need not follow Standard No. 108. Nevertheless, in the belief that standardization enhances safety, we encourage voluntary compliance with the conspicuity requirements for straight trucks as well.

The interpretations for which you seek confirmation are:

"The sheeting must be in a pattern of alternating red and white segments. The individual segments must be 300mm long plus or minus 150mm, i.e. from 150mm to 450mm long."

Yes. The specifications stated in paragraph S5.7.1.3(a) and (b) for the side and rear of trailers and truck tractors apply also to rear fenders, and mud flaps and their support brackets.

"There is no requirement for the color pattern to begin or end in either color. The inboard and outboard segments may be either red or white."

You are correct. The text of Standard No. 108 speaks of "alternating white and red color segments" (S5.7.1.3(a)) while Figure 30-1 through Figure 30-4 show red and white segments installed. However, there is no requirement that the color pattern begin or end with either color, or that inboard and outboard segments be red or white.

"There is no requirement for the tape to be completely free of discontinuities. On the brackets which have a 45 degree angle, the tape does not have to be cut in a miter joint."

Paragraph S5.7.1.4(a) specifies that sheeting "need not be applied to discontinuous surfaces" and provides several examples of these. We assume that this is what you mean by your statement. There is no requirement that tape be cut in a miter joint.

"Minor trimming of the tape to conform to the shape of a bracket is acceptable, provided the length measured on the center line of the tape is a minimum of 600mm. On the drawing included with this memorandum one corner of the tape is trimmed. This is acceptable."

Minor trimming of the tape is acceptable, as shown on your drawing. The length measured on the center line of the sheeting may be any length from 600mm to 900mm. (300mm +/- 150mm x 2).

"The drawing included with this memorandum illustrates a proposed bracket satisfying FMVSS 571.108."

The drawing shows an acceptable solution to mounting conspicuity material on a mud flap bracket.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:5/28/97
d:5/28/97

ID: 1985-02.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. David Hawkins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician Failure Analysis Associates 10899 Kinghyrst, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77099

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether buses are excluded from the requirements of section S4.2, section S4.3, and/or the static testing procedures of section S5. You also asked whether there are any other standards which provide criteria for the testing of seating systems on buses.

Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies to buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, General performance requirements, provides that "(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand" specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.

Similarly, section S4.5, Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, provides that "(e)except for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall" meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would not be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

With respect to your last question, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies criteria for the testing of school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing seating systems of buses.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Failure Analysis Associates

March 6, 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Our File No. HS30089

Dear Mr. Wood:

In regard to our recent phone conversation, I am sending this following list of questions pertaining to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. This standard deals specifically with seating systems--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The purpose and scope of this standard is to "establish requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact".

1. Am I correct in assuming that buses are excluded from: the general performance requirements (S4.2), restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs (S4.3), and also excluded from the static testing procedures outlined in (S5)?

2. If buses are indeed excluded from all of the above, are there any other standards which provide criteria for the testing (visual, static, or dynamic) of seating systems on buses?

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician RDH:cdk

ID: 1985-03.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: K. Weight

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo, UT 84601

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows in automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.

FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a new passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent; clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.

Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the "black window" is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so long as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material 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 the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5/4/85

Elizabeth Dole - PERSONAL National Highway Traffic Admin. 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

I wrote you 4/26/85 re several safety questions I had.

I am wondering why black windows are allowed on automobiles now? With kidnappings, and failure for a police officer to see into a car, I am thinking these dark windows should be banned.

If I am writing to the wrong dept. please tell me who to write.

Very truly yours,

K. Weight 65 E 200 N Provo, Utah 84601

ID: maxon_threshold7346

S. Lafferty, Manager, Engineering
Maxon
16205 Distribution Way
Cerritos, CA 90703




Dear Ms. Lafferty:

This responds to you letter in which you asked about the threshold warning requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles. You stated that there is an apparent discrepancy between the threshold warning system requirement and the associated test procedure, and asked which takes precedent. As explained below, the specified test procedure for the threshold warning system requirement is consistent with that requirement.

As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts in part to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires an appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard.

In your letter you stated that it is possible to design a threshold warning system that "will pass a test that is performed as described in S7.4 and not completely fulfill the requirements of S6.1.3". You described a threshold warning system designed with an optical sensor at the interior boundary of the platform threshold area. You stated that such a system would activate the warning signal only when a passenger is crossing the boundary of the threshold at the same time as the platform is lower than 25 mm from the vehicle floor. You further stated that such a system would not activate a signal if a passenger were completely within the threshold area when the platform reached the specified distance from the vehicle floor. Your letter indicated that you believe that such a system would "pass" the test procedure, but not comply fully with the requirement.

A system as you described would not comply with the requirements of S6.1.3 when tested as specified in S7.4. As stated above, S6.1 requires the appropriate warning signal to activate when tested in accordance with S7.4. S7.4.2 specifies that, with the platform lift at the vehicle floor loading position:

[P]lace one front wheel of the unloaded wheelchair test device [specified in S7.1.2] on any portion of the threshold area defined in S4. Move the platform down until the alarm is actuated. Remove the test wheelchair wheel from the threshold area to deactivate the alarm. Measure the vertical distance between the platform and the threshold area and determine whether that distance is greater than 25 mm (1 in).

Thus, S7.4.2 specifies placing the front wheel of the test device on any portion of the threshold area. As explained in 49 CFR 571.4, the use of the term "any" in connection with a range of values or set of items means generally, "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the [agency] for testing". Accordingly, the procedure specified in S7.4.2 includes placement of the front wheel that could result in the entire test device being within the threshold area prior to the platform being lowered. This also includes placement that results in a portion of the test device being on the platform.

Given the discussion above, a system such as you described would not comply when tested under S7.4.2. As such, there is no discrepancy between the requirement of S6.1.3 and the test procedure specified in S7.4.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.11/3/05

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