ID: 24157.ztv

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Motorcycles, Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your fax of March 14, 2002, asking three questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Pursuant to our request, you provided supplemental information on April 17, 2002.

Your questions are:

"1. If an SAE recommended practice that is referenced in FMVSS 108 is revised and updated by SAE, is the latest revision . . . automatically adopted in FMVSS 108? If not, does an earlier dated version remain in the regulation?

SAE materials that are referenced and subreferenced in FMVSS No. 108 are not automatically updated when the SAE revises them, and "earlier dated versions" remain in effect. That is because an SAE update requires an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 in order to be incorporated as a requirement. Under U.S. law, amendments to Federal regulations such as FMVSS No.108 must be proposed for public comment before they can be adopted.

2. You describe a new headlamp design and ask for confirmation of your conclusion that it complies with S7.9.6.2(b) of FMVSS No. 108.

Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) requires that:

"If the [motorcycle headlamp] system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200mm (8 in)."

In your design, there would be "two visibly separate headlights" which would be placed "in one seamless housing," each headlamp providing an upper and lower beam, and each lamp placed symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Further, "[o]n each side, there will be clear cover placed over the outside of the lamp." You believe that this headlamp design is allowable but report that your supplier disagrees. In his view, a headlamp is permitted a maximum of two bulbs, and that use of a single housing effectively creates a four-bulb headlamp which is not permitted.

We evaluated a similar situation in our letter of February 22, 1999, to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley Electric Co. (copy enclosed). Our letter commented that "it is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps." However, the supplementary information that you furnished clarifies that the Triumph headlighting system is designed to be installed in a single housing, and that the upper and lower beam headlamps are not separable from the housing. This design differs from that posited by Stanley and, in our opinion, could not be considered a two-lamp headlamp system. As such, the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b) do not apply to this design, and Triumph needs to ensure that this headlamp complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a).

We would like to further comment that a headlamp with four light sources is permitted as a motorcycle headlamp. While there is a limitation on the number of light sources for motor vehicle headlamps, there is no limitation for motorcycle headlamps.

"3. Table IV of FMVSS 108 states that the minimum separation distance between a turn signal and a headlight must be 4 inches. However, since turn signals must comply with the requirements of SAE J588, does the factoring table in SAE J588 apply if we want to mount the turn signals closer to the headlights than 4 inches? If is difficult for us to decide if close mounting of turn signals is permissible as FMVSS [108] appears to preclude mounting turn signals closer than 4 inches yet J588 gives you a possibility to do so."

We were asked this question by BMW in a letter of August 15, 1983, and I enclose a copy of our response to Karl-Heinz Ziwicka. The interpretation remains valid. The minimum spacing requirements established by Table IV between motorcycle headlamps and turn signal lamps must be met, for the reasons expressed in our letter, notwithstanding the fact that SAE J588 NOV84 and its predecessor in effect at that time permit a closer spacing of these lamps if a multiplier is applied to the minimum luminous intensities.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.5/24/02

ID: 2415y

Ms Joan E. Fogelman
Lund & Pullara, Inc.
P.O. Box 10148
Riviera Beach, FL 33404

FAX 305-842-9836

Dear Ms. Fogelman:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 2, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with reference to a l985 Mercedes-Benz 280SE sedan being imported from the Bahamas temporarily, for the purpose of repair. You have stated that "U.S. Customs wants a reassurance that they will not be held accountable if for some unforseen happening, this vehicle is not properly exported."

Although the new DOT vehicle importation regulations effective January 31, l990, make no specific provision for temporary importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle for repairs, when such a vehicle is owned by a nonresident of the United States and registered in a country other than the U.S., it is acceptable to this agency for the nonresident owner to enter it under the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(d), the declaration by an importer who provides his passport number and country of issue that he is a nonresident importing the vehicle for personal use for a period not to exceed one year and will not sell the vehicle during that time. Such an entry is not accompanied by the new DOT conformance bond, which is required only for entries pursuant to 591.5(f) and (g).

I do not know what Customs means by being held "accountable" if the vehicle is not properly exported. You have stated that it will be accompanied by a Customs bond, and I assume that if the terms of that bond are violated Customs will take whatever enforcement action against the vehicle and its owner is deemed appropriate under the bond.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:591 d:4/26/90

ID: 24169

Mr. Delmer T. Brower
Ortech Designer
2806 North Industrial Road
Kirksville, MO 63501





Dear Mr. Brower:

This responds to your e-mail of March 12, 2002, in which you request information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Each of your questions is answered below.

In your e-mail, you state that Ortech manufactures plastic ignition cylinder bezels and glove box lock cylinders for a Lockset supplier to a motor vehicle manufacturer. These bezels and cylinders are installed within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space. You ask whether these items "are considered an integral part of the front trim panel listed in S4.1" of Standard No. 302, thus requiring the testing specified in S4.3. If this testing is required, you ask whether Ortech, as the original equipment manufacturer, is required to perform it.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartments of motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. S4.2 requires any portion of the components listed in S4.1 that is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space to meet the requirements of S4.3.

The Ortech ignition cylinder bezels and glove box lock cylinders are installed in a vehicle's front trim panel. Front trim panels are listed as a component that must be certified as complying with S4.3. Under S4.2, if any portion of a front trim panel is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space, that portion must comply with S4.3. Accordingly, since the Ortech ignition cylinder bezels and glove box lock cylinders are located within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space, they must comply with S4.3.

You also asked who is responsible for performing certifying that these items comply with S4.3. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:302
d.4/15/02

ID: 2416y

Mr. Earl W. Dahl
Vice President
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be included in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 requires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) together with Part 574 require that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. [These standards] permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intended to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner. Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:5/2/90

ID: 24179.ztv

Mr. Rusty Riggin
Willow Development, Inc.
621 B Crazy Horse Road
Hutchinson, KS 67502

Dear Mr. Riggin:

This is in reply to your fax of March 15, 2002, relating to a lighting invention called "tailbeam." You stated that you are holding further development of this device until the Government "provides us with a legal boundary to work within."

The schematic you sent depicts a lamp mounted on the rear of a van-type vehicle in the lower right hand corner. Its light source is a halogen bulb which, you indicate, has the same intensity as a fog lamp, and, indeed, your prototype is a modified fog lamp. When the right turn signal is activated, the lamp would project a beam to the right, parallel to the rear of the vehicle, across the adjacent traffic lane. The beam is intended to provide a visual line of reference enabling the driver to determine if the rear of the vehicle has cleared a vehicle in the adjacent lane before the driver enters the adjacent lane. You believe that the "line of reference should be beneficial in reducing accidents caused by lane changes." You also state that the device "is also useful for backing a long vehicle toward and near a building or obstruction (again for a reference point)."

The same issue was addressed in a slightly different manner by another inventor who wrote us (see enclosed copy of a letter from this Office dated June 19, 2000, to a correspondent who requested anonymity). The invention that was the subject of this letter would be mounted on a trailer of a tractor-trailer combination and would project a light beam down and across an adjacent traffic lane visible to an approaching driver only when the driver was in the tractor drivers blind spot. We advised the inventor that the device did not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal law, and hence was permissible, but that we were concerned that it might impair driver performance.

"Tailbeam" appears to differ from that invention in that the beam is projected by a fog lamp light source and is operated by the turn signal control. As the enclosed letter indicates, a non-standard lighting device is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (the Federal lighting requirement that motor vehicles must be manufactured to meet).

Standard No. 108 does not prescribe requirements for front or rear cornering lamps. Some steady-burning lamps that supplement turn signal lamps (i.e., those front and rear cornering lamps that meet appropriate SAE Recommend Practices) are not prohibited by Federal or State laws. Under SAE Recommended Practice J1373 APR96 "Rear Cornering Lamps For Use On Motor Vehicles Less than 9.1 m in Overall Length" a rear cornering lamp is a supplemental lamp "used to provide illumination to an area to the side and rearward of the vehicle when it is backing up." The SAE also recommends that "the rear-cornering lamp should be illuminated only when the ignition switch is energized and reverse gear is engaged." Although "tailbeam" may assist in backing the vehicle, it is not a rear cornering lamp as defined by the SAE because it is operated by the turn signal switch.

If "tailbeam" is configured as a fog lamp, we believe it possible that it could impair the effectiveness of the turn signal by creating momentary confusion in a following driver who, unfamiliar with the "Tailbeam," might be distracted from the message the turn signal is sending. Moreover, at night, depending on its intensity, the fog lamp light source could create distracting glare as well. A cornerstone of the National Highway Highway Traffic Safety Administrations opinion letters on motor vehicle lighting is that signals must be clear and unambiguous in nature so that vehicle operators may respond quickly and appropriately to them. Because "tailbeam" is similar to a rear cornering lamp, we suggest that you test it for photometric conformity to the requirements specified in SAE J1373 (copy enclosed). If the halogen light source you wish to use does not exceed the candela maxima specified in the SAEJ1373, that would address our concerns about glare. If it does exceed these maxima, you may wish to consider using a different light source.

As noted in the enclosed letter, your invention is also subject to relevant state laws; we are unable to advise you on these.

We note your offer to come to our headquarters to demonstrate "Tailbeam." Generally, it is not practicable for us to accept such offers because of the need of our limited number of engineers and attorneys to address the agencys ongoing programs of established safety priorities.

Enclosures

ref:108

d.8/2/02

ID: 24183

Mr. James F. Flint
Grove, Jaskiewicz & Cobert
Suite 400
1730 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-4517





Dear Mr. Flint:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 2002, in which you ask whether the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) manufactured by your client, Col-Ven SA of Argentina, for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the pending rulemaking on TPMSs. As discussed below, the agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium and heavy vehicles in its proposed rule. However, we cannot give you a definitive answer at this time as to what the final rule will require.

In your letter, you state that Col-Ven SA manufacturers a TPMS intended for commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, including large trucks, truck tractors, tractor/trailer combinations, passenger buses, and large recreational vehicles.

In your letter you also refer to an April 29, 1998, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpretation letter (see enclosure) regarding another TPMS manufactured for heavy vehicles. In that letter, NHTSA stated that there was no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to TPMSs. However, the agency cautioned that the installation of any such system, either as original equipment or as after-market equipment, is prohibited if it makes "inoperative any device or element of design that was originally installed on or in the vehicle pursuant to any FMVSS." The agency indicated that such a system might impact air brake systems (covered by FMVSS No. 121) or brake hoses (FMVSS No. 106).

You ask whether this interpretation letter has been superseded or altered by the passage of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, ⁽¹⁾ and whether TPMSs manufactured for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the rulemaking on TPMSs required by Section 13 of the TREAD Act.

Section 13 of the TREAD Act mandates the completion of "a rulemaking for a regulation to require a warning system in new motor vehicles to indicate to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated." On July 26, 2001, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a new FMVSS (No. 138) with requirements for TPMSs. ⁽²⁾ The agency proposed to require TPMSs on light vehicles, i.e., passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. The agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium (10,001 - 26,000 pounds GVWR) and heavy (greater than 26,001 pounds GVWR) vehicles.

NHTSA also noted in the NPRM that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is addressing tire maintenance issues for heavy vehicles. FMCSA plans to conduct a comprehensive study, including possible fleet evaluations of different TPMSs, of all the issues related to improvement of heavy vehicle tire maintenance. The agency plans on working with FMCSA in examining the desirability of proposing a TPMS standard for heavy vehicles.

The agency received one comment requesting that we initiate a separate rulemaking to consider TPMS requirements for medium and heavy vehicles. We will address that comment in the final rule. In the meantime, we can tell you that the April 28, 1998 interpretation letter discussed above is valid with respect to medium and heavy vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on TPMSs, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.4/22/02

---

¹ P.L. 106-414, November 1, 2000.

² 66 FR 38982.

ID: 24200.ztv

Trooper Lawrence D. Richardson
Massachusetts State Police
200 Scotland Road
Newbury, MA 01950

Dear Trooper Richardson:

This is in reply to your e-mail earlier this year to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Webmaster. You are concerned about several motor vehicle lighting devices that you have seen recently on vehicles in your state. These include "red, green, purple, blue and other colors that are mounted in the front or rear of the vehicle," vehicles with clear taillamp lenses, and vehicles with no rear "reflective red lenses." You asked whether these types of devices are allowable.

We do not understand your reference to your motor vehicle law that "refers to part 571 as far as after market lights are concerned." Whether non-standard lighting equipment is allowable on vehicles in use is at bottom a matter of State law. The legality of modifications by vehicle owners is generally determined by laws of the jurisdiction where a vehicle is registered and/or operated. We believe, therefore, that Massachusetts law contains the answers to your questions.

Under Federal law, much of what you have observed would not be permissible as original vehicle equipment. As you realize, motor vehicles are originally manufactured with lighting equipment that emits red, amber, or white light. No other colors are permitted for original equipment lighting by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting (49 CFR 571.108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) (except that some States reserve blue for use in emergency lighting). Items of replacement lighting equipment are also required under Federal law to emit the same color light as the original equipment they are designed to replace.

Accessory equipment on new vehicles is permissible under Federal law if it does not impair the effectiveness of original equipment required by Standard No. 108. We interpret this as prohibiting lamps of colors different than red, amber, or white, because of the possibility that non-standard colors could cause momentary confusion in other drivers, diverting their attention from lamps that signal driver intention, such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. This means that we do not allow green, purple, or blue lamps as original equipment on private vehicles. Further, we do not allow red lamps of any sort, or reflectors, to be mounted at a location other than the rear side, or rear, of a vehicle.

Generally, if accessory lighting equipment is not permissible on new vehicles, it will not be permissible as an aftermarket accessory for vehicles in use. The legal consideration in this instance is whether the accessory makes inoperative in any way a lamp installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Usually, we conclude that, if a device impairs the effectiveness of a required item of lighting equipment, it will also make that equipment inoperative in part. However, our law does not prohibit a vehicle owner personally from making any safety equipment inoperative on his or her vehicle. In that instance, the legality of installation and use is determined under State law.

Some replacement taillamp housings are available with clear lenses, intended to be used in conjunction with a red incandescent light source. We are unaware of any original equipment lamp required to emit the color red that consists of a clear lens and a red bulb and that is certified to comply with standard No. 108. This is not simply a design choice; we know of no red bulb now or ever in production that conforms to Standard No. 108s color specification. The combination of a clear bulb and a red lens, therefore, is the only way to design a lamp that conforms to Standard No. 108s requirement that its light be red. This means that the manufacturer of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color was red is in violation of S5.8 of Standard No. 108. Many of these original equipment taillamps also incorporate the red reflex reflector that Standard No. 108 requires to be located on the rear side and rear of vehicles, whereas the replacements with clear lenses do not. This also does not comport with Standard No. 108. A similar situation exists with respect to headlamps that originally incorporated amber side reflex reflectors. If the replacement lamp does not include the reflector, this, too, would not comport with Standard No. 108.

You also mentioned "snake eyes" lights "that are displayed where the window washer fluid should be coming out, in all different colors," including purple, green, and blue. Such an accessory would appear to have an impairing effect upon original lighting equipment if its colors are other than white or amber (on the front), or red (on the rear), or if the light is of such an intensity as to distract another drivers attention from the light emitted by required lighting equipment.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/29/02

ID: 24204.rbm

Mr. Chad Compton
Monaco Coach Corporation
2700 S Nappanee Street
Elkhart, IN 46517

Dear Mr. Compton:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the load requirements for latch systems on the front entry door of a motor home can be reduced if the overall door latch system is composed of two, independently operating latch and striker assemblies. The answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components. Paragraph S4.1.1 applies to all hinged side doors, other than cargo-type doors. The paragraph specifies that each door latch and striker assembly shall be provided with two positions consisting of a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. S4.1.1 then specifies that each assembly meet minimum level of force requirements for longitudinal loads (S4.1.1.1), transverse loads (S4.1.1.2), and inertial loads (S4.1.1.3). Compliance with the first two of these requirements is demonstrated using the test procedure detailed in paragraph 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991 (SAE-J839). Compliance with the third requirement is demonstrated either by agency-approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 6 of SAE-J839.

Nothing in the standard prohibits a door latch system that consists of more than one latch and striker assembly. However, because S4.1.1 applies to each latch and striker assembly rather than to each door latch system, the force requirements for longitudinal, transverse, and inertial loading must be met for each latch and striker assembly provided when the latch is engaged in both its primary and secondary position.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.5/13/02

ID: 24207.jeg

Jim Smith, Managing Engineer
Exponent
Failure Analysis Associates
1850 West Pinnacle Peak Road
Phoenix, AZ 85027

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter concerning the calculation of chest g's for purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

S6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides that, in specified tests, chest acceleration "shall not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds." You stated that your company's procedure totals up the maximum peaks and checks that the resultant acceleration does not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds. However, you have learned that NHTSA's Signal Analysis Software, consistent with SAE J1727, calculates chest g's with the 3 millisecond clip limit determined on a continuous basis. The practical effect of this latter approach is that chest g's will sometimes be lower (but never higher) than the former approach. You also noted that the "cumulative duration" language also appears in Standards No. 203 and No. 213.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We plan to initiate rulemaking shortly to address this issue.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/2/02

ID: 24219missing_card_and_manual_at_retailer

Emilie Crown, RN, CEN
Program Manager
Montgomery County CPS Program
Department of Housing and Community Affairs
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850





Dear Ms. Crown:

This responds to your March 7, 2002 letter, to my office, on behalf of a retailer, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213). You ask whether retailers may sell new child restraints that are not accompanied by printed instructions for the child restraint, or that do not have an owner registration card attached to them, as required by S5.6.1 and S5.8 of the standard, if the retailer were to take steps to have the printed instructions sent to the purchaser and to register the purchaser with the manufacturer. Our answer is that the sale of the child restraints that are missing the printed instructions would be prohibited. The sale of the child restraints that do not have the registration card attached to them would be permitted, but only if a card containing all the required information were handed to the purchaser or if the purchaser were registered by the retailer at the point of sale of the restraint.

You explain that retailers have told you that sometimes the instruction manual and/or owner registration card are "lost in the shuffle." The cards are frequently lost when child restraints are bought and later returned, as well as when the restraints are used as floor models. A retailer has told you that--

they can easily get additional instruction manuals from the manufacturer, but the registration cards are a different matter. Apparently some of the vendors provide them with blank registration cards that they can fill in the date of manufacture and model number on, and other times they tell them to just have the customer call in the registration.Would the retailers be able to use [generic NHTSA registration] cards?

Printed Instructions

Section 30112 of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the "Vehicle Safety Act") prohibits the sale of any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). Retailers are thus prohibited from selling new child restraints that do not meet Standard No. 213. The first of the two requirements you ask about is set forth in S5.6.1 of the standard. S5.6.1 states, in pertinent part: "Each add-on child restraint system shall be accompanied by printed installation instructions in English that provide a step-by-step procedure, including diagrams, for installing the system in motor vehicles, securing the system in the vehicles, positioning a child in the system, and adjusting the system to fit the child. . . .

Retailers are prohibited from selling new child restraints that do not have the instruction manual. A retailer cannot satisfy the requirement to sell a restraint with an instruction manual by having the purchaser "call the car seat manufacturer to send the buyer a new manual," nor by the retailer itself calling the manufacturer. Stated simply, the instruction manual must accompany the child restraint when the restraint is sold. We suggest that the retailer obtain any needed replacement manuals from the manufacturer prior to offering the restraint for sale.

Owner Registration Card

S5.8 of Standard No. 213 requires that each new child restraint be accompanied by an owner registration card. S5.8 states: "Each child restraint systemshall have a registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system " The form must be pre-printed with the model name or number and date of manufacture of the child restraint, and with the manufacturer's name and mailing address. It must also be postage-paid.

We interpret S5.8 as permitting the sale of a child restraint system that lacks the original (manufacturer-provided) registration card, as long as the retailer provides--at the point-of-sale--a postage-paid replacement card that has all the information required by S5.8 (model name or number and date of manufacture of the restraint), or as long as the retailer itself registers the purchaser with the manufacturer. The purpose of the requirement that the registration form be attached to the child restraint is to increase the likelihood that the purchaser will notice the card. The purpose of the requirements to have the relevant information pre-printed on the card and to provide postage is to make the registration process as easy as possible, to increase registration rates. These purposes would be met by a retailer's providing the necessary information on the form and handing the form to the purchaser, or by registering the purchaser at the time of sale. The requirement for a card would not be met by the retailer simply informing the purchaser to telephone the manufacturer to register the restraint. Additionally, the requirements in S5.8 for pre-printed information would not be met by handing the purchaser a generic registration card that does not have the required information or postage.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.5/2/02