ID: nht93-6.7

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; FMVSS 108)

TEXT:

The International Marine Trade & Conference Show will be held in Chicago September 9 through September 12 and I would like to use this timely opportunity to clarify to its members the meaning of "to represent the width" used in FMVSS #108 to tell Vehicle Manufacturers where to locate Clearance lights. If at all possible, could you please clarify what this term means in time for this Show using terminology that are clear to all concerned.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION REQUEST

In a June 23, 1992 letter I came across in the files at the D.O.T., you recently used the term "as nearly as possible to indicate the overall width" in response to the same question I am posing. I feel answers like this are leading the Vehicle Industry to continue what is already a wide spread problem....misplaced Clearance lights.

Obviously there exists extreme confusion as to the term "to represent the width" when referring to where Clearance lights should be mounted on Vehicles over 80" in width.

Inadvertently, you have encouraged the rear and front mounting surfaces of large vehicles to be used for Clearance lights by using the "near as possible" term, further propagating the misunderstanding of the original intent of this Law.

From SAE and NHTSA archives, the original purpose of Clearance Lights was "to mark the extreme sides of the vehicle" (1947 SAE Handbook, Page 713, copy attached). Old photographs of trucks in this era show Commercial Trucks and Trailer Manufacturers always mounted the lights to indicate at least the extreme width of the vehicle.

Additionally, as you should know, Federal and State laws put into affect many years ago, have made specific allowances for Clearance Lights to protrude up to 20" (10" on each side) beyond the vehicle's maximum width (96" then...102" today).

In times when NHTSA is trying to improve "conspicuousness" of large vehicles to decrease accidents in which these type vehicles are involved, it is preposterous that the present term, "to represent the width" has come to mean....to represent "somewhere near" the width. Simply observing large vehicles, RV's, etc. on any highway clearly demonstrates this misunderstanding. It only takes a fraction of an inch of interference for one vehicle to "sideswipe" another, thereby causing what can result in a catastrophic accident. Yet, it is not uncommon to see Clearance lights

mounted as much as 6" to 8" "inside" the side extremities of huge vehicles.

I have heard of industry "hearsay" arguments that it is best to mount Clearance Lights so that they're protected from being "knocked off." I ask!....wasn't and isn't it the purpose of these lights to get knocked off instead of allowing "sideswiping" which results in hard contact of two vehicles. Isn't the intent of the 10" Government side "stick out" allowance (on each side) to deliberately sacrifice these lights to avoid accidents?

I've also heard of "hearsay" arguments from "Leaders" in the Boat Trailer and Boat Trailer Lighting Industry say that somewhere "it is written in the law that it's allowable to mount Clearance Lights to "split" the protruding area represented by fenders," whereas I know of no such allowances in the law and I don't believe you do either.

I think widespread deviations from the initial intent of the Law has occurred and Clearance Lights have become decorative rather than functional. The detailed Lighting Rules initiated in 1969 required that a Clearance Light cover both "Outboard" and "Inboard" line of sight areas and that the Vehicle couldn't obstruct the Inboard line of sight.

As a result, it became immediately apparent to Vehicle Manufacturers they couldn't continue to mount a Clearance light on the side of a vehicle as they had been doing to this point and still maintain an "inboard" line of sight. Thus, this 1969 "Inboard" requirement started Vehicle Manufacturers mounting Clearance Lights on the Front and Rears of Vehicles because of corner radiuses, etc. Since they couldn't represent the extreme width easily, they started an "in the ballpark" compromise. This was never challenged by NHTSA and has been unchallenged to this day.

Fortunately, in 1974, the "inboard" visual requirement for Clearance lights was rescinded, but unfortunately, the practice of mounting Clearance Lights on the rear and front well inside of the true width still carried on.

Presently, there are a number of lights in the marketplace specifically designed to be mounted on the sides of Large Vehicles. They are designed to represent slightly beyond the extreme width of the vehicle. In many cases, these lights can second as Sidemarker lights as well and were designed to be used to indeed represent the extreme width (and slightly beyond) of a large vehicle. These lights are used by some Large Vehicle Manufacturers but many other Vehicle Manufacturers still avoid their use because of the confusion in the term "to represent the width."

Any of these lights cost only one to three dollars; therefore if they're ruined in "sideswipe contact," little is lost; however, a possible "bounce off," "cross lane" type "multi-vehicle" accident is avoided. This is the type of accident where inherently no one seems to know what started it, so misplaced Clearance Lights are rarely blamed nor reported nor recorded in government files. I feel common sense would indicate these types of accidents are taking place.

I am requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted.

ID: nht93-2.41

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Philip Trupiano --Auto Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-18-93 from Philip Trupiano to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8417)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of March 18, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You seek an interpretation of provisions of 49 CFR Parts 591 and 592. You have supplemented your letter by FAXing us on March 23, 1993, a letter from Ford Motor Company dated September 17, 1992, and a copy of a work order from the Louisville Truck Centre in Canada dated September 30, 1992.

Auto Enterprises is a Registered Importer (RI) under Part 592. It has contracted to represent a person who wishes to import a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck of Canadian manufacture. The truck would be imported across the border shared by North Dakota and Manitoba. The truck appears to have been manufactured as a chassis cab in the United States, and subsequently completed as a truck in Canada. Ford's letter states that the completed vehicle will comply with 18 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that it "was designed to meet FMVSS 108 as fully as possible for the vehicle configuration as delivered at the assembly plant", and that to comply "with FMVSS 121 it may be necessary to do the following: Add a quick release valve. Eliminate the control line to the limiting valve. Use 6 or 8 hose from foot control to quick release valve." The work order from Louisville Truck Centre states that "(t)he necessary changes have been made to comply with safety standard FMVSS 121" in accordance with Ford's letter." We assume, of course, that Ford's letter identifies the truck in question as your letter did not convey the VIN of the vehicle. You wish to proceed as follows and ask for our concurrence under Parts 591 and 592. Because of the distance involved in driving the truck to Michigan and back (approximately 4,000 miles), you wish to facilitate entry by mailing Auto Enterprise's RI certification label to its customs broker at the contemplated port of entry to be affixed there. Appropriate photographs of the certification would be taken and submitted to NHTSA as part of the RI conformance package required for bond release. During the period before release of the bond, the truck would be in the custody of the importer. However, because the truck cannot be registered in North Dakota without a copy of the bond release letter, the importer would be effectively prohibited from licensing it for use.

The truck involved was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It may not have been completed to meet the lighting standard. In addition, modifications were recently made with the intent of conforming it to the U.S. standard on air brakes for trucks. While Ford's letter is informative, it falls short of a manufacturer's certification of compliance. Although the vehicle could in fact now conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that fact must be verified by Auto Enterprises as the applicable RI, and its certification of that fact provided to NHTSA. This agency's initial interpretation of The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 was that it forbade conformance work to be performed outside the United States, but that conformance work could be

performed in the United States either by the RI or its agent. However, Part 592 as adopted reflects a modified view. It allows conformance work outside the U.S. subject to verification by the RI. As NHTSA stated in the preamble to the final rule (54 FR at 40084) a principal obligation of the RI is "(1) to bring those vehicles into compliance, or to demonstrate that they have been brought into compliance before importation." Further, as NHTSA noted at 40086, after consideration of comments it did not adopt "those aspects of the proposal that countenanced delegation of conformance responsibilities to an agent." In light of the above, we do not believe that Auto Enterprises can, in good faith, affix its certification of compliance to the Canadian truck without verifying its compliance, and we do not believe that it can delegate that task to the Customs Broker who would thereby become its agent for this purpose.

With respect to whether the importer may have custody of its vehicle, The Safety Compliance Act appears to require that it is the RI who has custody, for it clearly states that RIs shall not release custody of any motor vehicle for which they have responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(E)(i)) until after they certify approval and have been notified by NHTSA that the conformance bond is released.

Given the possibility that the truck in question may be in de facto compliance with the safety standards, and in recognition of the practical problems involved, we suggest that Auto Enterprises send an employee to inspect the vehicle on the day that it is entered under bond. If your employee concludes that the truck apparently now conforms to Standards Nos. 108 and 121, as well as remaining in compliance with the 18 other applicable standards, (s)he may then affix the certification of compliance. When this is done, your employee may complete and FAX the compliance documentation to NHTSA. We will endeavor to accord this submission priority treatment so that, if it is in order, we can release the bond without delay, probably within one workday. In the interim, the truck would be in the custody of your employee. We believe that this course of action would meet both the law and your practical concerns.

ID: 1983-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 10, 1983, letter asking whether the requirement for audible alarms at school bus emergency doors applies only to emergency exit doors or to both doors and emergency exit windows.

Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states specifically that the alarms shall be installed for emergency exit doors. There is no similar requirements for alarms at emergency window exits. Accordingly, alarm devices need be provided for emergency doors only.

SINCERELY, TRUCK BODY & EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION

March 10, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attn: Roger Tilton

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This will confirm our telephone conversation of March 10th regarding FMVSS 217. One of TBEA's members would like a written interpretation of whether or not buses (not school buses) with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds require an audible alarm system for emergency exits, in this case push out windows so designated, other than doors.

The confusion is caused by S5.2.1 of FMVSS-217 which states in part -- "by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". S5.3 specifically requires the audible alarm for emergency doors only. The standard clearly and consistantly delinates between emergency doors and emergency exits.

Is it reasonable to assume that on buses (not school) with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds that the audible warning system applies only to emergency doors and does not apply to emergency exits?

Your kind assistance in this matter will be appreciated.

James E. Forrester Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht88-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES, -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 EST TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

The publication of the final rule (53FR25337) pertaining to seat belts in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR (FMVSS 208) on July 5, 1988, has prompted us to write to you.

Our discussions with engineers in the Crashworthiness Division since August 1985 have centered around our product called the "Komfort-Lok." This patented device has been used in the field for over two years with good customer satisfaction. Unlike the wor ding of the recent final rule, the Komfort-Lok is not a retractor but rather a mechanism external to the retractor itself but integral with the retractor but which eliminates webbing movement and thus eliminates cinching. The Komfort-Lok works in conjunc tion with an automatic locking retractor (ALR) regardless of the amount of webbing retracted between locking points at 75 percent webbing extension.

Because the Komfort-Lok is designed to work effectively with any ALR, we are writing to your office to request an official opinion permitting the use of any FMVSS 209-compliant-ALR in conjunction with the Indiana Mills Komfort-Lok as a complete retractor system to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 208, Paragraphs S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2 as stated in the 7-5-88 final rule.

We appreciate your attention to our request.

If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1977, concerning the symbol "DOT" as a certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 108.

The symbol "DOT" is permitted by the Standard to be placed on the item of equipment in lieu of the certification requirements of Section 114 of the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966," which states, in part ". . . In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered . . ."

"DOT" on the individual container does not meet the certification requirements. The label or tag must state that the item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

STANLEY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.

February 14, 1977

E. T. Driver -- Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Motor, Vehicle Programs,

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

Dear Mr. Driver,

Our lighting equipment to which F.M.V.S.S. 108 is applicable are now being directly labeled with symbol "DOT" as a certification of compliance to that standard.

We are now considering to label this symbol "DOT" on an individual container in which each item of equipment is packaged, instead of labelling it on the item itself.

Please let us have your comment on whether the labelling with symbol "DOT" container is acceptable or not.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Yours faithfully, H. Miyazawa -- Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Dept.

ID: nht92-3.17

DATE: 10/15/92

FROM: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER, INC.

TO: MR. PAUL JACKSON RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II (A40; STD. 110)

TEXT: This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.110, Paragraph 4.4.1(b) (FMVSS 110, "Tire Selection and Rims"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has performed FMVSS certification tests on a passenger car that is to be sold in the U.S. with more than one tire and rim configuration available. Tire retention tests were performed in accordance to NHTSA Test Procedure TP-110-02 at the left front and right rear wheel positions. Since more than one tire and rim configuration is available for the vehicle tested, each configuration was tested at the left front and right rear wheel positions. To save costs, it was desirable to switch only the tire and rim configurations at the test wheel positions while in some cases a different manufactured tire was left on the vehicle at the other wheel positions. In all tire and rim configurations tested, the tires and rims were alike in size, material, traction and type at each wheel position with the exception of a few cases which the tire manufacturer differed.

I cannot locate any information in the CFR 49, Part 571.110 or the NHTSA Laboratory Test Procedure TP-110-02 that indicates all tire and rim configurations are to be exactly alike during the tire retention tests. I have discussed the issue with Zack Fraser who is responsible for FMVSS 110.

Is this a test condition within the requirements of the standard?

Please provide TRC in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: aiam5433

"Dear Ms. Thomas: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you call a 'CarMobile.' The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by 'velcro' straps to the handrails located at the top of the interior rear car doors. You state that 'Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that the CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a child's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated 30122. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out that any kind of ribbon or line that can wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how to use the device. I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam0656

Dear Mr. Belier:#The questions asked by your letter of March 10, 1072 have been compared with the applicable paragraphs of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104 and the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J942.#1.>>>The purpose of paragraphs 2.11 and 4.4.2b of J942 is to allow the testing of both manual and automatic systems using the same procedure. The wording of 4.4.2b attempts to equalize the usual cleaning cycle of each type of system. It is apparent that the manual system allowed for by 4.4.2b is one in which a single actuation, if held long enough, would put 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. The system you described is not of this type, nor is it an automatic system. You must therefore comply with the intent of the test, which would be to operate your system for 8,000 washer cycles, as stated in paragraph 3.4. Each washer cycle is that which puts approximately 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. Since your system is not the manual system implied in the standard, the three-second rule would not apply. Time limitation would be dictated by the 'No./min' column of Table 1 of J942, i.e., two washer cycles per minute.#Therefore, the pump and control switch you described, along with the other parts of the system, if they meet all other prescribed parameters, would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104.<<<#2.>>>An automatic pump cycling device would not be limited by the three-second rule. It would be required to meet the 'No./min' column of Table 1 of J942, i.e., two washer cycles per minute.<<<#3.>>>Paragraph 3.1 does not specify the duration of water spray, number of water sprays, or start time of wiper action. No standard wiper blade, windshield, or mechanism is specified. These are the items which, in conjunction with the washer, must produce an effective wipe/wash system.#The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned that the entire system provide good washing and wiping, and is not concerned with compliance of individual components.<<<#4.>>>'Repeatedly,' as used in paragraphs 4.2.2a and b, means the repeated application of the control device (push button, usually) which is designed to cause the water to squirt out of the nozzles. Practically, this reproduces a driver's attempts to activate the system on a cold day, not knowing if it is frozen or plugged. Upon warming up, the system must not have been damaged, and must still function after removal of the ice or plug. Without this safeguard, many systems would be rendered inoperative on the first cold day by an impatient driver.<<<#5.>>>To our knowledge, there is no reservoir size stated by Federal or State regulations.<<<#Please ask for further information, if needed.#Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: 001866rbm

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.,
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your request asking whether a driver and passenger safety belt reminder system under development by Hyundai violates any Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Hyundai system, as described, is not prohibited by any such standards.

According to your letter, the Hyundai system consists of a driver seat system that activates a visual reminder that remains lit whenever the ignition is turned to the "ON" position if the safety belt is not fastened and an audible alert that is activated one minute after the ignition is turned on. Both alerts cease once the safety belt is fastened. The passenger seat safety belt reminder system consists of a visible alert that activates whenever the ignition is in the "ON" position, the air bag occupant sensor system detects the presence of an occupant in the passenger seat, and the safety belt is unfastened. The visible alert turns off once the safety belt is fastened after the ignition has been turned on for 6 seconds. This 6-second activation is the result of the air bag system self-check protocol and, consequently, is unrelated to safety belt use. In your letter you note that such self-check systems are commonly used by vehicle manufacturers for other telltales or alerts.

The only safety standard that could conceivably prohibit the Hyundai system is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S7.3 of that standard requires the driver's seating position be equipped with a safety belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on if the safety belt is not buckled. The system described in your letter meets these criteria. A manufacturer may, at its option, reduce the period of the visual warning to 4 to 8 seconds if it is activated even when the safety belt is buckled.

The provision in the standard establishing a maximum of 8 seconds for the audible signal reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to safety belt interlock systems. See House report 93-1452, pp.44-45. 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by...using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position."

While the statute prohibits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible safety belt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required safety belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily-provided signal from the required signal. This is necessary so NHTSA can verify that the system installed to meet FMVSS No. 208 is compliant. One way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. The Hyundai system, as described, only activates once the ignition has been turned to the "ON" position for 60 seconds and the driver safety belt remains unfastened. This time lapse is sufficiently long to make the second audible signal clearly distinguishable from the initial, required 8-second signal. Accordingly, the additional driver seat belt reminder system is permitted under the standard.

FMVSS No. 208 does not regulate passenger safety belt reminder systems at all. Accordingly, there is no prohibition against the system you have described for that seating position. We generally would be concerned about a system that remained activated long after the safety belt was fastened. However, we believe that a total visual alert time of 6 seconds after the ignition is turned "ON" even when the safety belt is fastened is unlikely to distract or annoy the vehicle occupant.

I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/19/04

ID: 002775cmc_phoneno

Mr. David E. Campbell
David Campbell & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 402
Westfield Center, OH 44251-0402

Dear Mr. Campbell,

This responds to your December 4, 2002, letter and conversation with

Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff concerning the labeling requirements for a child restraint system (CRS). You stated that a foreign manufacturer is planning to import CRSs into the U.S. and would like to use a non-U.S. telephone number to comply with the labeling requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The answer to your question is that use of a non-U.S. number is not prohibited under the labeling requirement, but we do have concerns about using it.

One of the most effective ways to ensure that owners of CRSs obtain the free remedy provided under a recall is through direct notification of the customer. By providing convenient methods for purchasers to register their name and address with the manufacturer, manufacturers can increase the number of customers that receive direct notification of safety related defects or noncompliances with FMVSSs. To provide convenient methods to register, FMVSS No. 213 requires that each add-on child restraint system have a postage-paid registration form and be permanently labeled with the following statement, inserting an address and telephone number:

"Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name, address, and the restraints model number and manufacturing date to (insert address) or call (insert telephone number). For recall information, call the U.S. Governments Auto Safety Hotline at 1-800-424-9393 (202-366-0123 in the DC area)." S5.5.2(m).

The labeling requirement in conjunction with the postage-paid registration card requirement encourages CRS owners to register for direct notification of a possible recall. Under 49 U.S.C. 30118, a manufacturer is required to notify owners and purchasers of a noncompliance or safety-related defect in vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including CRS. As we noted at the time this provision was adopted, requiring both an address and a telephone number on the label "make[s] it easier for a person to register" and "get the information they need." See 57 FR at 41432. Inclusion of a telephone number is particularly important for subsequent owners, who most probably would not have the postage-paid registration card.

While use of a non-U.S. telephone number is not prohibited under the FMVSS No. 213 labeling requirement, it could reduce the percentage of recalled seats returned to the manufacturer to remedy a defect or non-compliance. The cost of a long distance, out-of-country phone call could create a financial burden on CRS owners, possibly reducing the number of systems registered for recall notification, particularly by subsequent owners. By increasing the costs and inconvenience for registering a child restraint system, the number of systems registered would decrease, in turn decreasing the number of owners directly contacted in the event of a recall. The net effect of this could be that a larger number of defective or non-compliant CRSs would remain in use. For these reasons we believe a U.S. phone number should be used, and we would prefer (but do not require) manufacturers to provide a toll-free number.

A manufacturers decision not to use a U.S. phone number could have a bearing on the type of notification activities that the agency would require the manufacturer to undertake. Under 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(2), the agency can require a manufacturer of equipment to provide public notice to effectuate the recall of a defective or noncompliant CRS. In the past, CRS manufacturers have provided notice through a variety of means including, but not limited to, retailers, child safety centers, pediatricians, and the media. In recalls of a product with an out-of-country telephone registration number, the agency could require more extensive public notice efforts in order to ensure notification of owners unable to be reached directly because of an inconvenient and burdensome registration process.

Please note that foreign manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to designate an agent in the United States. 49 CFR 551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, states that importers of motor vehicle equipment, including CRSs, are required to designate a permanent resident of the United States as an agent for service of process.

If you have any further questions please contact Christopher Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.2/10/03