ID: 1982-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/82 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked several questions concerning informational readout displays. The answers to your questions are as follows.

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

The answer to this question is yes. Section S4 of Standard No. 101 defines informational readout display as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." [Emphasis added.] Thus, the type of system you describe comes within Standard No. 101's definition of informational readout display. In reference to the specific wording of your question, I would note that it is the definition in the standard, rather than a particular characterization by the manufacturer, that is determinative as to whether a display is an informational readout display.

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

The answer to this question is no. The requirements applicable to informational readout displays are an exception to the usual requirements for displays, which ordinarily use normal electric bulbs. The preamble to the final rule establishing the requirements of the present Standard No. 101 explained that the reason for the exception was to "permit the continued development of informational readout displays." 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. This was necessary since current technology does not enable manufacturers to produce informational readout displays which can exhibit symbols (as opposed to words) or certain colors. Thus, while section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 makes the use of certain symbols and colors mandatory for traditional displays, the use of symbols and colors is optional for informational readout displays.

If "other electro illuminating device" was interpreted to include normal electric bulbs, traditional displays would come within the definition of informational readout display. Such an interpretation would render meaningless Standard No. 101's requirements for the mandatory use of certain symbols and colors for displays. It is thus clear that the term "other electro illuminating device" does not include normal electric bulbs. Rather, the term was included within the definition of informational readout display, along with light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals, to avoid preventing the use of new electronic technology other than light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals.

Your third and fourth questions both contemplate that the answer to your second question is yes, rather than no. In reference to your question as to why the agency amended Standard No. 101 to permit the use of green as an alternative to blue or blue-green for the headlamp high beam telltale, the reason is that the agency does not interpret the standard's definition of informational readout display to include a mere colored light using light-emitting diode technology. To be an informational readout display, it must include information in the form of words or symbols. Since such a colored light is not an informational readout display, it must meet the color requirements of Standard No. 101. On February 1, 1982, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register (47 FR 4541) which proposed, among other things, an interpretive amendment to the definition of informational readout display to make that point clear. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.

Your fourth question suggests that the definition of informational readout display should be interpreted to include only displays providing more than one type of information. As explained in the answer to your first question, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the wording of the standard's definition of informational readout display. The agency recognizes, however, that it is likely that most if not all informational readout displays will include more than one type of information, though it is possible that some manufacturers might use LED or similar technology for displays providing only one type. In any event, the agency is not aware of a need to revise the standard's requirements to exclude displays presenting only one type of information from the definition of informational readout display.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an informational readout display?

The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section specifies that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

We would note, however, that the notice of proposed rulemaking referred to above proposes an amendment to Standard No. 101 that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. The agency is in the process of analyzing the comments received in response to that notice.

Our answer to your fifth question also covers your sixth question. I hope this fully responds to your inquiry.

ENC.

QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING "INFORMATIONAL READOUT DISPLAY"

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro-illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

3. If yes, we don't know the reason why NHTSA amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to use the color green as an alternative to blue for the headlamp high beam indicator. -- According to S5.3.2, the color of each telltale is designated. However, as as the color for the IRD is at the manufacturer's option, I think the color green can be used as the headlamp high beam indicator by the original regulation. Therefore, I think it not necessary to change the rule.

4. And if yes, we think that we can select a symbol or word designated in Table 2 for the IRD which shows one type of information (ex., Fuel Level), although normal displays have to use symbols designated in Table 2 (S.5.2.3.). -- I think if the definition of IRD is interpreted as more than one, we wouldn't have such a problem.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an Informational Readout Display?

6. In this case, is it sufficient that the light intensities for the informational readout systems shall have at least two values prescribed in S.5.3.3? -- According to S.5.3.3, the light intensity of such telltales shall not be variable.

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: nht79-3.2

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Delgado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-3O

Mr. Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

Dear Mr. Delgado:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning Federal and State laws applicable to the manufacture of van seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies and their installation to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats as installed in vehicles, including vans, but is not applicable to seats as individual pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat manufacturer, would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 207. However, under section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of vehicle seats would be responsible for any safety related defects in his products and would be required to notify owners and remedy the defects.

I am enclosinq a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 for your information, as well as an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of all our standards and regulations. You will have to contact the individual States in which you are interested to find out if there are any State or local laws applicable to your business.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

August 20, 1979

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentleman:

I am planning to start my own business, manufacturing van seats. I would appreciate if you can send me federal and state laws and regulations conserning the safety for van seats.

Please mail to:

Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Blvd. Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lourdes M. Delgado

LMD/tr

ID: aiam3667

Dear Mr. Mostaghim: This responds to your letter of March 4, 1983, asking whether there ar any Federal regulations applicable to an accessory component used to secure pets to vehicle seat belts. The component latches into the seat belt buckle and is then attached to the pet's collar or leash. Your company intends to import these accessories.; There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulation applicable to the product you describe. Therefore, as far as this agency is concerned, there are no responsibilities you must meet prior to importing this item (i.e., there are no testing or licensing requirements). You should, however, contact State authorities to determine if they have any licensing requirements or regulations that would be applicable to the sale of such a device.; You will have to contact private counsel to determine the produc liability implications and insurance needs of your enterprise.; Thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4456

Dear Mr. McFadden: This responds to your letter concerning th applicability of Federal or State requirements to a hydraulic logsplitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch. While we can not answer your question concerning applicable State requirements, we provide the following information on the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product unless, despite the exercise of due care, the manufacturer doesn't have reason to know that the noncompliance exists. Any vehicle that falls within the statutory definition of the term 'motor vehicle' must comply with all applicable safety standards. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. The definition does not include equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site. In this case, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. On the other hand, when a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and stays at the job site for only a limited time, it is the agency's position that the vehicle in question is a 'motor vehicle' in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than 'incidental'. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a vehicle is not classified as a motor vehicle if it is of such an unusual configuration that it is easily distinguished from normal traffic and it has a top speed of not more than 20 miles per hour. A determination of whether or not a vehicle falls within the definition of motor vehicle is based upon a consideration of all of the above factors. Given the information that you have provided us, it appears that the hydraulic log-splitter is a motor vehicle. From the picture in the brochure, it is clear that the vehicle has an unusual configuration. This alone, however, is not adequate to prevent a determination that the vehicle is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. More important is the fact that the vehicle may make frequent use of the highway, staying at one particular job site a limited amount of time. The provision of highway speed tires indicates the manufacturer's intention to produce a vehicle which is suitable for driving at highway speeds. Because the tow-behind logsplitter is equipped with a trailer tow hitch, we would consider the vehicle a trailer, defined in the agency's regulations as: a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. (See 49 CFR 571.3.) The safety standards which apply to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. In addition, if the trailer is equipped with brakes, it must meet Standard No. l06, Brake hoses, Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids, and applicable requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571. We regret the delay in responding to your request. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1181

Dear Mr. Taft: This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1973, to Dr. Ed Wallace concerning Standard No. 117. Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. In your letter you suggest the following: that the standard be amended to prohibit the retreading of casings having 'damaged bead wire', that labels be allowed to be placed on any portion of the completed tire, and that the required labeling, 'bias/belted', be changed to allow the labeling of the word 'belted'.; With respect to your request to prohibit the retreading of casing having damaged bead wire, you state that the standard contains a 'loophole' because it prohibits the retreading of casings having 'exposed' bead, but it does not prohibit the retreading of casings having 'damaged' bead. We do not agree that this is a loophole, even though the standard has no explicit prohibition along those lines. The retreading of a casing that is damaged in any significant way would constitute the manufacturing of a defective tire, and the manufacturing retreader would be subject to the defect notification provisions (Section 113, 15 U.S.C. S1402) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It is true that the explicit prohibitions of the standard offer clearer guidance than the defect provisions. The problem is that 'damage' is too vague a concept to define a tire condition -- in fact, it really is little more than a synonym for defective. We would give serious consideration, however, to a petition listing specific bead conditions which you believe should be the subject of new requirements in the standard. You should also note that damages caused by a defective tire, although it conforms to Standard No. 117, could still subject its manufacturer to civil liability in a private action (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)).; You further request that we allow the label (presumably the labe containing the items of consumer information required pursuant to S6.3.1) to be placed on the tread area of the tire. The NHTSA responds to this request in the notice responding to petitions for reconsideration published July 15, 1972. In that issuance we stated our position that affixing the label to the sidewall would more likely ensure that the label would be retained on the tire until its installation on a vehicle. We also indicated that the standard did not prohibit the placing of an additional label on the tread, which location, it was argued, facilitated storage.; Your final request is that the requirement that the words 'bias/belted be labeled onto that type of tires be amended to require only the word 'belted'. You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word 'belted'. You indicate that most new tire manufacturers use the word 'belted'. The NHTSA does not believe the word 'belted' to be sufficiently explicit, as radial tires are also 'belted' and the possibility of confusion is quite obvious. However, we are aware that Standard No. 109 does not require the labeling of the words 'bias/belted', and we plan to take steps with respect to Standard No. 117 so that no additional labeling will be required for a retreaded tire that retains its original casing labeling.; Sincerely, Robert. L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam5163

"Dear Mr. Gerner: This responds to your inquiry about whether th mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on- highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved 'daily or weekly' on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5568

"Dear Mr. Maltzahn: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure 'waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment' manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no. Your letter describe your client's product as 'manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use.' The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is 'not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States.' In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week. The FMVSS's apply only to 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). That section defines 'motor vehicle' as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht95-6.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 5, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Angela Mickalide -- Program Director, National SAFE KIDS Campaign

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/21/95 LETTER FROM HEATHER PAUL TO PATRICIA BRESLIN

TEXT: Dear Dr. Mickalide:

Thank you for your letter asking about the child restraint registration form required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask whether a child restraint manufacturer could make certain modifications to the registration form to help SAFE KIDS obtain sociodemographic and other information about the families to whom SAFE KIDS will be distributing child seats. As explained below, Standard 213 does not permit the modifications, but does permit an alternative approach.

You explain in your letter that SAFE KIDS and its partners will be providing approximately 38,000 child seats to needy families through distribution sites. You would like to collect information about the recipient families' sociodemographic profile and other factors, by having the restraint manufacturer add questions to the child seat registration form. Distribution site coordinators would mail the completed forms to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for SAFE KIDS' research purposes.

The registration form you ask about is part of an owner registration program that NHTSA established to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer recall campaigns. The form, required by S 5.8 of Standard 213, is standardized in appearance, and may not contain other material such as questions concerning the sociodemographic characteristics of the child restraint owners. A particular problem with such questions is that their presence on the registration form might cause some consumers to resist providing the information, or to conclude that the form was for warranty purposes rather than for safety recalls. As a result, they might not return the card.

While we understand that you would like to modify the registration form only for the purposes of your distribution program, unfortunately we lack the authority to grant a special exemption for your situation.

However, Standard 213 does permit an alternative that you suggested. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you said that you are considering asking the manufacturer to place the questions on a separate form and to attach that form to the child seat. That approach is fine. The registration form has to be attached to the child seat to ensure that owners will notice the form. While we want manufacturers to limit what additional materials they attach to child seats (to ensure that attachments do not distract from the form), your supplemental form should not cause a problem since your coordinators will be involved with registering the owners. Thus, there is no risk that the registration form will go unnoticed and uncompleted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Best wishes for success in your distribution program.

ID: nht95-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 5, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Angela Mickalide -- Program Director, National SAFE KIDS Campaign

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/21/95 LETTER FROM HEATHER PAUL TO PATRICIA BRESLIN

TEXT: Dear Dr. Mickalide:

Thank you for your letter asking about the child restraint registration form required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask whether a child restraint manufacturer could make certain modifications to the regist ration form to help SAFE KIDS obtain sociodemographic and other information about the families to whom SAFE KIDS will be distributing child seats. As explained below, Standard 213 does not permit the modifications, but does permit an alternative approac h.

You explain in your letter that SAFE KIDS and its partners will be providing approximately 38,000 child seats to needy families through distribution sites. You would like to collect information about the recipient families' sociodemographic profile and o ther factors, by having the restraint manufacturer add questions to the child seat registration form. Distribution site coordinators would mail the completed forms to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for SAFE KIDS' research purposes.

The registration form you ask about is part of an owner registration program that NHTSA established to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer recall campaigns. The form, required by S 5.8 of Standard 213, is standardized in appearance, and may not co ntain other material such as questions concerning the sociodemographic characteristics of the child restraint owners. A particular problem with such questions is that their presence on the registration form might cause some consumers to resist providing the information, or to conclude that the form was for warranty purposes rather than for safety recalls. As a result, they might not return the card.

While we understand that you would like to modify the registration form only for the purposes of your distribution program, unfortunately we lack the authority to grant a special exemption for your situation.

However, Standard 213 does permit an alternative that you suggested. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you said that you are considering asking the manufacturer to place the questions on a separate form and to attach that form to the child seat. That approach is fine. The registration form has to be attached to the child seat to ensure that owners will notice the form. While we want manufacturers to limit what additional materials they attach to child seats (to ensure that attachments do not distract from the form), your supplemental form should not cause a problem since your coordinators will be involved with registering the owners. Thus, there is no risk that the registration form will go unnoticed and uncompleted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Best wishes for success in your distribution program.