ID: 10421nam

Mr. Robert L. Hart
Gerry Baby Products Co.
1500 E. 128th Avenue
Thornton, CO 80241

Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter concerning your company's plans for manufacturing a new type of child restraint system, model #632. The new child restraint system has a removable five-point belt system. You state that, "When the [5-point] restraint is removed, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213." You explain that Gerry is developing the final name for the product from among a list of nine possible names, and you want to make sure that none of the names would violate any provision of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As a general matter, Standard No. 213 has no restriction on how a child restraint system can be named. The standard defines several types of child restraint systems, such as "booster seat," "backless child restraint system," and "belt-positioning seat." (Section S4 of Standard No. 213.) These definitions are used to determine which of Standard No. 213's performance and test requirements apply to a particular seat. For example, if a child seat fits the definition of a backless child restraint system, then the seat must meet the performance and labeling requirements for backless child restraints, when tested to the test specifications set forth in the standard for backless child restraints.

Thus, the definitions in Standard No. 213 determine the applicability of particular performance and test requirements. Manufacturers are not required to name their restraints using the terminology provided in the standard. However, if a child seat fits the definition for a particular type of child seat under S4 of Standard No. 213, the seat will be evaluated to the criteria for that type of child seat, regardless of the name the manufacturer has given the seat.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict how you name your product, you should consider the following when making your decision. Three names on your list refer to model #632 as a "convertible" child seat ("convertible car seat," "convertible/booster," "convertible toddler seat"). Standard No. 213 does not define what is a "convertible" child seat. However, the term has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a child restraint system that can be used rear-facing for infants and forward- facing for older children. We are concerned that calling model #632 a "convertible" seat could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability for infants, which may result in some consumers using the restraint with an infant. With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "convertible" in naming the model #632 car seat.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel d:1/4/95 ref:213

ID: 17693.drn

Mrs. June Becklin
397 Jesse James Lane
Mahtomedi, MN 55115

Dear Mrs. Becklin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether dealers may sell new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars that they know will be used to transport school children. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV or car for such a purpose.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards.

We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A passenger car is a motor vehicle "except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3). An MPV or passenger car is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to their vehicle type. Dealers selling new MPVs and passenger cars must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the applicable standards.

We do not have a policy either for or against the use of MPVs and cars for school transportation. These vehicles must meet safety standards that provide high levels of crash protection. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), that establishes minimum recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. To the extent that the guideline distinguishes between vehicles, it does so by distinguishing school buses from non-school buses. For instance, among the recommendations is

Paragraph IV.B.1.h., in which NHTSA recommends that all buses regularly used for pupil transportation should "[c]omply with all FMVSS applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture." That is, if a bus is regularly used to transport pupils, it should be a school bus. The provision does not apply to MPVs and passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only"
d.7/6/98

ID: 1982-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Sidecar Association, Inc. -- H. A. Kendall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D. United Sidecar Association, Inc. 1621 Palomino Lane Kingwood, Texas 77339

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1982, with respect to pulsating headlamps.

You have interpreted my letter of February 9, 1982 as stating that "for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another." On the contrary, I stated that "a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output...would be prohibited." However, I also said that, if complete deactivation occurs (i.e., from a higher output to no output), then that mode of operation is permissible.

With respect to your latest letter and the problems of headlighting in older motorcycles, there would be no need to have the smaller bulb illuminated, and the "definite on/off/on/off sequence" you mention is sufficient for compliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 20, 1982

Dear Mr Berndt:

My interpretation of your response of February 9, 1982 is that, for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another.

Many of the older motorcycles with only marginal charging systems simply cannot cope with continuous lights on operation without frequent battery charging, externally, or without operating the engine at a very high speed in lower gears to keep the battery charged. However, almost all of the earlier machines have a nonsealed beam headlight containing a minor running (or parking) light in addition to the main twin filament.

As far as NHTSA is concerned, it would appear that as long as the smaller bulb was left on at all times (to provide the lower light output) that the main beam could be operated at some fractionally lower duty cycle, say, about 25%, at say 1.5 to 4 Hz, and still comply with NHTSA's ruling. If this is so, then it would be possible to allow older motorcycles to operate with a relatively simple inexpensive mechanical device to reduce headlight daytime consumption instead of using the very expensive solid state circuitry now available.

The main headlight would have a definite on/off/on/off sequence, however, the small continuous light would prevent the lamp from being extinguished at any time.

Please advise a ruling on this type of device for motorcycle headlights for daytime operation only.

Sincerely,

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D.

HAK/lk

ID: 1982-2.14

DATE: 05/27/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Mrs. James J. Mitchell Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pleased to learn that you want to install a high-mounted stop lamp on your 1978 Buick LaSabre. The two studies that the Administration funded, one with the Essex Corporation and the other with the Allen Corporation, indicated that rear end collisions could possibly be reduced by 50 percent with the use of a single high-mounted stop lamp. We do not know whether the States of New York or New Jersey will allow the use of these lamps. Our Office of Rulemaking contacted the American Association of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (AAMVA) but the information we received was indefinite, and I would suggest that you contact your local State Police for a definitive answer. The agency has proposed that passenger cars be equipped with this system, and if the proposal is adopted, the lamps would be legal in all States.

As to where to locate these lamps on the car, our research showed that a single lamp, placed on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle and within the back window (either inside or outside) was the most effective position. Our research also included a system of two high-mounted lamps, mounted on either side of the rear window, apparently similar to the one you observed in upstate New York; however, this was not nearly as effective as the single lamp system in reducing rear end collisions.

SINCERELY,

April 2, 1982

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Based on the attached article, which appeared in the June 1981 issue of McCall's Magazine, I sent a check for $ 29.90 to Amerace Brands Division, Hilite, Ace Road, Butler, N.J. 07405 for two Slimsonite Hi Lite brake lights, to fit a 1978 Buick LaSabre sedan.

Would you please tell me which states authorize these lights and where they must be placed on the car -- I am, of course, interested in New York State. The reason I make this inquiry is that when my husband took the lights to our local service station, the mechanic suggested that my husband check with the local police regarding the legality of these lights. We border on the State of New Jersey. My husband learned that we could not affix the lights; that if we did, he would be asked to remove them by the police.

When we traveled upstate New York, I noticed a car with similar lights, affixed in the back window, on either side. I must say that they do indicate when the car ahead is stopping. As a legal secretary, I worked on many accident cases, and I personally feel that a driver should give all the warning he can when he plans to stop.

Thank you for your reply.

Mrs. James J. Mitchell, Jr.

ID: 1984-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Crail Kentucky Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 17185 Louisville, Kentucky 40217

Dear Mr. Crail:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of the testing requirements of paragraphs S5-3-3 and S5-3-4 of Federa1 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You state that you have always tested all of your trailers with the 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, downstream of the trailer test rig and the trailer. This is the correct testing method, because the purpose of the 50-cubic- inch test reservoir is to represent the volume of lines in the following vehicle.

You also state that a customer suggests that the correct reservoir connection is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This location of the reservoir in front of the trailer would indeed negate the purpose of the test requirement, because in this position the reservoir could not simulate the volume of lines in the trailing vehicle. Your interpretation, not the customer's, is correct for testing vehicles equipped with air brake systems for compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 15, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: 49CFR 571.121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Sir:

This letter is to seek clarification on sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. These require that on a vehicle designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes, meet brake actuation and release time requirements with a 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the control line coupling. We have always tested all of our trailers with the 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, that is downstream of both the trailer test rig and the trailer.

A customer insists that the proper location for the 50 cubic inch reservoir is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This, of course, negates the whole reason for placing the 50 cubic inch reservoir on the control coupling, which is to simulate the towed vehicle.

Since the standard is not clear as to where the 50 cubic inch reservoir is connected, we are requesting an interpretation as to the proper control coupling to which it should be connected.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Crail Director of Engineering

RJC/maf

ID: 1984-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Nigel Stansfield -- Product and Training Manager, JCB Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager JCB Inc. Box 209 White Marsh, Maryland 21162

Dear Mr. Stansfield: This responds to your letter of October 4, 1984, asking whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Material, applies to your JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines. As explained below, your loaders and machines are not considered motor vehicles and thus Standard No. 205 would not apply to them.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways. Construction vehicles which are manufactured for use at off-road job sites but which will use the public roads on a frequent basis for moving between job sites are subject to these requirements. However, the agency has previously concluded that construction vehicles which use the public roads in frequently and which would stay at a particular job site for an extended period of time are not subject to our requirements.

You state in your letter that the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off-highway use, but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph. Based on your description and the specification brochures you enclosed, the agency has decided that the backhoe loader and rough terrain loadall machines you manufacture are not motor vehicles for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA RE: Specifications of the tyre of glass required for installation in the cab windshield of JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines.

Dear Sirs:

Federal safety standard 205 and ANSI Code Z 26.1 1977, 26.1a 1980 indicate the glass used must be a laminated type meeting AS 1 specifications.

These regulations and standards relate primarily to vehicles designed specifically for on highway use.

JCB Inc. wish to be advised if laminated glass meeting AS II specifications is acceptable in our case where the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off highway use but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph.

A set of specification brochures are enclosed for your information.

Yours sincerely,

JCB INC.

Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager

enclosures: Specifications brochures omitted.

ID: 1985-02.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ralph Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ralph Walker 5517 Cleon Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This responds to your letter of April 8, 1985, and follows up on your telephone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning safety regulations applYing to sun roof windows for recreational vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets requirements for the glazing used in motor vehicles, including the glazing for a sun roof in a recreational vehicle. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

You were particularly interested in the certification requirements for sun roofs. Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205 specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing for use in motor vehicles. The certification must be in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and with section 6 of the ANS Z-26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy your glazing, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in accordance with paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. S.6.4 requires your company to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same AS number, manufacturer model number and manufacturer trademark or designation as the piece of glazing from which it was cut.

S6.5 requires your company to certify your product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

RALPH WALKER 5517 CLEON AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91605

Jeff Miller 5219 Room # 400 7TH St. South West Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller;

On this date I talked with Mr. Wood and he told me, I would have to write. So to get infomation on the safety codes for making sun roof windows for R.V.s. I would make them not install them.

I would appreciate the help and I will be awaiting your answer. Thank-You Ralph Walker

ID: nht87-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John F. Doerr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John F. Doerr 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D Brooklyn, NY 11225

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Secretary Dole on your "Safety Light Warning System." You have asked if your system "could legally be implemented" and for advice "how I may go about marketing this system."

The patent drawing of your device depicts a light bar mounted in the rear window area with a green lamp in the center flanked by amber lamps, with two red lamps at the end. This system would be acceptable neither as original equipment on passenger cars, nor as replacement equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. As of that date, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be manufactured with a red stop lamp in the approximate location of your green lamp. There is no Federal prohibition against offering the system in the aftermarket for retrofitting on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, but the system would be subject to the laws of each State in which it would be sold or us ed. I understand that Oregon and California allow green-amber-red deceleration warning systems when the lamps are mounted on the rear of the car, but restrictions may exist as to their mounting in a vehicle's interior.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mrs. Elizabeth Dole Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation 400 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mrs. Dole:

Subject: SAFETY WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM

I know you are concerned about rear end collisions, extra "eye-level stop light" confirms this.

I have a patent on this system which I believe will be more effective. This system consists of a small green light st eye-level which burns when you are gaining or maintaining speed. When you release the accelerator the green light goes off and the yello w or amber caution goes on, on each side warning the driver behind you to be alert which gives the driver a second or more to react, then, if you apply the brakes, caution lights goes off and normal stop light, lights go on, on each side at eye-level.

This information was sent to all auto makers in the United States and some abroad. They like the idea but are not interested in negotiating with me, as they don't accept ideas from anyone other than their own engineers.

I am interested to know if this could legally be implemented and if you could give me any advice or information as to how I may go about marketing this system.

Enclosed, is a brief description and my patent # 4,470,036.

Sincerely,

John F. Doerr Inventor

ID: nht87-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James E. Campbell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James C. Campbell 2719 So. 29th Street Ft. Pierce, FL 33450

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you have asked the following question:

"If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?"

The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issued by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard o n all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defin ed as minimum standards for motor vehicle performance; to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (e.g., no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.

The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree of specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses , tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standards are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle eq uipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Sir or Madam;

If someone has a patent on an invention, in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to than invention, or does he lose those right s once it becomes mandatory?

Sincerely;

James E. Campbell

ID: nht87-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of March 4, 1987, with reference to aiming adjustment of fog lamps. We understand that Stanley is developing a fog lamp and replaceable bulb headlamp with a common lens and housing. Since the portion of the housing also fu nctions as a reflector, the fog lamp moves simultaneously with the headlamp in aiming adjustment. In your view, it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, and you ask for confirmation that the lamp "is acceptable in the U.S.A."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for a fog lamp, and would prohibit it only if it impaired the effectiveness of any other lamp mounted on the front of a vehicle that is required by the standard. Assuming that the fog lamp does not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, its installation would not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, in the absence of a Federal standard on fog lamps, the individual States may establish their own requirements for f og lamps. We are unable to advise you whether this design would be acceptable in each of the 50 States, and other jurisdictions in which the Federal standards must be met; we can only advise you that it does not appear prohibited by Federal law.

The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington; D.C., 20036 may be able to advise you as to state laws relevant to your design.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 4, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Aiming adjustment of Front fog lamps

We are now developing a new fog lamp, which has a common lens and housing with a replaceable bulb headlamp. (See attached drawing.)

Since the portion of housing also functions as a reflector, this new fog lamp moves simultaneously with headlamp in aiming adjustment.

This fog lamp is designed to satisfy the requirements of SAE Standard J583. So it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, or rather, it will promote the function of headlamp. We Think this new fog lamp is acceptable in the U.S.A.

Please give your advice whether our understanding is right or not.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

SEE ATTACHMENT