ID: nht88-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 12, 1988 FROM WAYNE IVIE, MGR., VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TO NHTSA; OCC2420

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR @ 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complie s with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no othe r identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked seve ral questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufac turers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C h eadform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle No. 218 and must be labeled in accord ance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requ irement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Eac h helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufact urers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent wit hin the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this addre ss, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traff ic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehic le equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distribu tor, dealer, or repair

business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, pl ease forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitte d to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing th e label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is acc omplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly label ed. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of pr oblems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Moravec -- President, Tow-All, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Moravec President Tow-All, Inc. 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, MN 55420

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1985, concerning Federal requirements applicable to the motorized hitch or "Supplemental Power Unit" (SPU) being developed by your company.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, a motor vehicle is defined as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways." Your letter states that the SPU is a motorized single axle unit with an automatic transmission. In addition, your letter, the accompanying photographs, and descriptive material indicate that the SPU could be attached between a small car and a large trailer to permit the small car to safely pull the trailer long distances at highway speeds.

Based on this information, the agency concludes that the SPU is a motor vehicle and falls within the trailer classification. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, a trailer is defined as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle." An information sheet for manufacturers is enclosed.

The following regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to trailers:

49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Content Requirements 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (see S567.4 for trailers) Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number Basic Requirements Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 121, Air Brake System

Copies of these regulations and standards can be obtained by writing to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. An information sheet for ordering copies is also enclosed.

State regulations applying to trailers and their use on the roads should be checked for any State in which your company's trailers are to be sold.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 20,1985

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a formal request for the evaluation as to which federal statutes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are applicable to a new motorized road vehicle product that we are developing at TOW-ALL, Inc. As I discussed recently over the phone with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, we are developing a revolutionary new product: the Supplemental Power Unit (SPU) or "Motorized Hitch". Inclosed are brochures which describe this concept, our first working prototype, and pictures of this prototype. Also inclosed are copies of two patents we own on this concept which may be helpful in understanding the operation of the SPU.

Basically, the SPU is a motorized single axle unit that attaches between a small car (e.g. a Chevette) and a large trailer (e.g. a 24 foot camper trailer) that allows the small car to safely pull the trailer for long distances at freeway speeds. This is explained in detail in the attached documents. I realize that this is a new idea and thus may not fall directly under specific legislation. The purpose of this letter is to determine which federal laws will be interpreted as being applicable.

We intend to manufacture the SPU out of new parts manufactured in the United States and market the unit worldwide. If you have further questions, please contact me at (612)-8818996 or write me at the above address.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Moravec President TOW-ALL, Inc.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL POWER UNIT "MOTORIZED HITCH"

A vehicle of any size, particularly small, could be enabled to tow a large trailer if this trailer could become self propelled. This note describes a novel method for providing this ability for towing the desired trailer. There are at least two primary requirements for pulling all trailers. First, the towing vehicle must have sufficient power to propel both vehicles, and second, the towing vehicle must be able to carry the tongue weight of the trailer. Few automobiles manufactured today and almost no small cars can meet these requirements.

The novel method that this paper is suggesting for solving this problem is what is called the supplemental power unit (SPU). It is also referred to as a "motorized hitch". This SPU is a small motorized trailer which is attached between the towing vehicle and the trailer that is desired to be moved. The motorized SPU has an automatic transmission and a gas or diesel engine. The synchronization of movements of the vehicle combination is provided by the hitching and towing system for the SPU.

The SPU is rigidly attached to the trailer that is to be pulled and pivoted or articulated vertically about the hitch between these two trailers. The SPU now carries all of the pulled trailer's tongue weight and provides the power to pull this trailer combination. The SPU can be manufactured in a number of sizes to meet the range of towing and tongue weight requirements of the consumer, commercial, and agricultural markets.

The rigid connection between the two trailers permits the tongue of the SPU to be hinged about a horizontal axis so no tongue weight or braking or acceleration moments are applied to the lead vehicle. A portion of the physical weight of the tongue (25-40 lbs.) is all the weight the tongue applies. The operation of the control mechanism of the SPU can also easily be reversed to give power and braking in the reverse direction. When towing a trailer, the tongue weight is generally added to the rear of the towing vehicle. This loading can be distributed over the whole vehicle by "load leveling hitches". These are complicated to couple and disconnect. If no "load leveling" is used and tongue weight is high, the traction of the front wheels and steering can become effected particularly in rough terrain. The SPU applies a very small load (25-40 lbs.) to the rear of the towing vehicle and is very easy to couple and uncouple. In general the towing vehicle does not sense the load being pulled with the SPU attached.

Attachment of the SPU to the load trailer is relatively simple. The patented control arm is hooked to the trailer ball of the front vehicle. No other connections are required. Once attached, the load trailer can be moved using the SPU to another location if desired using just its own power if the terrain is not too irregular. The power disc brakes on the SPU greatly aid in stopping the load trailer due to the method of attachment between the trailers and because of the load transfer which is automatically produced by the braking process.

The tongue of the SPU is hinged about a horizontal axis. This feature prevents the transfer of any of the tongue weight during transit and greatly facilitates coupling. Also, when this tongue is detached from the towing vehicle and allowed to hang down, it applies the brakes of the SPU. This feature is particularly useful if using the SPU to move the load trailer by hand.

ID: 1985-04.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles Pekow -- Editor, Day Care Information Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles Pekow Editor, Day Care Information Service 4550 Montgomery Ave., Suite 700 N Bethesda, Maryland 20814

This responds to your July 23, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking several questions about our school bus regulations and their applicability to the buses used by Head Start centers. In our previous letter to you of August 1, 1985, we explained that a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of determining the applicability of our school bus safety standards. Keep in mind, therefore, that the following discussion of "school buses" includes buses used by Head Start centers.

Your first question asked, "What Federal regulations apply to the sale, operation and maintenance of buses in Head Start?"

NHTSA has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses used by Head Start centers. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and other types of motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date.

Federal law requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with all applicable safety standards. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.

Federal regulations pertaining to the operation and maintenance of school vehicles are found in the highway safety program standards NHTSA issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These standards provide guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), provides recommended procedures for a State's pupil transportation program (covering areas such as school bus operation, maintenance, and identification). Individual States have chosen to adopt same or all of our guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs for pupil transportation. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with Program Standard No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. The requirements for school bus operation and maintenance, therefore, are matters left to the individual States to determine.

Your second question asked, "Must Head Start buses meet the same regulations required of public schools?"

Since a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act, persons selling new buses to such schools are required to sell buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. This requirement is imposed on sellers regardless of whether the purchasing facility is a Head Start center or a strictly public or private school.

Your third question asked, "To what extent has the Department of Transportation researched these questions?"

NHTSA conducted substantial research into school bus safety issues. When NHTSA developed the school bus safety standards, the agency evaluated the performance characteristics of various types of vehicles to determine the necessary requirements that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Among our conclusions was that the larger school buses weighing over 10,000 pounds should be constructed to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of those school buses include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and improved seat spacing and performance.

Since smaller buses, such as 10-passenger vans, experience different crash forces than larger buses and differ substantially in design, our safety standards were developed to specify particular requirements appropriate for the smaller type of vehicle. For instance, based on our assessment of the crashworthiness of those vehicles, the agency determined that school buses weighing 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with safety belts.

There are lengthy engineering reports discussing school bus safety that you might be interested in which are available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). I have included a bibliography of those reports for your information. You can contact the NTIS at the following address:

The National Technical Information Service Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703) 557-4600

Your fourth question asked, "If any regulations apply, what types of enforcement efforts has the department made?"

In the years since the issuance of the school bus safety standards, NHTSA's Enforcement Office has contacted a number of dealers when it became known that they were supplying improper vehicles to schools. In most cases, the problems were remedied without the need for extensive enforcement actions Moreover, NHTSA will take necessary steps, including directing vehicle recalls and imposing fines, to enforce the Vehicle Safety Act provisions against the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles.

Your last question asked, "Are many grantees out of compliance to the best of your knowledge?"

Since the parties subject to the Federal school bus regulations are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses, and not the schools using the buses, the regulations applicable to Head Start centers would be those established by State law on school bus operation. State officials should be able to provide you with information concerning the compliance of Head Start school bus programs with State requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure July 23, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, chief counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Rm. 5219 400 7th St. NW Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Miller:

One of your staffers today suggested I write requesting information for a study I'm making regarding safety of buses used to transport children to Head Start centers.

I would like answers to the following questions: What federal regulations apply to sale, operation and maintenance of buses in Head Start?

Must Head Start buses meet the same regulations required of public schools?

To what extent has the Dept. of Transportation researched these questions?

If any regulations apply, what types of enforcement efforts has the department made?

Are many grantees out of compliance to the best of your knowledge?

My research has indicated that many children are being bused to Head Start programs in buses lacking careful maintenance and safety features. I am planning to publish an article on the topic in the Day Care Information Service newsletter soon and would appreciate a swift reply.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, I remain,

Sincerely yours, Charles Pekow editor Day Care Information Service

ID: 86-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. O. Sornson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. O. Sornson Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler-Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Dear Mr. Sornson:

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agency to "delay" its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as "high theft lines" for the purposes of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to "delay" its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.

In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to "delay" final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.

You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car line should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.

This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that the theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.

Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency was required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among air lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard. at 50 FR 25603. June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:

1. Retail price of the vehicle line.

2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy.

3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, and the theft rates of such lines.

4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace, and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).

5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on the basis of currently available data.

Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, "We generally concur with the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable." General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, "Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data." In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:

As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines are partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.

NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicate the lines will be high theft lines.

Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay the October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 13, 1985

Ms. Diane K. Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Reconsideration, Final Determination of Car Lines Subject to Part 541

Dear Ms. Steed:

Chrysler Corporation hereby requests the NHTSA to delay its final ruling concerning the theft ratings of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer relative to Part 541 - Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Existing theft data for the first six months of the 1985 calendar year clearly indicate these two car lines should not be on the high theft rate list. Additional theft data will be available soon and we believe the final decision on the theft ratings should be deferred until that data is available.

In keeping with the purpose of the law, the best test or whether a car line should be marked is its theft rate. In determining the theft rate of a car line, we believe it is much more realistic and reasonable to use the actual theft data results for that car line rather than to use subjective criteria such as image and suggested competitive car lines. Actual theft data for the full calendar year 1985 should be available from the NCIC by the middle of January. We propose that this actual theft data be used to determine the theft status of these two car lines.

In order to protect the slim lead time remaining for 1987 models, we shall continue preparations to mark the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer. When the NCIC theft data becomes available in January, we request that the theft rate for these two car lines be recalculated to determine whether they remain below the median theft rate and therefore will not be required to have their parts marked.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson RSA/jal

ID: 86-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. First you asked if the 17-character vehicle identification number (VIN) required on original equipment engines and transmissions had to appear in a single line. You stated that your Client would like to mark the engines and transmissions by splitting the VIN into two groups, with the second group of characters directly below the first. Such markings could comply with Part 541. Second, you asked if your client could use a trademark that has less than one centimeter high for marking replacement parts. Markings less than one centimeter high would not comply with the requirements of Part 541 applicable to replacement parts. These conclusions are explained in detail below.

If a vehicle manufacturer was not identifying its engines and/of transmissions with at least an 8-Character VIN derivative as of October 24, 1984, S541.5(b)(1) requires the engine and transmission to be marked with the full 17-character VIN. That section does not require that the 17 Characters appear on the same line. However, the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541 explained the-policy reasons for requiring the full 17-Character VIN as follows:

One of the primary purposes of the Theft not is to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to establish that a vehicle or a major part is stolen. ... If this purpose is to be promoted,this standard must ensure that police officers learning of suspicious, potentially stolen vehicle parts can quickly verify whether those parts are stolen. 50 FR 43168, October 24, 1985.

In the agency's view, S511.5(b)(1) requires that the full 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN here placed on the lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.

Your second question Has whether your Client could mark replacement parts by using a trademark that was one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter high. You explained that your client's trademark is wider than it is tall. After noting that the one centimeter height requirement was adopted so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit (50 FR 43177), you stated your opinion that a one centimeter wide trademark would serve these purposes as effectively as a one centimeter high trademark.

Section 541.6(c) reads as follows: "The trademark and the letter "R" required by paragraph (a) of this section must be at least one centimeter high." Any marking of the trademark which is less than one Centimeter high would not comply with this requirement, regardless of how wide the marking is.

However, the stated reasons for promulgating the minimum height requirement for trademarks were to ensure that they would be both clearly legible for investigators and more difficult for thieves to counterfeit. See 50 FR 43177, 43178, October 24, 1985. The agency did not specifically consider the situation where a trademark is wider than it is high. When a trademark is wider than it is high, it would be as clearly legible and as difficult to Counterfeit as a trademark that is higher than it is wide. However, the wider trademark might not comply with the standard while the higher trademark would. It does not appear that any purpose of the theft prevention standard is served by this anomalous result.

Accordingly, we have treated your letter as a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552, and it is hereby granted. We will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this topic shortly. Please note that, unless and until an amendment becomes effective as a final rule, S541.6(c) requires the trademark on replacement parts to be one centimeter high.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Regulatory Interpretation 49 CFR Parts 541 and 556 Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Porsche has two questions concerning the final rule implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Enforcement Act of 1984 (49 CFR Parts 541 and 567).

First, may the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number marking to be placed on the engine and on the transmission be affixed on two lines rather than on a single line, assuming that the second line is directly below the first? Securing a flat surface on the transmission and on the engine with sufficient length to place a seventeen digit number on a single line is extremely difficult, and Could tend to impair the legibility of the number. Allowing the marking to be placed on two lines, one directly below the other, would afford is substantially greater flexibility and would improve its readability. There is no prohibition we could find in the rules to placing the VIN number on two lines, with the second line directly below the first. (See 49 CFR Sections 541.5 and 567.4(g)).

Second, may Porsche use a trademark which is at least one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter tall on the replacement parts? Replacement parts must be marked with the manufacturer's register trademark. 49 CFR 541.6. However, Porsche has an implementation problem in that its trademark is longer than it is tall.

A trademark is to have a minimum height of one centimeter. 49 CFR 541 6(c). The rationale for the minimum size for the trademark is to insure its visibility and to make it more difficult to counterfeit. As the Statement of Consideration for the final rule provides:

"NHTSA proposed the one cm minimum height for these markings so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit."

50 Fed. Reg. 43,177(1985) Porsche completely agrees with NHTSA's two interests but believes they would be equally well met with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in length as with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in height. Such an alternative standard would permit Porsche to position the trademark in the optimal location.

We would appreciate your early response to these issues.

Your truly,

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq., Associate Chief Counsel for Rule Making

Stephen R. Kratzke Esq., Office of General Counsel

Brian McLaughlin, Office of Market Incentives

ID: 3264o

Mr. Wayne Ivie
Manager, Vehicle Support Service Section
Oregon Department of Transportation
1905 Lana Avenue NE
Salem, OR 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#218 d:l2/8/88

ID: 3315o

Mr. Wayne Ivie
Manager, Vehicle Support Service Section
Oregon Department of Transportation
1905 Lana Avenue NE
Salem, OR 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA#218 d:12/8/88

ID: nht81-3.21

DATE: 09/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flag-It Signaling Device Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Transportation Safety Board had forward for reply your letter of June 10, 1981, asking whether the "Flag-It Automobile Signaling Device" would be legal to use according to your new regulations . . . ."

Requirements for equipment use are not established by the Federal government but by the individual State in which a vehicle is registered.

Our agency within the Department of Transportation establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to vehicle and equipment manufacturers. Your device consists of reflectors which hang beneath the front and rear bumper. They are not covered by our standard on reflectors (Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) nor would their installation appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, which could raise a question as to their legality.

SINCERELY,

FLAG-IT SIGNALING DEVICE CO.

JUNE 10, 1981

James King National Transporation Safety Board

Dear Mr. King:

I was interested in knowing if the Flag-it Automobile Signaling Device would be legal to use according to your new regulations that is perhaps now headed by the Regan Administration.

I have here in enclosed a copy of the letter I received sometime ago from the National Transporation Safety Board where as it was stated that the Flag-it device could be voluntarily installed on the rear of motor vehicles as are reflecting devices to promote visual awarness.

I have here in enclosed a sample Flag-it Safety Device, a copy of the United States Patent, also other material pertaining to this development.

Charles Schamblin

January 6, 1978

Charles Schamblin Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device Co.

Dear Mr. Schamblin:

Thank you for your recent letter which provided us the opportunity to examine your patented flourescent signaling device.

While the staff of the National Transportation Safety Board will certainly endorse any means which may prevent accidents by increasing the conspicuity of moving vehicles, we are not in the position to evaluate the potential benefits of any particular device. As you probably know, our primary function is accident investigation. We have no regulatory authority or research capability.

As indicated by others in previous correspondence, we find no reason why your Flag-It signal could not be voluntarily installed on the rear end of motor vehicles as are other reflecting devices to promote visual awareness. We believe, however, that present regulations regarding such installations are adequate.

Your device appears to be developed to the extent that it can be marketed in automotive accessory shops, but beyond that we can offer no further suggestions.

We are returning your sample and once again we wish to thank you for the interest which you have shown in the promotion of motor vehicle safety.

William G. Laynor, Jr. Chief, Vehicle Factors Division -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

STOPPING DISTANCE: From eye to brain to foot to wheel to road

BRAKING DISTANCE

(ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED)

Following the vehicle ahead too closely and making unsafe lane changes -- two of the leading contributing causes of accidents on freeways -- also were two of the most common violations for which freeway motorists were cited in 1971, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The Patrol reports it issued 100,016 citations for following too closely (tailgating) and 66,617 for unsafe lane changes.

Following too closely is covered by Section 21703 of the California Vehicle Code. It states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway."

According to the National Safety council, 3,282,800 accidents, or 13.2 percent of all urban accidents in the United States in 1971, were reported to have been caused by following too closely behind another vehicle.

A general rule-of-thumb is to keep at least one vehicle length (about 20 feet) behind the vehicle ahead for each 10 miles per hour you are traveling. Thus, if you are moving at 60 mph, you should stay at least six vehicle lengths (about 120 feet) behind the other vehicle. You should stay even farther behind, of course, when highways are wet or icy. In this way, if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly, you will have a much better chance of avoiding a rear-end collision.

Unsafe lane changes can get you in trouble, too. Offenses in this category include straddling the line be-two lanes and moving from one lane to another when it is unsafe to do so. Such maneuvers can cause sideswiping accidents, and cause other motorists to take evasive action which may result in collisions.

These violations are covered by Section 21658 of the Vehicle Code, which provides that: "(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety." This applies where the road has two or more marked lanes for traffic in one direction.

If you have any comments on the Flag-It Safety Device I would appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely, Charles Schamblin

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Date June 23, 1981

Dear Mr. Schamblin:

We have received your correspondence concerning the Flag-It Signaling Device dated June 10, 1981, and June 17, 1981.

The National Transportation Safety Board, however, does not have jurisdiction over or information about this matter. Your correspondence has therefore been referred to the agency shown below for such action as may be necessary:

Mr. George Parker Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Sfty. Admin. 400-7th St., S.W. Wash., D.C. 20590

National Transportation Safety Board

Mr. George Parker National Hwy Traffic Sfty. Admin.

Dear Mr. Parker:

I have here in enclosed a sample of the Flag-It Signaling Device from this model it can be seen from both sides adding additional safety for vehicles. SINCERELY,

Charles Schamblin

FLAG-IT SIGNALING DEVICE CO.

JUNE 17, 1981

James King National Transportation Safety Board

Dear Mr. King:

I forward to you about a week ago a sample of the Flag-it Safety Device. Since that time I was also interested in knowing of approval can be obtained for the manufactures Flag-it Safety I have here in enclosed the sample for approval.

It is my understanding that white reflectors meets specifications for bicycles that is approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

If it were possible to have the approval of the National Transportation Safety Board for the Flag-it Safety Device I have here in enclosed I personally believe it would be very effective in the prevention of automobiles.

Thanks for your interest in automobile safety.

Charles Schamblin

[45] Feb. 12, 1974

[54] SIGNALING DEVICE

[76] Inventor: Charles H. Schamblin, 1714 South M St. Bakersfield, Calif. 93302

x[22] Filed: Feb. 26, 1973

[21] Appl. No.: 335,658

[52] U.S. Cl. 116/28 R. 40/129 C. 280/154.5 R

Patent Omitted.

ID: nht81-3.38

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restraint a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.

Section 4 of the standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.

You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed or movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.

Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head support surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint from the minimum head support surface requirement if, "the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2." Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.

You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Section 5.4.3.2 provides that:

Each belt that is a part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.)

As previously mentioned, the definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes Type I or Type II seat belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language emphasized above, the requirements of S5.4.3.2 do not apply to the lap and lap/shoulder belts used with a child restraint system. The agency, however, is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child that the lap belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the drawing of your restraint, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child.

You stated that the booster seat would not have a harness system when it is used at a vehicle seating position equipped with a lap/shoulder belt. The standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Section 5.4.3.3 of the standard provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems only applies if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system.

Finally, you said that the booster seat would be sold with an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness. The harness would attach to the vehicle lap belt when the booster seat is used at a vehicle seating position that has no lap/shoulder belt. The harness would not have a crotch strap. As discussed previously, section 5.4.3.3 of the standard specifies the requirements that a child restraint system which provides a belt system must meet. S5.4.3.3(c) provides:

(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children over 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:

i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso, or

ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).

The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface design that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restraint could be designed to prevent submarining.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration July 27, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future child restraints we may produce. In this evaluation, we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed under the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard on designs that have a minimal "booster" seat and rely on the automobile adult lap belt or the auto adult lap/shoulder belt as a direct means of restraining the child.

If we had a design that was specified to be used only by children over 20 lbs., that had a firm seating platform with no sides or back, that by its design properly positioned the auto's three (3) point adult lap/shoulder belt for this age of child to provide adequate protection during dynamic testing, would such a design be allowed by the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard? It should be noted that the auto belts would be in direct contact with the child; there would be no other harness belts when used in an auto seat that provides a lap/shoulder belt; there would be no crotch strap at any time, but there would be an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness that would attach to the auto lap belt for use where no automobile lap/shoulder belt is provided. Finally, there would be no fixed or movable surface directly forward of the child. A drawing representing this concept is attached.

There are several sections of the standard that need interpreting on how they relate to such a design. They include Sections S5.4.3.2. through to Section S5.5 and others.

Would you please give us your official interpretation on whether this proposed design would comply with the 213-80 standard? We hope you will be able to give these questions your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-3.4

DATE: 08/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich was forwarded to my office for a reply. You wrote concerning information on Federal regulations applicable to child restraint systems. In particular, you were seeking agency approval for the child restraint system you propose to market.

Manufacturers of items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child restraints, are regulated by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a copy of which is enclosed. The Act does not authorize the agency to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires "self-certification" by manufacturers that their product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In the case of your product, the applicable standard is No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The new version of that standard, which went into effect on January 1, 1981, requires manufacturers to certify that their child restraint system can meet the dynamic test and other requirements of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 213 for your reference.

As you requested, I am returning the pictures enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENCLS.

July 15, 1981

Vladislav Radovich Office of Crashworthiness National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are enclosing copies of two of the letters we have sent out to get our car seat approved.

It was suggested that we write to you for your approval and to also get a copy of your Standard 213 Child Restraint Systems.

Statement of Facts:

1. This baby seat made of tough coated nylon is also anchored to metal car seat by one inch webbing and is absolutely safe.

2. With the use of car seat belts this car seat becomes the safest car seat available today and will protect the child just as securely as the adults are protected. With the use of "car seat belts" it will stand any collision teast.

3. Jean's Car Seat can be used in the front seat and is as safe as the back seat as long as "car seat belts" are used. (See brochure) This is a must with Jean's Portable "Car Seat" just as it is with other restraint units.

Picture #1 - I have sent this picture to show the 1 1/2" webbing anchor strap - the black one extending below the baby seat. This is to be used in cars in the back seat, that do not have shoulder straps. The lap seat belt must be threaded through the anchor strap which can be lengthened or shortened as needed and this keeps the top of the seat from going forward in a collision and is extra protection as the lap seat belt must go over the chair as is shown in the brochure under "Car Seat".

Picture #3 - shows shoulder seat belts in rear seat.

We sincerely hope you will advise us of your ideas and that you will approve our car seat. Please return pictures.

Willis. R. Dunkley Jean's Portable High Chair & Baby Products

June 4, 1981

Karl C. Clark Office of Vehicle Standards & Restraints

Dear Sir,

Your Mr. Robert Ingersol of the Safety Department at Salt Lake City, Utah, has referred your name to me as one who can advise me concerning the car seat and the safety factors involved when it is used as a restraining unit. The item is called "4 in one" Jean's Portable Highchair because it is not only a portable highchair but can be used as a car seat and a back pack and a cuddly coo.

You can see by the pictures enclosed it is an item we hope will assist many families in handling their young children. Our daughter, Jean, designed the unit and we added the car seat which if used properly with car seat belts will be perfectly safe. While it does not have the appearance of being as comfortable as many car seats on the market it does hold the child firm and yet is very comfortable and as safe as any adult in the car who uses "safety belts."

We need your advice in the matter and your suggestions when used as a "child restraintment". As you will note by the pictures, the car seat with the portable highchair attached can be set on a chair at the table instead of fastening it to the regular chair or a bench in the restaurant etc. It is also a very good back pack for babies and a cuddly coo. Thus it is a very practical item and will take care of the entire baby needs. We do not sell it as a plush item but a practical and convenient unit most young families can afford. As you will note the car seat folds up which makes it convenient as it folds into a small space when not in use. We have also enclosed most of the metal parts in a rubber covering which makes it very practical when sitting on car seats and furniture. We feel it has a marketable use for families and can be approved as a very safe car restraintment for children from 3 months until 2 years.

We will certainly appreciate an immediate reply on your judgement and ideas.

Thank you. Please return the pictures. . .

Willis R. Dunkley Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat

July 1, 1980

Michael A. Brown Consumer Product Safety Commission

Dear Mr. Brown:

Last summer my daughter Jean Brown was home from Germany for two months, she and her husband, a dentist, are spending three years in Viesbaden, Germany, to repay Uncle Sam for an Air Force scholarship they used for schooling in Washington. While home for two months she devised a portable high chair (see picture) later we turned it into a 3 in 1 - a portable high chair, a baby back-pack, and a cuddly coo. It seems safe and properly made for these items and people who use it love it. The patent is pending. Still further we have made a car seat from steel tubing which supports the portable high chair and which when fastened to the car seat belt provides a car seat which is comfortable, easy to handle, safe and light in weight and when not in use foldsup and it can be stored in small areas or placed in trunk of a car easily and handily. In addition when unstrapped from the seat belt it can be carried with the baby to a restaurant or other chairs and provides an opportunity for the baby to sit at the table with the parents. It can also be used on church pews or any seat or bench for that matter.

We have a Distributing Company in Phoenix as well as a lot of local stores who will purchase the 3 in 1 as well as the 4 in 1 units if it is a satisfactory consumer product and has your approval.

My daughter and her husband have two more years of school in Philadelphia for him to become an Orthodonist and they need all the help possible and for this reason, as their father, I am attempting to assist them with the "Jean's Portable High Chair."

From the pictures you can see our plans. We may have to change some buckles and the positive fasteners on the car seat need some refining etc. but the patent attorney has really encouraged us. Under seperate cover we are shipping it for your testing and approval. We need your guidance. Insurance Companies have already given us liability insurance and we have companies who will produce the portable high chair and a second manufacturing company who will tool up and produce the car seat on a mass production basis. The Phoenix distributing company now works with chain stores such as Skaggs, J.C. Penneys, etc and our hopes are already very high so we hope it meets with your approval. Jean's Portable High Chairx And Baby Products Inc., Willis R. Dunkley

Enclosure Omitted.