ID: 1982-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bede Design Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Bede President Bede Design Inc. 901 E. Orchard Street Mundelein, Illinois 60060

Dear Mr. Bede:

This in reply to your letter of September 29, 1982, asking for an interpretation that your modified motorcycle is a "motorcycle" under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In addition to the standard motorcycle configuration of a single front and rear wheel, your design incorporates two small wheels in outrider positions, both of which hold the vehicle at rest, but which, in motion, do not touch the ground simultaneously. The purpose of the wheels is to add stability so that in a left turn the left outrider will touch the ground, and in a right turn, the right wheel.

This configuration appears to meet the definition of "motorcycle" contained in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as a machine "designed" to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." Although the vehicle rests on four wheels, it travels on only two or three depending upon whether it is proceeding in a straight direction or in a turn.

We appreciate your interest in motorcycle safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington D.C. 205900

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We have developed a very efficient, high-mileage modification of a motorcycle. Not only have we significantly reduced the aerodynamic drag, which accounts for the one hundred mile per gallon plus mileage that we have been able to obtain from this vehicle, but we have also substantially enhanced the safety characteristics of a standard motorcycle.

Fundamentally what we have done is taken a standard motorcycle, split the frame, and put a 5 1/2 foot extension between the front wheel assembly and the rear wheel the engine assembly. To this we then added a computer designed streamlined body around the entire motorcycle frame. The body is fabricated from urethane RIM high- impact material and also incorporates numerous internal structural frames for energy absorption in all directions that may result from impact. Attached to the sides of this streamlined body are two outrigger wheels that provide rollover stability during turns and at a standstill.

We see this vehicle as an efficient, safe commuter vehicle that could be made available as a complete unit ready-to-drive as well as a retro fit kit for present motorcycle owners to convert their bikes to this type of vehicle. The purpose of this letter is to ask your office to verify that this vehicle meets the requirements of a motorcycle.

The vehicle is designed so that the front and rear motorcycle wheel essentially carry the entire weight of the vehicle. The two balancing outrigger wheels have been designed so that when one is in contact with the ground, the other is approximately 1 1/2 inches off the ground. When this vehicle is driven, it drives on the two main wheels either one of the outrigger wheels sometimes in contact with the ground and other times not. When making a turn, we have found that it is best to permit the vehicle to turn in an upright position with the outrigger wheel located on the outside of the turn to be in contact with the road thus providing rollover stability. This configuration is found to be the easiest to handle and seemingly the safest when operating on snow or wet slippery surfaces. The handling and turning stability is equal to or in excess of the present four-wheel automobile. The vehicle as we originally designed it would permit the operator to raise the two outrigger wheels so that when suitable speed is obtained the vehicle could maneuver and turn like a motorcycle. This would require the whole body to lean into a turn and all side loads to be absorbed by the two main wheels. This configuration would be very enjoyable to drive and maneuver, however it would provide less safety in bad weather operations. For example, if one of the wheels would lose its traction, the vehicle might skid or roll an excessive amount before the balancing outrigger wheels could permit the driver to regain control. For this reason we have chosen the arrangement the allows one outrigger wheel to remain close to the ground while the other one is in contact. Although this system is not as enjoyable to maneuver, it is safer.

Therefore, we would like your advise and guidance as to the best way for this vehicle, and those converting their motorcycles, to maintain their motorcycle classifications. I am enclosing several photographs of the vehicle that illustrate the "three- wheel in contact with the ground" as well as an information booklet that dicusses additional technical features of this design.

Very truly yours,

BEDE DESIGN, INCORPORATED

James R. Bede President

JRB/se

Enclosures

Last fall we drove our prototype vehicle from Cleveland to Washington D.C. and had the opportunity to have Mr. Karl Clark of N.H.T.S.A. along with others form the agency view our vehicle.

ID: 23394.jeg

William Kurtz, Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering Department
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350





Dear Mr. Kurtz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135. You asked for our concurrence that "S5.3.2 Controls, which prohibits 'a control to manually disable the ABS, either fully or partially' does not prohibit the transmission's electronic control unit from automatically disengaging the ABS when the central differential is locked in an off-road driving mode." You asked your question in connection with the G-class multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

By way of background information information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with your attorney, James Chen, Esq., and stated in this letter.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that S5.3.2's prohibition of a control that manually disables ABS does not apply to a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations. Since, based on the information provided in your letter and by Mr. Chen, the G-class MPV cannot, as a practical matter, be driven on paved roadways when the central differential is locked, the S5.3.2 prohibition does not apply in this situation.

I will now explain our position.

S5.3.2 reads as follows:

For vehicles equipped with ABS, a control to manually disable the ABS, either fully or partially, is prohibited.

In proposing this provision in July 1991, we included the following discussion:

Some manufacturers have argued that [an antilock disabling switch], which would enable a driver to turn off the ABS, would be useful in conditions such as mud or deep snow, where a locked wheel could produce shorter stops than a rolling wheel. However, NHTSA agrees with the position taken by the GRRF that such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial. 56 FR 30538, July 3, 1991.

Thus, the purpose of the provision is to prevent situations where a vehicle's ABS is needed but is not available because the driver has turned it off.

According to your letter, when a driver of the G-class MPV locks the central differential for off-road operation, the ABS system is disengaged. You suggest that this type of system should not be considered to be prohibited by S5.3.2, because the ABS system is disengaged "automatically," as a result of the vehicle having its central differential locked, rather than manually.

We disagree with the view that the ABS system is not being disengaged manually in this situation. The word "manually," as used in S5.3.2, has reference to action by the driver. If activation of a particular control by the driver results in the ABS being disengaged, we would consider the control to manually disable the ABS, regardless of whether the control also does something else, such as locking the central differential.

In light of other information provided by you and by Mr. Chen, however, we nonetheless believe that the S5.3.2 does not apply in the situation you describe. As noted above, the purpose of the S5.3.2 prohibition is to prevent situations where a vehicle's ABS is needed but is not available because the driver has turned it off. In light of this purpose, we believe it is appropriate to interpret the provision as not applying to a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations.

According to your letter, the ABS system of the G-class MPV is disengaged only when the central differential is locked. We also understand from Mr. Chen that if the central differential is unlocked, the ABS system is always engaged again.

You stated that with the central differential locked, a vehicle setting intended only for off-road use, all four wheels rotate at the same speed. Operation of the vehicle in this manner on hard road surfaces would result in serious wheel chatter, hard steering and risk of serious damage to the transmission. There is also a yellow warning label adjacent to the differential lock switches which states: "Warning! Never use differential locks on paved roads! Engaged differential locks limit the ability to move around curves."

Given the above facts, we conclude that, for the G-class MPV, locking of the central differential is a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations. Accordingly, the S5.3.2 prohibition does not apply in this situation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel




cc:

James Chen, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
555 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Fax: 202-637-5910





NCC-20 :EGlancy :mar :10/16/01 :62992 :OCC 23394
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
interps/135/23394.jeg
concurrence: NPS, NSA, Redbook (2), interp. Std. 135

ID: nht90-4.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1990

FROM: Mary Rees -- D.C. (USA) Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-18-90 to Mary Rees from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Part 567; Std. 207)

TEXT:

Thank you for sending a copy of the Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I have received this, as well as the code of federal regulations CFR Ch. V (10.1.88 edition).

I was wondering two things:

1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

2) We propose to manufacture an automotive seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

I would appreciate it if you could let me know the answers to these questions at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht75-5.2

DATE: 05/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Johnson; Hogan & Ometer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the meaning of "gross vehicle weight rating."

The gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a trailer consists of the weight of the empty trailer plus its rated cargo load. The weight of the tractor is not included. The tractor and the trailer are considered as two separate vehicles, each with its own individual GVWR.

The Distributors Association interpretation you cited is correct, but you appear to have misinterpreted it. In the case of a semi-trailer, a significant portion of the loaded trailer's GVWR may be supported by the tractor's rear axle. Therefore, the trailer's GVWR may be significantly higher than its gross axle weight rating, which is the weight an entire axle system, including tires, wheels, axle, and suspension systems, is capable of supporting.

Please let me know if you need further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

LAW OFFICES JOHNSON, HOGAN & OMETER

April 11, 1975

Richard Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Advisory opinion on the meaning of "GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING" (GVWR)

Dear Mr. Dyson:

I am the attorney for Titan Trailer Corporation of Woodland, California. Titan manufactures, among other things, aluminum hopper bottom trailers. In compliance with applicable regulations, Titan denotes on each trailer a "gross vehicle weight rating or "GVWR"".

A dispute has arisen between Titan and one of its customers as to the precise meaning of that term and by this letter, we request an advisory opinion from you.

Section 571.3(b), Chapter V, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regulations states, in part: "Gross vehicle weight rating" or "GVWR" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

Enclosed please find a bulletin from the Distributors Association, which states that Department of Transportation advised the Distributors Association that

"should not be based solely on the semi-trailer's axle or axles. The definition of GVWR calls for the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, and normally the weight of a semi-trailer is greater than that of its rear axles. The Distributors Association interprets this to mean that GVWR of a trailer would be the weight to be carried by the trailer's axles, plus any weight that would be carried by the tractor."

Essentially, the question is - Does "GVWR" include (1) the weight of the empty trailer, (2) its payload, and (3) the empty or loaded towing vehicle (tractor)? (In essence, confirming the Distributor's Association interpretation of GVWR as set forth above).

I notice that Section 567.4(a)(3) and Section 568.4(a) (4) of the above-referenced regulations require GVWR to be "not. . less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the designated seating capacity."

Those sections lend partial credence to the meaning ascribed to "GVWR" by the Distributors Association, to wit weight of cargo and trailer. However, I am somewhat confused by the formula "150 pds x designated seat capacity" presumably referring to the tractor's/seating capacity. That would seem to be at variance with the Distributors Association's above referenced interpretation of DOT's meaning of GVWR which includes "any weight that would be carried by the tractor."

Please clarify this very critical issue in as expeditious a fashion as possible. Since millions of trailers are manufactured each year, by thousands of manufactures, it would seem that the meaning of "GVWR" should be crystal clear to manufacturers consumers and their lawyers.

Thank you for your cooperation. I have been referred directly to you by Mr. David Schmeltzer now of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Very truly yours, Andrew H. Swartz

cc: David Schmeltzer c/o David Melnick; Kai Norton; encl.; cc: Dick Cunha, Esq.

ID: 16119.wkm

Mr. Richard T. Ince
C & J Technology, Inc.
9010 Pillsbury Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55420

Dear Mr. Ince:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Georgia Jupinko, now Georgia Chakiris of this agency's Region 6 office, which was forwarded to this office for reply. You asked in your letter how to go about convincing the Federal government that your product, called the "Brake Alert" system, meets or exceeds applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Based on the information you submitted, the "Brake Alert" neither meets nor exceeds FMVSSs, but could be installed on existing vehicles as an add-on, as discussed below.

You stated that you are marketing a brake monitoring device called "Brake Alert" that applies to all brake systems that use a push rod to activate the brakes. You stated that in your system, each brake has a sensor feeding into a black box that gives the driver a visual readout each time the brakes are applied. A dash-mounted monitor with LED lights for each wheel shows green lights if the brakes are functioning properly and a red light for each wheel on which the brakes malfunction or are not properly adjusted. If the monitoring system itself fails, all lights will turn red. The black box retains the last 64 brake applications in its memory, which can be checked by maintenance or law enforcement personnel by holding a device next to it. The memory can be removed from the black box and put into a computer for a printout showing the applications. Finally, you stated that you believe that your "Brake Alert" system meets or exceeds the requirements of "49 CFR CH.V (10-1-95) SECT.5.2.2(B)," which we assume refers to paragraph S5.2.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems (49 CFR 571.121).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system in which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor certifies compliance of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of replacement equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of that product is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer.

Subsection S5.1 of FMVSS No. 121 specifies brake requirements for trucks and buses, while subsection S5.2 specifies requirements for trailers. It was not clear from your letter that the "Brake Alert" system can be installed on trailers, but since you cited paragraph S5.2.2(b), which applies to trailers, we assume your "Brake Alert" is capable of being installed on trailers as well as single-unit vehicles. Thus, since brake malfunction or maladjustment anywhere in the tractor and trailer brake system is displayed in the cab, both S5.1 and S5.2 would apply. Paragraph S5.2.2(b), which reads essentially the same as paragraph S5.1.8(b), provides as follows:

(b) Brake indicator. For each brake equipped with an external automatic adjustment mechanism and having an exposed pushrod, the condition of service brake under-adjustment shall be displayed by a brake adjustment indicator in a manner that is discernible when viewed with 20/40 vision from a location adjacent to or underneath the vehicle, when inspected pursuant to S5.9.

Pertinent to this discussion, both S5.1.8(b) and S5.2.2(b) require that each service brake system with an exposed pushrod have a brake adjustment indicator viewable from outside the vehicle. Your informational material does not indicate whether the "Brake Alert" has a monitor visible from outside the vehicle. If the "Brake Alert" system displays brake malfunction or maladjustment inside the vehicle only, it does not meet, and therefore does not exceed, the requirements of either S5.1.8(b) or S5.2.2(b). Further, the "Brake Alert" system cannot substitute for the brake adjustment indicator required by S5.1.8(b) and S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 121. However, so long as it does not interfere with the required brake adjustment indicator, it could be installed as an original equipment option or as an add-on to an existing vehicle.

The promotional literature enclosed with your letter indicates that the "Brake Alert" uses a "position sensor" to monitor the brake. It was not clear where or how the position sensor and related components are installed. The installation of these components must not interfere in any way with the operation of the pushrod or the required brake adjustment indicator, which normally consists of an indentation in the pushrod. If it does, that could constitute a violation of Title 49, U.S. Code, 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative (copy enclosed), which prohibits making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with any FMVSS. Violations of this provision can result in substantial civil penalties.

Finally, it is noted that the promotional brochure enclosed with your letter contains a statement that "Meets or exceeds U.S. FMVSS #121 . . . ." As discussed above, that is not a true statement if the "Brake Alert" offers in-cab only brake monitoring. It is requested, therefore, that you remove such statements from your promotional or advertising materials in order to avoid any misrepresentations to or misunderstandings by the public.

For your further information, I am enclosing fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have additional questions or need further information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by FAX at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:121
d.5/1/98

ID: 19638.nhf

Ms. Cheryl Arline
6156 Pettiford Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32209

Dear Ms. Arline:

This responds to your letter requesting an exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, so that your vehicle may be modified to accommodate your disability, Marquio-Brailsford disease (dwarfism). You explain that you were evaluated by a certified driver rehabilitation specialist who recommended replacing the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering wheel with a reduced diameter steering wheel to accommodate your limited range of motion. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

This letter provides the relief you seek. We can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original steering wheel and replacing it with a smaller one could affect compliance with seven standards: Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems, Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, Standard No. 207, Seating systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. For example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, the person performing the modifications should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. We encourage you to always use the vehicle's safety belts or other belt-type restraint appropriate for your disability and to recommend that other drivers and passengers buckle up as well, to improve occupant crash protection. Finally, if you sell the vehicle, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard No. 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and are in the process of reviewing public comments.

You should show this letter to the dealer or repair business when you take your vehicle in to be modified. If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.6/25/99

ID: nht73-4.20

DATE: 05/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Help of Nebraska, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, in which you ask whether an "infant car hammock" which you manufacture is required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. A picture of the hammock, which you enclosed, shows the hammock attached to both rear doors of a vehicle, and extended between them, with a child lying on it.

As pictured, the hammock is not subject to Standard No. 213. The standard applies, at present, to devices for seating and restraining a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Effective November 1, 1973, it will apply to all devices for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle, irrespective of whether the device is used for restraint. Because the hammock is not designed to seat a child, it is not subject to the standard. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

We are presently developing proposed amendments to the standard that would apply to all types of infant and child restraints, including devices in which children do not sit. These proposals will be published in the Federal Register when completed.

We are enclosing a copy of our consumer information booklet, "What to Buy in Child Restraint Systems". Our recommendations for infant carriers and car beds are found at the center pages of the booklet.

We hope the information we have provided answers your questions and we appreciate your concern for child restraint safety.

Sincerely Yours,

ENCLS.

HELP OF NEBRASKA, INC.

April 30, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We have acquired the rights to an Infant Car Hammock from the inventor. We are making the first production run now. The question has come up as to whether or not Federal Standard 213 is applicable to this item. We have tried to obtain a copy of this Standard but no one in the Omaha area seems to have a copy.

A photo of the hammock as mounted in a car is enclosed. The hammock itself is made of poplin material which is 65% Kodel and 35% combed cotton. It is permanent press, mercerized and has a 1% shrinkage factor. There are two belts on top of the hammock, one of which goes around the childs waist, the other goes from one hip across the body to the opposite shoulder. These safety belts are stitched through the hammock and through another piece of belting on the bottom that has a "D" ring fastened to it. The "D" Ring is secured to a two inch wide piece of web belting by passing a one inch piece of web belting through the "D" ring and then stitching the two pieces of belting together. By stitching through all safety belts we have a solid base both for the two belts around the child and for the "D" ring. A separate belt with a snap hook is anchored through the floor of the car by placing a bolt through the floor and then through the heavy washer fastened to the end of this belt. The snap hook is then fastened through the "D" ring on the hammock. This gives a down pressure on the hammock and puts the steel tubing brackets placed in the window wells under tension. These belts are not shown in the enclosed photo.

If Federal Standard 213 does apply to this type device, please send us a copy of it. We will be more than happy to send you one of the hammocks for your inspection and/or testing.

Any assistance you can give us will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

John L. Wilson Jr. President

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-8.4

DATE: November 9, 1993

FROM: Jerry Schwebel -- Executive Vice President, Star Comm Ltd.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Jerry Schwebel (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers,

Thank you for the time given to us by you and your associates to discuss our air filled children's car seat.

In accordance with our discussion we are requesting an opinion with respect to the retention of the front strap. This strap is marked in the attached diagram. (Exhibit A)

Description:

The strap is not part of the primary restraint. Its main function is to offer additional side impact protection by keeping the leading side of the seat attached to the opposite side so as to prevent the child from rolling out. The strap is non load bearing in frontal impact.

Summary:

We recommend use of the strap based upon the improved HIC factor, and additional side impact protection. Test data, with and without the strap is included as shown on exhibits respectively B & C to substantiate this.

Your prompt response is appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: 0216

Mr. Joe Kover
463 West Creekside Lane
Kaysville, UT 84037

Dear Mr. Kover:

This responds to your letter of July 25, 1994, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have presented several questions regarding an electric circuit that you have designed for use in motor vehicles, and which you call a Light Control Unit (LCU).

The LCU automatically turns off the headlamps and tail and parking lamps when the ignition is turned off if the lamps have been activated. The LCU also automatically turns on the headlamps and the tail and parking lamps whenever the windshield wipers are turned on. If the LCU fails when the lights are on, a Light Bus Monitor will automatically restore them.

You have the following questions:

"Would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?"

No. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not tell an owner when it is or is not permissible to use safety equipment.

"Does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles;"

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108, does not apply to supplementary lighting devices such as the LCU. The LCU is permissible on new vehicles provided it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We do not see that it has this effect. It is permissible to be installed on currently registered vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses provided that it

does not make inoperable any part installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We do not see that the LCU has this effect either.

You have also told us that the LCU may be used to operate lamps as Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) by maintaining the light switch in the on position when the wiper switch has been turned off. One feature of this function is that the LCU "allows the operator to turn off either the head lights only or both the head lights and tail/park lights via the light switch." Your question is "If the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards?"

Under Standard No. 108, a DRL system is a system of any pair of lamps on the front of a vehicle (other than parking lamps or fog lamps) that is automatically activated and that is automatically deactivated when the operator places the headlamp control in the on position. Further, DRLs can be lower beam headlamps operated at full voltage. Assuming that the LCU turns the lower beam headlamps on rather than the upper beam ones, your system would function as a DRL meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lower beam headlamps are automatically activated by the windshield wipers and deactivated by turning off the ignition. However, the feature that allows the headlamps to be turned off manually (whether or not simultaneously turning off the parking lamps and taillamps) is not part of a DRL system as specified by Standard No. 108.

Your final request is that we "include the federal specifications for electronic devices." We are unsure what you mean by this as we have no "specifications for electronic devices." I enclose a copy of S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108, the DRL specifications.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 dL10/14/94

ID: nht94-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kover, Joe

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 7/25/94 From Joe Kover To Jere Medlin (OCC 10216)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 25, 1994, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have presented several questions regarding an electric circuit that you have designed for use in motor vehicles, and which you call a Light Control Unit (LCU).

The LCU automatically turns off the headlamps and tail and parking lamps when the ignition is turned off if the lamps have been activated. The LCU also automatically turns on the headlamps and the tail and parking lamps whenever the windshield wipers ar e turned on. If the LCU fails when the lights are on, a Light Bus Monitor will automatically restore them.

You have the following questions:

"Would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?"

No. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not tell an owner when it is or is not permissible to use safety equipment.

"Does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles;"

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108, does not apply to supplementary lighting devices such as the LCU. The LCU is permissible on new vehicles provided it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment require d by the standard. We do not see that it has this effect. It is permissible to be installed on currently registered vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses provided that it does not make inoperable any part i nstalled in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We do not see that the LCU has this effect either.

You have also told us that the LCU may be used to operate lamps as Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) by maintaining the light switch in the on position when the wiper switch has been turned off. One feature of this function is that the LCU "allows the operat or to turn off either the head lights only or both the head lights and tail/park lights via the light switch." Your question is "If the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards?" Under Standard No. 108, a DRL system is a system of any pair of lamps on the front of a vehicle (other than parking lamps or fog lamps) that is automatically activated and that is automatically deactivated when the operator places the headlamp control in the on position. Further, DRLs can be lower beam headlamps operated at full voltage. Assuming that the LCU turns the lower beam headlamps on rather than the upper beam ones, your system would function as a DRL meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lower beam headlamps are automatically activated by the windshield wipers and deactivated by turning off the ignition. However, the feature that allows the headlamps to be turned off manually (whether or not simultaneously turning off the p arking lamps and taillamps) is not part of a DRL system as specified by Standard No. 108.

Your final request is that we "include the federal specifications for electronic devices." We are unsure what you mean by this as we have no "specifications for electronic devices." I enclose a copy of S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108, the DRL specifications.

(ENCLOSURE OMITTED.)