ID: nht91-5.3

DATE: July 19, 1991

FROM: Charles Lombard -- Lombard Industries

TO: Rick Iderstiene -- NHTSA

TITLE: Safety Standard #211

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Charles Lombard (A38; Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney

TEXT:

Please send me a letter of your approval to market my new wheel and/or hubcap design at your earliest convenience.

I have worked hard and am fighting cancer. I've put in nine years in the making of this product with safety always in mind. I have worked with General Motors and Ford Motor Company for 40 years in general management positions, always making everything to be safe and clean. I have 40 years with a perfect record. I've received many awards.

The design will be a little deeper and inwards. The TIRE will ALWAYS HIT THE CURB FIRST. It's one piece and has nothing to do with holding the wheel, or rather the design has nothing to do with holding the wheel on the car or truck. It just has a sparkle affect and will keep the wheel cooler, eliminating brake fade (a good safety factor).

As you can see, the wheel will still be held on by 4, 5 or 6 lug nuts. You can see we threw weeds, cloth and other debris directly into it, and the design will not catch it. It is DEFINITELY NOT a true knock-off with sharp ends. The pictures enclosed will show a better idea of how it is held on. It is definitely stronger and much more safe than anything that the auto factories are building today.

Enclosed are some pictures of many other makes and models. Much of mine will be molded and poured in appearance only (strong and safe). The lug nuts and the outer edge of the hub are safe and much more leaning toward the safety factor than many that are on the market today. I have many factory awards for marketing all types of vehicles.

We found by throwing cloths or debris into the wire wheels of today, they will catch more than any other design and will break the spokes. The knock-off hubs and prongs I know have been outlawed many years ago. My wheel and hubcaps were studied by the marketing professosr and students of the University of Arizona three years ago. Compared to some market studies, my design was much stronger and safe, and the wheel made of steel and chrome NEVER has to be retourqued like aluminum.

I hope I pass your specifications and endorsement. Thank you so much.

Attached to drawings of wheel rims and hub caps. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht94-1.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/7/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion letter from your office concerning the re-importation of a certified vehicle.

My client wishes to re-import vehicles which were certified by the original manufacturer and purchased in the U.S. These vehicles would then be modified and sent back to the U.S. The vehicles in question are motorcycles which would then have a shell pl aced around it. The frame would be slightly modified and seating lowered to incorporate the design. However, my client would not knowingly render inoperative wholly or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with the FMVSS.

On November 16, 1992, your office issued a letter regarding this matter. Please advise me if this letter is still your interpretation.

ID: nht94-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TO: Chief Console -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/19/94 Letter from John Womack to Jerry Miller (Std. 222)

TEXT:

Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans is a builder of conversion vehicles for the transportation of handicapable individuals, both private and commercial. We are embarking on the manufacture of associated equipment to go into these vehicles. One such pie ce of equipment is a wheelchair tie down.

After conversations with Mark Levine, NHTSA, trying to obtain rules and regulations on this type of equipment and at the suggestion of Charles Hott, NHTSA Rulemaking Office. I am writing your office requesting information on or an official letter statin g there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other then school buses

I am looking for regulation and legal requirements for transporting persons in vehicles with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraints, both private and commercial, other then school buses. It is my understanding NHTSA standard No. 57 CFR Pa rt 571.222 "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" only applies to school buses and does not apply to any other vehicles.

I need to know specifically what the legal specified performance requirements are for the wheelchair securement devices. 1. What are the minimum strength requirements for the securement devices and systems themselves? 2. What are the minimum strength r equirements for the anchorage of those devices and systems to the vehicle?

I appreciate your cooperation and quick response in advising us on NHTSA's rules and regulations on wheelchair tie downs used for transporting the handicapable person in a vehicle other then a school bus.

ID: aiam2898

Dear Mr. Whiston: Please excuse the long delay in responding to your letter abou materials incorporated by reference in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your primary concern is the correct version of the referenced materials to be used in conducting compliance tests if the materials are subject to change.; As you noted, Part 571.5 (CFR 571.5) of our regulations provides, i pertinent part, 'Materials subject to change are incorporated as they are in effect on the date of adoption of this part, unless the reference to them provides otherwise.' Almost all safety standards incorporating materials by reference specifically refer by month and year to a particular version of the referenced material. Therefore, the specified version should be used for compliance test purposes, even if the organization that adopted the reference material has published an updated version. If the reference does not identify a specific version, the version in effect when the safety standard was issued should be used for compliance testing.; As you pointed out, many of the voluntary industry standards do no have an 'effect date.' To determine which version was 'in effect' on the date the Federal safety standard incorporating the material was issued, the agency looks to the version adopted by the organization that developed the material as of that date. For example, the Society of Automotive Engineers Standards do not have an effective date, but they do have an identifying month and year which indicates when the latest version was approved by the appropriate SAE approval body. The agency would look at that identifying month and year to determine which version was in effect on the issuance date of the safety standard or amendment.; Regarding your request for a list of the effective dates of the Federa safety standards, please be aware that the standards are being continually amended and the new provisions have their own effective dates. Thus, there is no single effective date for each standard. The enclosed computer printout provides a listing of the effective dates of the safety standards and their amendments as of July 1978. You are correct in your assumption that the safety standards only apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of relevant standard.; Finally, the effective date of a safety standard does not have an bearing on which edition of materials incorporated by reference is applicable. The version used for compliance testing is the version specifically referred to in the standard by date or, if there is no date specification, the version which was in effect on the date of issuance of the safety standard.; If you have any further questions, I will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0166

Dear Mr. Louis: Thank you for your letter of June 18, 1969, to the U.S. Department o Transportation, concerning your request for clarification of the visibility requirements of back up (sic) lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The visibility requirements for backup lamps on station wagons o similar type motor vehicles will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps may therefore be mounted on the tailgate.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: nht88-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/88

FROM: JERRY SWISHER -- COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR OPINION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO JERRY SWISHER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 109

TEXT: Gentlemen:

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) is a manufacturer of passenger, light truck and truck tires, which are sold and distributed to independent tire dealers through Cooper's own sales and distribution system and also sold to private brand customers f or distribution and sales through their own systems.

One of our private brand customers has inquired as to whether Cooper can manufacture and sell to them tires which would have:

1. No identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or brand name owner, other than Cooper's assigned DOT letters. This tire would meet all the requirements of 49 CFR 571.109 S4.3(a) through (g) and 49 CFR 574.5; however, it woul d not have permanently molded on the upper sidewall the name "Cooper", the private brand owner's name, nor any other general trade name, trademark or identifying name. Each tire would have in the lower sidewall near the bead area, and visible after the tire was mounted, three different names, approximately one-quarter inch (1/4") in height, with each name appearing, for example, at the 2 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions on the tire. These names would be placed in such a manner that they woul d not interfere with the labeling or markings required under 49 CFR 571.109.

2. In the alternative, our private-brand customer makes the request as in 1. above, except that some generic connotation, such as, for example, "All Season" or "Performance" would also be molded on the upper sidewall.

The reason for the request from our private brand customer is that, in addition to its direct marketing, the private brand customer has two subsidiaries, and each of the three markets tires under a different name. They are seeking a generic tire with out prominent identification, but one which would contain all three names, thus making it marketable by any one or all three of the entities.

We request your opinion in reference to 1. and 2. above as to whether either would be in violation of, or in non-compliance with, 49 CFR Parts 571 and 574.

If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

ID: 2903yy

Mr. Saburo Inui
Corporate Manager
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20.

Standard No. l08 defines an "integral beam headlamp" as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a "headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source." You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are "integral beam headlamps" as defined by Standard No. 108.

These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a "starter" affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a "converter," which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a "hard wire" while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by "hard wires" that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are "integral beam headlamps."

The phrase "optical assembly" in the definition of "integral beam headlamp", in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an "optical assembly" includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered "indivisible," and the starter could be considered to be "integral" with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it "integral" within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter.

However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both "integral" and "indivisible" if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:3/25/9l

ID: nht91-2.45

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Saburo Inui to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20.

Standard No. 108 defines an "integral beam headlamp" as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a "headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source." You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are "integral beam headlamps" as defined by Standard No. 108.

These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a "starter" affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a "converter," which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a "hard wire" while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by "hard wires" that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are "integral beam headlamps."

The phrase "optical assembly" in the definition of "integral beam headlamp", in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an "optical assembly includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered "indivisible," and the starter could be considered to be "integral" with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it "integral" within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter.

However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both "integral" and "indivisible" if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that

any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment.

ID: nht78-2.7

DATE: 10/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect to Subaru's intention to offer "a retracting center auxiliary lamp" on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.

The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candle-power output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.

Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lighting requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1969 Dodge cars, named the "Super Lite", and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing the glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.

SINCERELY,

SUBARU OF AMERICA, Inc.

September 12, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

Subaru of America plans to offer as standard on our MPV, BRAT model, a retracting center auxiliary lamp. We request your office's comments to the following questions.

1. Can we call the center lamp an auxiliary driving lamp?

2. Can we use a single on/off switch for this lamp? Or must it be switched to be used only with bright beam headlamps?

3. What are the compliance problems, if any?

Paul Utans Assoc. Vice President Product Compliance

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht69-2.16

DATE: 09/30/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John A. Blatnik

COPYEE: FHWA LEGAL 26-30; CONG. LIA.; MR. HITCKCOCK; OFF ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE, MVSPS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of September 9, 1969, in reference to the motor vehicle safety items discussed in Mr. Frank L. Van Alstine's letter of July 2, 1969, to Mr. H. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director of our Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service. I am enclosing a copy of our reply to Mr. Van Alstine's letter.

As we indicated in our reply, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, "Reflecting Surfaces - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses," affects only original installation; it does not apply to replacement windshield wiper arms, such as those referred to in Mr. Van Alstine's letter.

Federal Standard No. 210 specifies strength and general location requirements for lap and shoulder belt anchorages in passenger cars. Even though vehicles such as Mr. Van Alstine's 1969 Plymouth Valiant must meet this standard, some degree of discomfort may be experienced with certain(Illegible Word) positions and/or certain occupant sizes. As our reply stated, we are not aware of any significant injuries resulting from the present belt anchorage locations.

Based on the information supplied by Mr. Van Alstine, it does not appear that the two situations described represent violations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

It is most helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens such as Mr. Van Alstine take the time to bring their safety experiences to our attention and that of their elected representatives.

Enclosure