ID: 19753.wkm

Mr. Anthony DeFilippo
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Attn: DOT LAB
#1 Goodyear Boulevard
Lawton, OK 73505

Dear Mr. DeFilippo:

This responds to your inquiry, telefaxed to this office on March 18, 1999, seeking our approval for your proposed modification of the bead unseating fixture currently depicted in Figure 1, Bead Unseating Fixture, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 109, New pneumatic tires.

You would like to modify the test fixture so that you would have more flexibility to test tires of very different sizes. You state that you produce very large tires for vehicles such as the Plymouth Prowler and the Chevrolet Corvette, among others, and that you also produce small tires. You want to modify the fixture shown in Standard No. 109 to attach the shoe and mounting plate directly to the hydraulic cylinder, as depicted in your enclosed drawing, to allow easier loading and unloading of tires, as well as to make the process more ergonomically correct, by permitting use of a motorized hoist.

You do not need our approval to modify the test fixture. The test procedures specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are the procedures on which the performance requirements of the FMVSSs are based and which this agency uses in its testing of motor vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. The FMVSSs, including Standard No. 109, do not specify the testing that manufacturers must do. The standards specify the performance levels that motor vehicles and equipment must meet when tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in the standard.

NHTSA does not specify test procedures applicable to manufacturers, and does not give approvals to manufacturers' test procedures. As stated above, manufacturers are required to certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. While the surest way to assure compliance would be to test tires in accordance with the test procedures specified in Standard No. 109, you are not legally obligated to do so.

Please note that we are not in a position to comment on ISO requirements. You should contact ISO representatives for information about that organization's test requirements.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to call Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:109
d.6/10/99

ID: 1785y

Robert C. Craig
Quality Control Manager
Cosco, Inc.
2525 State Street
Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Mr. Craig:

This responds to your February 3, 1989 letter to Mr. George Parker, our Associate Administrator for Enforcement, seeking an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR /571.213). Specifically, paragraph S5.5 of that standard requires each child restraint system to be permanently labeled with certain specified information. One of the items of information required to be permanently labeled on the child restraint is the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system, and those weight and height recommendations must be expressed in English units (pounds and inches). Your letter stated that your company would like to express its maximum weight and height recommendations in both English units and equivalent metric units (kilograms and meters), and asked whether this would be permitted by Standard 213. As long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion, Standard 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from expressing required information in equivalent English and metric units.

For each of the labeling requirements set forth in NHTSA's regulations, this agency has consistently taken the position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse the user. Moreover, the agency has already concluded that passenger car tires may be labeled with required information expressed in equivalent English and metric units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. We would apply the same reasoning in interpreting the labeling requirements of Standard 213. That is, Standard 213 permits manufacturers to present the required information in both English and metric units, provided that the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse persons using the child restraint system.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:4/l7/89

ID: 8807

Ms. Gail Lindsey
Hillsborough County Public Schools
Risk Management and Safety Department
707 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear Ms. Lindsey:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:8/5/93

ID: medcoaches3277.cmc

Mr. Dick Mattice
Vice President Engineering
Medical Coaches
399 Co Hwy 58
PO Box 129
Oneonta, NY 13820-0129

Dear Mr. Mattice:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, as they apply to platform lifts and mobile medical units manufactured by your company. I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards are effective December 27, 2004.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g., MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have patient lifts that "fold and store in an under-floor skirt compartment during transit." You further explained that although the lift design "is primarily used for non-ambulatory patients on gurneys, it could just as easily be used for wheelchair-bound patients."You stated that the lifts are designed so that a gurney would be parallel to the trailer when on the platform, and therefore a wheelchair would also be oriented parallel to the trailer when on the platform. You then asked several questions regarding the application of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to the lifts and vehicles manufactured by your company.

1) Platform Dimensions

Your letter explained that:

[The] lifts are designed so that a gurney will be parallel to the trailer when entering or leaving the trailer. The platform itself is 84" wide x 38" deep (inner roll stop to ramp). As a result, a wheelchair would also be parallel to the trailer and not perpendicular.

You then asked if the lift orientation and dimensions would be permitted under the new standards.

Before discussing lift dimension requirements, it is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) must be equipped with a lift certified to all requirements applicable to a public use lift (see S4.1.1). All other lift-equipped motor vehicles must be equipped with a platform lift certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements (see S4.1.2). FMVSS No. 404 does not include trailers as a vehicle type that must be equipped with a public use lift. Therefore, the trailers manufactured by your company may be equipped with lifts certified to the public or private lift requirements.

FMVSS No. 403 does not establish requirements specifying the orientation of a wheelchair during lift operation. For public use lifts, S6.4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 403 does establish a minimum operating platform volume, which is based on the sum of an upper and lower part (see Figure 3; copy enclosed). The lower part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a minimum width of 725 mm (28.5 in) along the platform surface and a minimum height of 50 mm (2 in). The upper part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a base with a minimum dimension of 760 mm (30 in) wide by 1,220 mm (48 in) long and a minimum height of 711 mm (28 in). While the standard specifies that the base of the upper part must be tangent to the top surface of the lower rectangular volume and the centroids of both parts must coincide with the vertical centroidal axis of the platform, the standard does not specify the orientation of the upper part to the lower part. There is nothing preventing the upper part from being rotated in relation to the lower part.

Based on the information provided in your letter, your platform would conform to the minimum operating platform volume requirement for public use lifts. Your platform is 84 inches by 38 inches and would be able to accommodate an upper and a lower rectangular solid of the minimum size required. Further, if you were to certify the lift to the private use lift requirements, you would be required to specify the unobstructed platform operating volume and include it in the lift insert to the vehicle owners manual.

2) Wheelchair retention device impact test

Again, you stated that upon loading, a wheelchair is intended to be oriented parallel to the trailer. You ask if S7.7, Wheelchair retention device impact test, must be performed in this orientation, with the wheelchair accelerated in a direction parallel to the trailer.

The wheelchair retention device impact test verifies the integrity of the inner roll stop and the wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. The test simulates uncontrolled acceleration of a wheelchair or mobility aid when loading a platform. When loading the platform at the vehicle floor level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the wheelchair retention device. When loading the platform at ground level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the inner roll stop. In both instances, the mobility aid has the opportunity to achieve a measure of speed and momentum in a direction perpendicular to the trailer before striking a barrier.

In FMVSS No. 403, S7.7.2.3 requires a test device to be positioned with its plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane. This results in the test device oriented perpendicular to the vehicle. The reference to the orientation of the test device in S7.7 refers to whether a wheelchair is loaded onto the platform in the forward or reverse direction.

On your vehicles, a mobility aid is loaded in a perpendicular direction to the trailer, even though once loaded it is positioned parallel to the trailer. Once the mobility aid is positioned on the platform parallel to the vehicle body, it is stationary. Even if it were to move forward or rearward, because of limited space on the platform, it could not achieve the level of momentum that is possible when rolling onto a platform from the vehicle or ground. However, during loading, an unimpeded mobility aid could heavily impact either a wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. Accordingly, the wheelchair retention device impact test would be performed on the wheelchair retention device/outer barrier and the inner roll stop.

3) Public use verses private use lift

Your letter asked if the lifts installed on the mobile medical units manufactured by your company would be required to be certified as public use lifts. As explained in response #1, because the vehicles manufactured by your company are trailers, the lifts could be certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements.

4) Platform freefall limits

Under S6.6 of FMVSS No. 403, no portion of a platform may fall vertically faster than 305 mm (12 in) per second in the event of any single-point failure of systems for raising, lowering, or supporting the platform. Your letter asked if a failure of a hydraulic line by rupture constitutes a single-point failure.

If a system for raising, lowering, or supporting a platform were to include a hydraulic line, then the rupture of that line would constitute a single-point failure under S6.6. Therefore, if the hydraulic line were to rupture, the platform must not fall vertically faster than permitted by the standard. Additionally, you may need to evaluate other failures, as S6.6 applies to any single-point failure.

I hope that you find our responses helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:403#404
d.6/25/04

ID: 1982-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco -- Robert C. Craig, Quality Control Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 13, 1982, concerning the application of the belt buckle requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to child restraints meeting Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. As explained in the enclosed letters of interpretation of May 12, 1981, and May 21, 1981, the only requirements of Standard No. 209 that apply to child restraint belt buckles are the corrosion resistance requirement of S4.3(a) and the temperature resistance requirement of S4.3(b). The buckle release requirements of S4.3(d) and the buckle latch requirements of S4.3(g) do not apply to child restraints.

Because of reports of problems relating to difficulty in operating child restraint buckles, the agency is considering issuance of a proposal to apply the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) and S4.3(g) to child restraint system belt buckles. Any such proposal would be published in the Federal Register to provide all interested parties with notice and opportunity to comment.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

August 13, 1982

Mr. Steve Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Cosco/Peterson has received notice from Richard Jasinski, Contract Technical Manager, that we had problems on three tests on the 78 Safe-T-Seat.

One was the corrosion resistance. On this portion we agree about the standard.

The other two we do not agree, and we would like for you to review and give us your judgment. One was the size of the push button, that it has to be greater in size than 0.7 sq. in. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3d). The second was the engagement force of no more than 5 lbs. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3g).

We feel that both of these refer to a Type 1 or Type 2 automo-bile belt and not to a child restraint system. Our reference is F.R. Vol 44 No. 241 December 13, 1979, N.H.T.S.A. 49 CFR, Part 571, Docket No. 749, Notice 6, page 72135, last paragraph: "Base on its review ... adopt this approach".

We have been tested many times by Cal-Span and the University of Michigan, and this was never a question on size or engagement.

We need your immediate attention to this. If we have made the wrong interpretation of the standard we want to rectify it immediately.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Craig Quality Control Manager

RCC:ch

c.c. Richard Jasinski Roy Schwartzkopf Don Moore

ID: nht87-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOHN GRIFFIN -- PRESIDENT FRAZER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/17/86 FROM JOHN GRIFFIN TO TAYLOR VINSON, OCC 1443

TEXT: Dear Mr. Griffin:

This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to the status of identification and clearance lamps on emergency medical service vehicles (ambulances).

You believe that Federal requirements often present a conflict with respect to installation of these lamps at locations specified by the Standard. As an example you have cited "a light bar above the double rear doors may be placed as high as possible an d thereby give no room for identification lights." You have asked for a clarification of Federal requirements.

You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not exempt emergency-type motor vehicles from compliance; further, it contains no special provisions for them. This means that the final-stage manufacturer of such vehicles must meet the same requirements as the manufacturers of other vehicles whose overall width exceeds 80 inches, and give priority in lamp placement to fulfilling the locational requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. The requirements for clearance and identification lamps are expressed in terms of practicability, however, and the determination of whether a certain location is "practicable" is initially that of the manufacturer who installs them. There may be State laws governing the placement of lightbars, or practical considerations that may necessitate placing identification and clearance lamps at a position other than "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle", and in these instances the lamps may be located at a lower height than they would be were the lightbar absent. The lamps, however, cannot be omitted and the agency retains the right to review the determinations of the manufacturer.

I hope that this provides the guidance that you seek. If we may be of further help, please let us know.

Sincerely

ID: nht91-7.18

DATE: November 25, 1991

FROM: Don Weidman -- Manager, Special Projects, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Don Weidman (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On May 15, 1990 in the Federal Register Docket 88-17 Notice 2 a final rule was issued to become effective on December 1, 1990 requiring vehicles 80 inches or more in width to have stop and turn lamps with 75cm(2) of "effective projected luminous lens area" (EPLLA).

This occurred when NHTSA adopted SAE J-1395 April 85 for turn lamps and J-1398 May 85 for stop lamps.

Question is how will these new larger requirements affect the agriculture vehicles and implements when they are traveling on the highways?

Presently SAE J-137 June 89 covers lighting and marking of agriculture equipment on highways.

It requires a single tail light which meets J-585 and has no area requirements.

It requires at least two amber flashing warning lamps conforming to J-974. J-974 requires the lamp to have an effective projected illuminated area of 12 in(2).

Paragraph 3.14 of SAE J-137 states "when turn indicators are provided the amber flashing warning lamps shall be used as turn indicators".

What lighting and safety equipment standards must the agriculture equipment comply with to be legal when operating on the highways FMVSS-108 or SAE J-137?

If the warning lamp also serves as a turn signal lamp and the 12 in(2) effective projected illuminated lens area required in J-974 is measured by including all illuminated areas such as lens legs, and screw bosses will this be considered legal when operating on the highways?

We would appreciate knowing NHTSA's position on this issue.

We have one of our customers in the process of making a decision on their future purchases of lighting devices, therefore we would appreciate receiving your reply as soon as possible.

ID: nht70-1.4

DATE: 08/03/70

FROM: JOSEPH R. O'GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Evans, Gentither and Meermans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol "DOT" into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a "second" would not negate the certification.

The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many brand/size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.

The test results do not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter. Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard; similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.

Copies of individual test reports can be obtained, for a fee of $ 3.00 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification, you may wish to avail yourself of this service.

There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the name of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is; American Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated, 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.

I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance.

ID: 23532.ztv

Mr. Daniel Watt
280 Lindo Court
Unit A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037





Dear Mr. Watt:

This is in reply to your email of August 22, 2001, to Michael Cole of this agency.

You related having seen trucks using light emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of incandescent bulbs for their taillamps, and asked whether "red LEDs installed in place of a bulb [in] a clear taillight meet the color 'red' requirements. Or would that be a non-compliance because the housing was not certified for use with LEDs?"

Under Federal law, lighting equipment on motor vehicles must be designed to comply with 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The manufacturer of the vehicle then certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including Standard No. 108. The original rear lamps on the trucks that you saw were equipped with incandescent bulbs.

Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamps, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which [Standard No. 108] applies shall be designed to conform to this standard." This means that a replacement item must be designed to conform to the standard in the same manner as the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance with the original equipment installed. A rear replacement lamp equipped with LEDs would not be designed to conform to the standard in the same manner as the original equipment, and would therefore not comply with S5.8.1. Whether it is legal to use replacement equipment such as the LEDs on the public roads is not a matter of Federal law but of State law. We are not conversant with state laws and cannot advise you about this. You might want to contact the California Department of Highway Patrol for its views on this subject.

Substituting LEDs into a lamp that was designed to incorporate incandescent light sources raises safety concerns. An incandescent light source emits light when an electric current passes through a resistant metallic wire (filament). The position and shape of the filament, along with other design elements, define the unique electrical and photometric characteristics of the light source. Lamp designers incorporate these characteristics into the original optical design of the lamp. Thus, substitution of the original light source with one of a different design may negatively impact the photometric performance of a lamp below the minimum required for compliance with Standard No. 108. In addition, other functions required by Standard No. 108 may be affected by substitution of an LED, such as operation of the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator (S5.5.6).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/4/02

ID: nht76-1.7

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alaska Traffic Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to a request by Mr. William Hall, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator for Region X, for a review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems with special consideration of the comments of Mr. Robertson in his memorandum of November 24, 1975.

It is the opinion of this agency that Standard No. 104 is appropriate for the State of Alaska. The essential feature of a wiping system, as far as safety is concerned, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are washed and wiped. These areas are established in the standard and are determined by the angles from the driver's eye position over which the windshield must be kept clear to provide a proper field of view. While targets of driver attention and environmental conditions may differ from state to state, if the critical areas are clear, the field of view provided to the driver is sufficient. The 1976 Scirocco appears to provide the required field of view.

The question therefore becomes whether the Federal standard on windshield wipers is intended to cover all aspects of wiping systems. If so, the situation is analogous to that presented to the court in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E.D.Cal. 1974) which resulted in a holding that Standard No. 108 did preempt an inconsistent state regulation in the field of lighting requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the standard on windshield wiping systems, No. 104, is intended to leave the number of wipers to the discretion of the manufacturers. Under Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir, 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Thus, a state regulation differing from the standard would impair the Federal superintendence of the field within the meaning of the doctrine set forth in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963) and be preempted under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, U.S.C. 1392(d).