ID: 2882o

Mr. Frank V. Tanzella
Tek Tron, Inc.
10R Rainbow Terrace Unit E
Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. Tanzella:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "motor vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by adding the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles after installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#207 d:7/18/88

ID: 2983yy

Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Bridgeport Office
100 Center Square Road
P.O. Box 464
Bridgeport, NJ 08014

Dear Mr. Wakamatsu:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/29/9l

ID: 1984-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Linda Morrow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677

Dear Ms. Morrow:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.38

DATE: 06/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midwest Polychem, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have examined the proposed label for "GRC" brake fluid you have submitted to us for comment.

Generally, the label appears to meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 (36 F.R. 11937, June 24, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 21594, November 11, 1971). The words "or(Illegible Word)" in your conformity statement are redundant; since the standard is a minimum requirement, "conforming to" and "exceeding" it mean exactly the same thing. If the fluid packager is an entity other than Curley, the packager's name or code identification must appear either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can. We assume that the required serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging will be stamped either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can.

GRC

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

GRC

HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

DIRECTIONS

FILLING: Check fluid each month or every 2000 miles. Fill Mailer cylinder to within one-half inch of top.

BLEEDING: Remove plug from bleeder screw and insert bleeder hose. Place other and of bleeder in clean container partially filled with G.R.C. Brake Fluid. Lossen bleeder screw and pump brake pedal slowly until air bubbles stop and fluid is clear. Tighten blender screw and follow same instructions on all four wheels, Moster cylinder fluid level must be checked after bleeding each wheel and keep fluid level to within 1/2 inch of top.

CAUTION: FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

(Illegible Lines) GURLEY REFINING DESIGN GCR SUPER HEAVY DUTY BRAKE FLUID (Illegible Word) 2700-1 S.O. 244-3191 SIZE 211 X 407.5 C.E. 4.595 X 8.364 B.P. DATE 10-19-71

(Illegible Lines) (Illegible Word) AS DETAINED APPROVED AS SUBMITTED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: DATE NO. PROOFS 20 PROOF DATE 11-3-71 CHANGE A CHANGE B CHANGE C ARTIST D/TCA

ID: nht74-2.11

DATE: 08/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dura Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dura Corporation's July 24, 1974, questions whether S5.6 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires parking brakes on air suspension liftable axles, and whether the "no lockup" requirements of the standard apply to a liftable axle on a "tandem axle rig".

The parking brake performance options of S5.6 do not require parking brakes on an air suspension liftable axle such as you describe. S5.6.2 requires only that the parking brakes installed on a vehicle meet minimum performance levels. S5.6.1 requires parking brake retardation force on "an axle other than a steerable front axle". We do not consider this requirement to apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated.

The standard's "no lockup" requirement (S5.3.1) applies to

"any wheel at speeds above 10 mph except for . . .

(b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.

Under this provision, if a vehicle has two nonliftable, nonsteerable axles at the rear which do not lock up (such as an antilock-equipped tandem axle rig) it may be equipped with a liftable nonsteerable axle which does not meet the "no lockup" requirements.

Yours truly,

July 24, 1974

Sidney F. Williams -- Office of Operating Systems, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Dura Corporation is presently involved in manufacturing add-on liftable axle/suspension assemblies which are marketed with OEM and body builders. Due to the impending effectivity dates of FMVSS 121 we are presently preparing to equip our products to comply. Our liftable airide axle/suspension assemblies are applicable to both pusher and tag situations.

The intent of this letter is to request an official interpretation of FMVSS 121. Our present understanding of the standard is as follows:

An anti-lock system will be required with the add-on axle/suspension if added to a single axle rig but not required if added to a tandem axle rig.

II. An emergency/parking spring brake will not be required with the add-on axle/suspension. This supposition is based on a loss of air pressure will automatically lift the axle rendering the spring brake inoperable.

Please indicate if the above statements are correct. Your consideration and cooperation in this matter is truly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Raymond E. Jones, Project Engineer -- DURA CORPORATION

cc: W. Locke

ID: nht78-3.17

DATE: 09/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 208 applies to side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, does require side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.

Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strength requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

August 24, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

The Wayne Corporation manufacturers small buses (GVWR 10,000 lbs. and under), Busette and Transette, which have a normal passenger capacity of 16 to 20 passengers.

Some of these buses are equipped to accommodate transporting the handicapped. In some of these cases, the operators' requirements for lifts, wheelchair anchorage devices, side facing seats, etc., reduced the passenger capacity to less than 10 persons, in which case the vehicle becomes, for purpose of Federal Certification, a multipurpose passenger vehicle rather than a bus.

Which, if any, of the requirements of FMVSS 208, Passenger Crash Protection, apply to side facing seats installed in the MPV discussed above?

If you should find that S4.1.2.3 of FMVSS 208 applies at the option of the manufacturer, please advise the criteria to be used for the installation of the seat belts, taking into consideration that all current seat belt requirements relate only to forward and rearward facing seats.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-2.32

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

COPYEE: PESKOE; COMPTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which you ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the "lowest seating position" for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to "lowest seating surface" in proposed "Fields of Direct View" (Docket No. 70-7; Notice 2; 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.

The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (38 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase "lowest seating position" to be synonymous with "lowest seating surface" with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 105 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of the Chief Council, N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In a recent conversation with your Mr. Peskoe, I asked a question relative to FMVSS 205 which Mr. Peskoe advised would best be asked in written form to which your office would make a prompt reply.

Accordingly, my question is this:

In FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials, at S5.1.2.1 "Safety plastic materials . . . may be used in a motor vehicle only in the following specific location at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersection of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above the lowest seating position."

Additionally, in Docket 70-7, Notice 2, Paragraph S10.1 it says: "There shall be no obstructions forward of the forwardmost point of the driver's seat that are above a horizontal plane 18 inches above the lowest seating surface of the driver's seat . . ."

Specifically, what is the definition of the "lowest seating position" in FMVSS 205 and lowest seating surface in Docket 70-7 and what accounts for the difference in the 15 inch and 18 inch dimensions?

We look forward to your prompt reply in this matter.

Sincerely,

KAR-KRAFT, INC.;

L. A. Volberding -- Administrative Manager

ID: nht75-4.16

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mountain States Tires Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 1, 1975, which included a list of information items you believe are required to appear on retreaded tires pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.

With the following qualifications, your list is correct:

1. The tire must be labeled with the symbol "DOT" followed by the letter "R", and other information required by 49 CFR Part 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as a certification that the tire complies with Standard No. 117. This requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement that the casing retain the "DOT" symbol from its original manufacture.

2. The words "bias/belted" are not required, because the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area, are now required to appear.

3. Tube-type and tubeless tires must be labeled with the specific words "tube-type" and "tubeless", respectively.

4. The items listed in your third group may appear on a paper label only if that label is not easily removable.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117.

YOURS TRULY,

MOUNTAIN STATES TIRE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

May 1, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

From various sources, it is our understanding that after May 12, 1975, the following requirements must be met in retreading passenger car tires:

To be processed the casing must have on it from the original manufacturer

The symbol "DOT"

The tire size

Number of plies or ply rating

The completed retread must be permanently marked in at least one location with letters of a minimum of .078 inches high with the following:

Maximum Load

Actual number of plies in sidewall and tread, if different

Name of cord in sidewall and in tread area if different

The completed retread must also have this information on it, either with a permanent label, paper label or retained on the casing:

Size

Tube or Tubeless

Mamimum Inflation

Bias belted or Radial

Please advise us as soon as possible if the above information is correct so that we may have current, proper and accurate information for our members.

Claud Riggs, Exec. Secy.

ID: nht91-5.44

DATE: September 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-91 from John Marcum to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5988)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 26, 1991, asking for a clarification of my letter to you of April 22.

As we advise you, under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." You ask whether "demonstrations or training" includes the carrying of passengers for demonstrations and evaluations. The answer is yes. Where, as here, the imported vehicle is intended for public transit, the carrying of passengers would appear to be an important and necessary part of demonstrating the features of the bus and evaluating the feasibility of offering electric-power public transportation in the United States.

You also ask whether there are any special conditions that may be observed, such as whether passengers should be charged for the rides. There are no special conditions that NHTSA has imposed under section 591.5(j) that relate to your operation. However, any test should be consistent with safe vehicle operation, such as not loading the vehicle above the capacity of the tires and suspension, having adequate braking ability, and provision for sufficient emergency exits. The question of whether a fee should be imposed for riding the bus could be relevant in a personal injury action brought against you by a rider; however, this is not a question to be answered under Federal law. You should consult a private attorney for guidance.

The fact that the law allows importation of a nonconforming bus for purposes of demonstration should not be interpreted as meaning that NHTSA is not concerned with the safety of a vehicle engaged in transporting members of the public. The agency believes that importers of buses should ensure that the vehicle is not loaded above the capacity of the tires and suspension, and that there is adequate braking ability and provision for emergency exits. Importers are reminded that the agency has the authority to impose terms and conditions related to safety in permitting importations of this nature.

Finally, you ask if there is a limit as to the length of time a demonstration with passengers is permitted. So long as the demonstration is ongoing and the length of time is reasonable, demonstrations with passengers would be permitted for the duration of the vehicle's stay in the United States.

ID: nht95-5.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.