ID: nht88-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON -- PRESIDENT, PRO-FLITE OF VERO, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 5/6/88 letter from William J. Stephenson to Erika Jones ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROD WILLAREDT; REDBOOK A33 [B] [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/17/89 FROM ROD WILLAREDT TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; LET TER DATED 04/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WAYNE APPLE; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/19/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CHARLES WILSON -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stephenson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 6, 1988, with respect to a new safety device designed to reduce turning accidents on large vehicles, known as "Pro-Lite".

As shown in photographs you enclosed, and as described in your letter, Pro-Lite is a device of red plastic, with arrow-shaped ends to the right and left, "internally lit with a series of clearance lights designed to flash in sequence with either turn sig nal", and connected to each turn signal by a single lead. It is unclear whether the whole device is illuminated when the turn signal is activated with a pulse indicating the direction of turn, but that appears to be the most logical method of operation. The device bears in its center the words "Wide Turn Stay Back", from the photographs it appears that the words remain dark when the red background is illuminated but that is not clear from your letter either, though it also appears the most logical meth od of operation. Although the device may be mounted at any height on the rear you believe the best location is on the rear center, for maximum visibility. You have asked for my thoughts and suggestions.

I enclose a copy of a recent letter of this Office concerning a similar device, one intended to indicate wide right turns. The views I have expressed would apply to your device as well, and I hope they are of assistance to you. If you intend to write t he American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the new address of that organization is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 11, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-16-90 TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-18-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO; (OCC-3422). TEXT:

Section 4.3.2 of FMVSS 210 sets forth the location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. This section requires the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint to be located within the acceptable r ange shown in Figure 1 of FMVSS 210.

Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly that has its upper torso anchorage point located in the acceptable range as defined in Figure1. The function of the seat belt and all strength requirements specified in FMVSS 210 are met using thi s anchorage point.

Volvo believes that an extra set of hardware at the upper torso anchorage would increase the stability of the mounting. The location of this extra set of hardware would fall outside the acceptable range as specified in Figure 1.

Volvo believes that a correct interpretation of FMVSS 210, with respect to the extra set of hardware for the upper torso anchorage, would be that it is acceptable for it to fall outside the range as specified in Figure 1, because the extra set of hardwar e is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements as specified in FMVSS 210. Please confirm this for us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht88-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/88

FROM: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, NHTSA

TO: NHTSA, OFFICE OF SAFETY COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED DEC. 8, 1988 TO WAYNE IVIE, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: On June 16th of this year, Oregon enacted a mandatory helmet law. Anyone riding on a motorcycle or moped on our highways must wear "approved" protective headgear.

Our agency adopted FMVSS 218, Motorcycle Helmets, as the minimum standard for helmets. Part S5.6.1 of the standard requires permanent and legible labeling of helmets, including the DOT symbol, to prove that a helmet meets that standard. Helmet manufactu rers apparently attach a sticker with the DOT symbol onto the back of the helmet.

Our office is receiving inquiries from individuals and police officers, who advise that on many helmets, this DOT sticker has fallen off or been removed by someone in order to paint the helmet, etc. They add that often there is no other labeling in or o n the helmet, so they can not determine that it meets any standard. (Is considered "approved" for use in Oregon.) To complicate this further, there is no manufacturer or brand name anywhere on the helmet, so contacting a dealer or manufacturer for infor mation is not possible. Advising someone to dispose of such a helmet and get another with proper labeling doesn't seem an appropriate answer, and may be just an undue expense for the motorcycle rider.

Are manufacturers allowed to use the DOT sticker only, with no other labeling, or is this being done in violation of FMVSS 218? (If the DOT sticker is now the only label used, we would definitely like to recommend that a permanently embossed DOT symbol somewhere in or on the helmet be also required.) Have you been advised of similar problems by other jurisdictions? Do you have suggestions on how we can resolve the situation of a helmet that appears to have been made in compliance with standard require ments, is in a good, undamaged condition, yet does not have any labeling?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

ID: nht88-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/88

FROM: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW

TO: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/ 07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FR OM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Egley:

In a letter dated June 9, 1988, you requested our interpretation as to whether a new motor vehicle device would comply with applicable Federal Standards. You also asked that details of the device be afforded confidential treatment.

Please be informed that this agency requires all of its interpretations to be made publicly available. Hence, you must decide if you still desire an interpretation to be issued in this matter, with the result that the confidential status of the informat ion will be compromised. I am prepared to delete any information specifically identifying you or your address from our analysis if you so request, but the substantive information describing the item of motor vehicle equipment will be made part of the pu blicly available analysis.

No further action will be taken in this matter until we have received a response from you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Parnell Webb -- General Manager, River Road Dodge (TN)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Parnell Webb General Manager River Road Dodge Rt.3 Ripley, TN 38063

This responds to your letter asking whether the original equipment bed on a half-ton pick-up truck can be taken off and replaced by a local government with a utility body and/or bed. I apologize for the delay in responding. The answer to your question if different, depending on the specific facts of the situation.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or stem of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applica ble Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety ct authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards (found in 49 CFR Chapter V), and each manufacturer is required to certify that its product(s) meet all applicable safety standards. Its not clear f rom your letter whether your dealership is proposing to make the modifi- cations for the local government agency or whether the local government agency will itself perform the modifications.

The local government agency can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles without violating any Federal laws or regulations. This is because neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications indivi dual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

However, if your dealership were to make these modifications, you would be responsible for complying with various providing of the Safety Act and applicable regulations. The provisions with which you would have to comply would depend on whether you modif y the vehicle before it is sold for the first time to the consumer (a new vehicle), or if you make the modifica- tions after it has been sold for the first time to a consumer (a used vehicle). I will address each of these situations separately.

If your dealership intends to perform the described modifications to new vehicles, you would be subject to the following requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable s afety standards. This means that any vehicle that is modified before being sold for the first time to a consumer must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after its modifications. In addition to these statutory considerations for modi fiers, this agency's certification regulations, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, apply to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing ope rations or in such a manner that the weight ratings designed to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an 'alterer' for the purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). We consider the removal of a pickup bed and replacement with a utilit y body and/or bed to be something more than the substitution of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations. Therefore, a person making such a substitution on a new vehicle would be an alterer under Part 567.

In this case, S567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations Here completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in S567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification l abel (see S567.7(b)); and

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certi- fication.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of notification and remedy of defects or noncompliances under the Safety not and if subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non compliance Reports.

On the other hand, if your dealership proposes to modify used vehicles (already purchased by the consumer), different requirements would apply. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used ve hicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited 'rendering inope rative' violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination

in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Part 567 does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle.

To help you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles and whether the proposed modifications would result in a prohibited 'rendering inoperative' violation, I am enclosing a publication entitled 'Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Pr ocedures.' This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counselor NHSTA 400 7th St. S. West Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika Jones,

Can the original equipment bed on a 1/2 ton pick-up truck be taken off and replaced by a local government agency with a utility body and/or bed? Please send this information to:

River Road Dodge Rt. 3 Ripley, TN 38063

Thank you,

Parnell Webb General Manager

&assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY -- ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108; LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

TEXT: Mazda is currently developing a lamp mechanism that features movable reflectors which can expand the area of illumination according to the driving steering angle on curved roads. The purpose of such a mechanism, when incorporated into the vehicle forwar d lighting system, is to better illuminate the forward curved path of the driver, and to therefore improve night-driving safety on winding roads.

To insure that such a system will be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, Mazda would like to confirm its interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In Mazda's proposed system, an electronic control unit adjusts an additional reflector's position to as much as thirty degrees to each side of the zero degree position in accordance with changes in steering angle. Automatic return of the reflectors t o the zero position occurs when the steering angle returns to zero degrees.

According to our interpretation of FMVSS 108, headlamps cannot be equipped with adjustable reflectors (S4.1.1.36). The only relevant provision applicable to fog lamps and cornering lamps is the requirement that they not impair the effectiveness of re quired vehicle lighting equipment (S4.1.3). Are we correct in concluding that although it will not be possible to introduce our adjustable reflector lamp as a headlamp, it may be possible to introduce it as a fog or cornering lamp, assuming the above pr ovision is met?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these issues at your earliest convenience. Please do not limit your discussion to the above regulations, but also address any other regulations and automotive safety considerations that might be pertinent.

ID: nht88-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION - 49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION-FMVSS 108 - LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

TEXT: Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the attached document, in its entirety, be afforded confidential treatment as specified in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information. In accordance with the guidelines provided in 49 CFR Part 512.4(b), included below is information supporting Mazda's claim that release of the attached document to the public meets the substantive standards of 49 CFR Part 512.5(a).

The attached document requests a NHTSA interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment in regards to Mazda plans to develop new lighting technology. The following supports Mazda's claim of confiden tiality, as required by 49 CFR Part 512.4(d).

1. The information relates to future unannounced product plans, projecting not more than three years into the future. Mazda has determined that the release of such information to the public would likely result in significant competitive harm. The i nformation specifically relates to the standard equipment features which will be made available on a yet unannounced product introduction. Obviously, release of this information will place Mazda at a competitive disadvantage due to the absence of such c lear and first party information regarding the product plans and policies of our competition.

2. The information contained within is known only to Mazda and has not been disclosed or otherwise made available to any person, company or organization outside of Mazda, its agents, and the supplier with which Mazda is working to develop the new tec hnology.

3. Mazda requests that the information contained within be considered confidential until such time as Mazda formally agrees to its public release, makes a formal public announcement or initiates mass production, whichever comes first.

Mazda has made a diligent inquiry to determine that the information contained in the attached document has not been disclosed, or otherwise made publicly available. Should this request for confidential treatment be denied, please contact us prior to the release of this information.

For any further information or clarification of this request, please contact Mr. Sadato (Ted) Kadoya at the letterhead address or telephone number above.

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht88-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: S. ROBSON -- SR. PROJECT ENGINEER - VEHICLE REGULATIONS MACK TRUCKS, INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM BARRY NUDD

TEXT: Dear Mr. Robson:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 207. You ask whether a seat in a heavy duty truck must remain in its adjusted position when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat, if the seat has been tested and remains in its adjusted position when subjected to a load of 20 times the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat.

This question arises because of the configuration of some heavy-duty truck seats which include suspension fixtures (pedestal structures) on which the upper seat section rests. Safety Standard No. 207 requires seats to withstand a load equal to 20 times their weight and requires the seats to remain in their adjusted position during the required loading (paragraph S4.2). The upper seat sections and adjusters or your truck seats are tested on rigid test beds by the seat manufacturer and reportedly comply with the adjuster provision of S4.2. However, when you test these seats in the actual vehicle (applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including pedestal), the center of gravity falls on the seat adjuster and the seat does not always stay in it s adjusted position during loading.

In answer to your specific question, the seat must remain in its adjusted position when tested to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, as required by paragraph S4.2 or the standard. We would agree with you, however, that with a seat configuration suc h as you describe, the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash. Your problem appears to arise because the center of gravity of this seat happens to fall on the seat a djusters and the standard requires the

loading to be applied through the center of gravity. The purpose of this loading requirement, however, is to ensure the integrity of the entire seat as it is attached to the vehicle structure.

Therefore, it is our opinion that for a pedestal seat such as you describe, a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those componen ts to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and which would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: DERRAL T. CRANCE -- AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEER, SALT RIVER PROJECT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DERRAL T. CRANCE, REDBOOK A33 (2), STANDARD 121

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Recently Salt River Project ordered sixteen material/reel trailers and two transformer oil trailers. The trailers were built in 1987 by an out of state manufacturer and delivered to Salt River Project via a local vendor representing the manufacturer. A description of the two types of trailers is as follows:

A. Material/Reel Trailer

GVWR - 20,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 211 inches overall

Width - 92 inches

Height - 90 inches

Deck - 30 inches from ground

Axles - Tandem 10,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-Cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

B. Transformer Oil Trailers

GVWR - 22,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 244 inches

Width - 90 1/2 inches

Height - 102 inches

Bottom of Tank - 24 inches from ground Axles - Tandem 12,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

I have attached a copy of a vehicle data record for a tank trailer and a photo of a material/reel trailer for clarification of the two types of trailers. Salt River Project's interpretation is that the trailers need to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 121 Air Brake System (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980). Our concerns specifically are in the reservoirs and the required protection system as set forth in FMVSS 121.

Please issue an interpretation to clarify the following items:

1) Are the trailers as outlined above required to conform to MVSS 121 (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980)?

2) If conformance to 121 is required, then is a protected reservoir for parking brake release required?

3) If conformance to 121 is required, then is it a requirement that the service reservoirs be protected by check valves or equivalent?

Sincerely,

Attachment

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

(PHOTOGRAPH OF TRAILER OMITTED)

ID: nht88-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

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

TO: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-5-88, FROM FRANK V. TANZELLA, TO NHTSA, OCC-1857

TEXT: 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 el ement 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 p ublic 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 "mot or 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 addi ng 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 aft er 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 wit h 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.

Enclosures