ID: nht93-7.28

DATE: October 19, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Tank Conference Engineering Committee; TTMA Engineering Committee; Retroreflective and Reflector Devices Associates

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Often a new tank trailer will be sold to a customer who will contract with another party to have a lining installed in the tank. High heat is used to apply this lining. After the lining is installed, the tank trailer is painted. After the tank is painted, conspicuity treatment is applied. The high heat used in the installation of the lining precludes the application of paint and retroreflective sheeting to the tank before the lining is installed.

In addition, non-tank trailers may be sold without conspicuity treatment when the owner wishes to contract the application of special paint and logo schemes.

49 CFR 568.3 defines an incomplete vehicle as one "that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle."

Is a trailer manufactured after December 1, 1993 and sold without the conspicuity treatment required in FMVSS 108 an incomplete vehicle? If you consider such a trailer to be a completed vehicle, does NHTSA require that the manufacturer furnish the owner with (1) retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors complying with FMVSS 108, (2) instructions as to where on the trailer the conspicuity treatment should be installed, and/or (3) instructions on preparing the surface for the application of the conspicuity treatment? Should conspicuity treatment installed by the owner be deemed to be not in compliance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108, is the owner solely responsible for the violation and for bringing the trailer into compliance?

If NHTSA determines that the installation of conspicuity treatment is a readily attachable component and therefore a complete vehicle, can the manufacturer certify that "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above" if the trailer is not furnished with the conspicuity treatment required by FMVSS 108?

ID: 19666.ztv

Ms. Karen Coffey
Chief Counsel
Texas Automobile Dealers Association
P.O. Box 1028
Austin, Texas 78767-1028

Dear Ms. Coffey:

We are replying to your letter of February 22, 1999, with respect to the R.E.D. - Alert product. You have asked that we review this product for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The R.E.D. - Alert causes the center highmounted stop lamp to flash when the service brakes are applied, for a "predetermined duration," after which the lamp becomes steady burning. You refer to a letter of July 19, 1995, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, to Mr. Shih-Chiang Chen, advising that the center lamp must be steady burning. This letter also advises that, after a vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits certain specified entities from modifying the center lamp to cause it to flash, but that the vehicle owner is not precluded from installing the sensor.

Dr. Martinez's letter correctly states the law as it applied then and as it applies now. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108) requires all lamps to be steady burning in use, other than turn/hazard warning signal lamps and school bus warning lamps (headlamps and front side marker lamps may be flashed automatically as signals). See S5.5.10. Installation of the R.E.D.-Alert would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. A dealer in new vehicles is not permitted to knowingly sell a vehicle that fails to conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

After a vehicle is sold, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Although the sale of the R.E.D. - Alert is not prohibited by Federal law, its installation on a vehicle after the vehicle's first sale would have the effect of causing the center stoplamp to operate in a manner other than designed, a "making inoperative" within the intent of the prohibition. Although 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not include a vehicle owner, safety is not served by modifications that depart from an original state of compliance, and we strongly encourage vehicle owners not to modify their vehicles so that they no longer conform to the safety standards that they originally met.

We are not conversant with Texas motor vehicle law. Texas may have a specific prohibition against flashing stop lamps that parallels S5.5.10 of Standard No 108, as a state is permitted to do by 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). To the extent that Texas law permits, or, if silent, is interpreted as permitting flashing stop lamps, we would regard that law or interpretation as impermissible under sec. 30103(b) which requires state standards to be identical to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where both cover the same aspect of performance.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/1/99

ID: 9731

Mr. Gilbert Gallahar
Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems
P.O. Box 713
Marana, AZ 85653

Dear Mr. Gallahar:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then they would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install an on-board hydrogen generator in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emissions testing regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301 d:5/18/94

ID: 19824.ztv

Mr. Ralph F. Ivey
45 East Oak Street
Willlits, CA 95490

Dear Mr. Ivey:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking whether Acting Chief Counsel Womack's interpretation of February 20, 1997, addressed to Brian Kimmel and regarding the Rotary Zodiac (RZ) motorized bicycle, applies to your unit, which has a smaller cubic capacity engine of 33cc.

We are frequently asked whether a bicycle equipped with a power assist is a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction, or simply a bicycle, regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We answer this question by examining the extent to which the power source assists the operator. Our letter to Mr. Kimmel (as is the case with all our interpretations) was based on the information that he presented to us in his request, and not on our actual inspection of or experience with the RZ. On this basis, we informed Mr. Kimmel that the RZ was not a "motor vehicle" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This opinion was not based on the cubic capacity of the power source, but on the conditions under which power was supplied. As we understood it, the power supplied by the RZ's motor assisted the bicycle operator in certain driving conditions, but was insufficient to propel the bicycle alone in the absence of muscular input by the operator. In other words, if the operator stops pedaling, the RZ will come to a halt.

You have enclosed a photocopy of an ad by Acimex USA, Inc., for a "bicycle assist." This appears to be aftermarket equipment for installation by the bike owner, consisting of a motor and a handlebar mounted throttle. When installed, the maximum speed of the bicycle is 40 km/h. The ad indicates that the unit "starts automatically and still allows normal pedaling."

Upon our review of this ad, we have concluded that a bicycle equipped with the Acimex system is a "motor vehicle." We further conclude that it is a "motorcycle" and that the person installing the motor is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal requirements.

Specifically, the Acimex system appears designed for full-time operation. Further, the fact that the system will "still allow pedaling" indicates that it is intended to propel the vehicle in the absence of muscular input by the operator. In other words, it appears that it is the operator who assists the power unit rather than the opposite. Under these circumstances, the bicycle will become a "motor vehicle" when the owner installs the Acimex system. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for any person to introduce a motor vehicle into interstate commerce unless it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The standards that appear to apply to an Acimex-equipped bicycle are those for "motorcycles," and "motor driven cycles," a subcategory of motorcycle. We regard the initial operation of a motor vehicle on the public streets as an introduction into interstate commerce.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/10/99

ID: nht88-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/11/88 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM LOUIS F KLUSMEYER, OCC - 2275; Std. 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Klusmeyer:

This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1988, to Mr. Vinson of this office with reference to a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" concept.

As you presently envision the implementation of this concept, an amber lamp would be activated when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator pedal, and would be extinguished automatically when the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator ped al. You believe that the optimum location appears to be immediately adjacent to the center highmounted stoplamp. You believe further that this location has already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, and ask whether it is precluded by Standard N o. 108.

Your belief is based upon the Federal Register notice of October 1983 adopting the center highmounted stoplamp, which stated that "Other types of lamps or added functions such as deceleration signals may be desirable and should be investigated." However, this was in the context of alternatives to adoption of the center lamp, and relates to the agency's statement in the same paragraph that "with additional research, more nearly optimum specifications for stoplamp configurations may be developed." Indeed, the agency made it quite clear in prohibiting combining the center lamp with any other lamp or reflector (paragraph S4.4) that no added functions were contemplated or desirable.

Under paragraph S4.4 therefore, a deceleration lamp and the center stop lamp could not be combined. S4.4 would not prohibit an amber lamp adjacent to the center lamp. However, paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits optional lighting equipment if it would impair th e effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Your letter indicates that the deceleration signal is deactivated by renewed pressure on the accelerator pedal (and not by pressure on the brake pedal) so that a following driver would be presented with both amber and red signals, creating the possibility of confusion, and hence impairment. You have not indicated whether the deceleration lamp would be steady-burning or

2 flashing, but we believe the possibility of confusion would increase were the lamp flashing. However, were the lamp to be extinguished when the brake pedal is applied (which activates the stop lamps), then the possibility of confusion would be substan tially lessened. With respect to deceleration warning systems, last year the Flxible Corporation determined that a system installed on its buses created an impairment, and hence a noncompliance with paragraph S4.1.3. The company then conducted a notific ation and remedy campaign (87V-089) as required by statute. The company concluded that its flashing amber deceleration lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stoplamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-5.52

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: West & Wilkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requesting information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $ 1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. The installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.

There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-on gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and Standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(c)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.

The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicles exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7) If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel tank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.

YOURS TRULY,

WEST & WILKINSON January 2, 1974

Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation

According to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Act, 15 USC Sections 1391 et seq., and particularly Section 1392, your office was empowered and directed to adopt minimum safety standards for motor vehicles. We do not have ready access to whatever standards have been promulgated but have received inquiry from a client concerning the existence of a specific provision in such standards. Specifically, my client, an automobile dealership, inquires if there is any prohibition(Illegible Word) civil or criminal sanctions on adding gasoline tanks to private passenger motor vehicles, including campers, or modifying existing gasoline tanks on such vehicles.

Your assistance will be appreciated.

Richard Wright West

ID: nht72-1.15

DATE: 08/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for R.B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 24, 1972, to Mike Peskoe, and your letter of July 25, 1972, to Lawrence Schneider. Your letter of July 24 discusses your dissatisfaction with the present method of amending the Appendices of Standards 109 and 110 and suggests that we meet to discuss with you possible methods of changing this procedure. We will be happy to meet with you to discuss possible other methods of amending the Tables, and if you will contact either Ed Wallace or Mike they will arrange a meeting with you.

In your letter of July 25 you request the legal status of a petition dated July 4, 1972, from E.T.R.T.O., to amend the Tables of Standards 109 and 110 to include a tire size designation and alternative rim sizes which have not been standardized by E.T.R.T.O. The guidelines for amending the Tables, which you cite in your letter, do not require tire size designations and alternative rims to be standardized by the respective associations before inclusion in the Tables. Rather, they require only that the petition indicate whether the tire size designation and rim sizes have been standardized. As a consequence, the size in question (240-15 Radial) and the alternative rim sizes were included in the amendment to the Table published August 2, 1972 (37 F.R. 15430). If you object to the inclusion of this size designation in the Tables, as you have been informed by phone, your objection with supporting statements should be submitted to NHTSA in writing, within 30 days from publication of the amendment to the Tables.

ID: nht95-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

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

TO: Tom Hindson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/15/94 LETTER FROM TOM HINDSON TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10619)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hindson:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you described your product as a car cover that stows beneath the rear bumper of an automobile. When used, the cover is propelled from its casing by an electric motor as the driver guides the cover over the car with a handle, which then attaches to the front bumper. In a February 14, 1995 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you described the product in more detail and said that vehicle owners will not be installing your product. Instead, you plan to market this either as a dealer-installed option on new cars or by having a business approved by you retrofitting used cars.

The short answer to your question is that there are no regulations that apply specifically to your car cover. However, there are some safety concerns and Federal requirements that you should know about.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any standards for car covers. However, the cover is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in secti ons 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Since your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, you should know that section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a devi ce or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (i.e., the installer) to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Because your product is not "readily attachable," if the car cover is installed on a new vehicle prior to sale, the installer would be considered an "alterer" under section 567.7 of Title 49 o f the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the standards affected by the modification.

There do not appear to be any definite problems with your system, as it was described to us. However, allow me to reiterate our concern in a few areas that Mr. Atelsek described to you over the phone. These are safety related areas that you want to be careful of.

Our regulations are in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 581 describes the bumper standard, which basically requires that there be no damage in collision at 2.5 mph. The housing of the car cover unit bolts both to the bumper and to the trunk pan, thus bridging the area between the bumper and the vehicle chassis. Although you said the polyurethane housing "gives" and did not degrade performance even in a 5 mph collision you conducted, this is a standard you should consider for all vehi cles on which your device is installed.

Standard 301 is the fuel system integrity standard. It restricts fuel system spillage in collisions from many angles. Although you told Mr. Atelsek there were no pieces that could pierce the gas tank in a rear end collision, the illustrations you sent him seem to show some kind of rod-like support structure running longitudinally on either side of the cover housing. These structures run the entire length of the housing and even extend slightly beyond it. You told him that the housing was approximate ly 40 to 44 inches in the longitudinal direction. In a rear end collision (the test we use is described in S6.2 of Standard 301) these structures must not be driven into the gas tank to cause an unsafe fuel leakage problem.

A related area of concern is the electrical conduit that runs from the battery lead to the electrical motor on the rear bumper which deploys the car cover. We suggest that you consider constructing and routing the conduit so that it will not be damaged in an accident, possibly causing a short and increasing the likelihood of ignition if there is fuel spillage.

Finally, you should be cautious when mounting your unit near hot exhaust system components. You stated that you may mount the housing within 3/4 of an inch underneath the muffler, in which case you would use heat resistant aluminum sheet materials. You appeared to be very conscious of this potential danger, and we agree the flammability of components attached to a vehicle is an important safety concern.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a general fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please fee l free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10619

Mr. Tom Hindson
7810 N.W. 40 Street
Coral Springs, FL 33065

Dear Mr. Hindson:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you described your product as a car cover that stows beneath the rear bumper of an automobile. When used, the cover is propelled from its casing by an electric motor as the driver guides the cover over the car with a handle, which then attaches to the front bumper. In a February 14, 1995 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you described the product in more detail and said that vehicle owners will not be installing your product. Instead, you plan to market this either as a dealer-installed option on new cars or by having a business approved by you retrofitting used cars.

The short answer to your question is that there are no regulations that apply specifically to your car cover. However, there are some safety concerns and Federal requirements that you should know about.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any standards for car covers. However, the cover is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Since your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, you should know that section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (i.e., the installer) to a potential civil penalty of up to

$1,000 for each violation. Because your product is not "readily attachable," if the car cover is installed on a new vehicle prior to sale, the installer would be considered an "alterer" under section 567.7 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the standards affected by the modification.

There do not appear to be any definite problems with your system, as it was described to us. However, allow me to reiterate our concern in a few areas that Mr. Atelsek described to you over the phone. These are safety related areas that you want to be careful of.

Our regulations are in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 581 describes the bumper standard, which basically requires that there be no damage in collision at 2.5 mph. The housing of the car cover unit bolts both to the bumper and to the trunk pan, thus bridging the area between the bumper and the vehicle chassis. Although you said the polyurethane housing "gives" and did not degrade performance even in a 5 mph collision you conducted, this is a standard you should consider for all vehicles on which your device is installed.

Standard 301 is the fuel system integrity standard. It restricts fuel system spillage in collisions from many angles. Although you told Mr. Atelsek there were no pieces that could pierce the gas tank in a rear end collision, the illustrations you sent him seem to show some kind of rod-like support structure running longitudinally on either side of the cover housing. These structures run the entire length of the housing and even extend slightly beyond it. You told him that the housing was approximately 40 to 44 inches in the longitudinal direction. In a rear end collision (the test we use is described in S6.2 of Standard 301) these structures must not be driven into the gas tank to cause an unsafe fuel leakage problem.

A related area of concern is the electrical conduit that runs from the battery lead to the electrical motor on the rear bumper which deploys the car cover. We suggest that you consider constructing and routing the conduit so that it will not be damaged in an accident, possibly causing a short and increasing the likelihood of ignition if there is fuel spillage.

Finally, you should be cautious when mounting your unit near hot exhaust system components. You stated that you may mount the housing within 3/4 of an inch underneath the muffler, in which case you would use heat resistant aluminum sheet materials. You appeared to be very conscious of this potential danger, and we agree the flammability of components attached to a vehicle is an important safety concern.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a general fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:4/24/95

ID: 17178.wkm

Mr. Ken Helms
Manager of Engineering
Trinity Trailer Manufacturing, Inc.
8200 Eisenman Road
Boise, ID 83716

Dear Mr. Helms:

This responds to your fax'd inquiry to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether, in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems, you are required to install antilock brake systems (ABS) on trailers that you manufacture for purchasers in foreign countries for use in foreign countries. The answer is no. You also stated that some of those purchasers want to transport such trailers with no ABS installed from your production facility over U.S. roads either to a U.S. port or across the border. They would be permitted to do that.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code generally requires any person manufacturing, selling, importing or offering for sale any motor vehicle or item of motor equipment to certify that such vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (see 30112(a)). That requirement, however, does not apply to "a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle or equipment and on the outside of any container of the vehicle or equipment, and exported" (30112(b)(3)). Similarly, our safety regulations provide that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to such vehicles or equipment. See 49 Code of Federal Regulations, 571.7(d).

Accordingly, your vehicles that are produced solely for export are not required by U.S. law or regulations to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121, which requires that vehicles equipped with air brake systems also be equipped with ABS. Such vehicles are permitted to be driven, towed, or otherwise transported to the U.S. border or to a U.S. port for further shipment to a foreign market, so long as they are appropriately labeled on the vehicle or equipment clearly indicating intent to export, or if in a container, as long as the container is labeled indicating intent to export. There is no prescribed form or format for the export label, but the label must be legible, obvious, and clearly indicate "For Export Only."

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 121#571
d.5/1/98