ID: nht89-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MARK F. HOLMES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3980; LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violatio n of any of the standards and regulations of this agency.

These devices are "designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down." As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in pro gress. The "locator" feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an "emergency distress flare." You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled "Interior/Strobe Alarm Light," and "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light."

The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 1381 and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Ref lective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner.

Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" appears intended as a "dome" light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view

mirror required by Standard No. 111, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We a re unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

The "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light" raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108, the center lamp may not b e combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equ ipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance w ith Standard No. 111, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Robert E. Fouts -- President, Earl's Performance Products

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Meeting with Mr. Jim Gilkey 11/05/95

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ROBERT E. FOUTS (A43; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Flexible brake hose of extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid have been the worldwide standard for racing cars since the mid 1960s. The reasons are two-fold:

(1) The virtual elimination of hose swell under pressure results in a significant reduction in brake pedal travel.

(2) The same reduction in hose swell gives a much firmer brake pedal feel - allowing the driver to modulate braking force more precisely.

For the same reasons there is a significant market demand for these hoses on road going vehicles, especially high performance vehicles and cars that have been retro-fitted with upgraded brake systems. There is also interest from OEM vehicle manufacturer s for limited production vehicles.

Earl's Performance Products Inc. has been the leading supplier of this type of hose, as well as other types of high performance fluid handling hoses and fittings, to the racing industry for more than twenty years.

The stainless braid armored brake hoses of teflon, supplied to the racing industry, easily meet all of the physical specifications of FMVSS No. 106 with the exception of the whip test. The whip test requires that one end of the hose be fixed to a normal end fitting while the other is attached to a disc of 8 inch diameter. The assembly is pressurized and the disc is rotated at 800 revolutions per minute. The hose assembly must endure 35 continuous hours of cycling without losing pressure.

The standard racing specification hoses typically fail at the interface between the hose and the upstream end of the swedge collar at the fixed end of the assembly. The failure is due to the aggravated cyclic stress.

Earl's determination to develop a flexible brake hose of stainless steel braid armored extruded teflon has led us to design and manufacture our own in house whip test machine to the specifications set forth in FMVSS No. 106.

After some years of experimentation and testing we have developed our "whip dampener" device which allows our hose assemblies to easily surpass the whip test. We have successfully tested hose assemblies from 9.0" to 24.0".

Briefly, the whip dampener consists of a spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing. The housing clips into the OEM bracket where the OEM hard brake tubing joins to the flexible brake hose. The flexible brake hose of stainless armored teflon is i nserted through the bearing on assembly and cannot be removed. Suitable threaded couplings to JIC, DIN etc. standards are provided at each end of the assembly to match the OEM threads at the end of the hard lines and at the caliper of wheel cylinder. D etails of these couplings are dependant on the specifications of the individual vehicle and installation. No modifications are required (or allowed) to the threaded couplings or ports on the vehicle.

We intend to meet the marking requirements of Section S 5.2.1 by marking a clear plastic extruded overlay with the required lay lines, manufacturer's ID # etc. or by etching the same information onto the stainless steel braid.

Assemblies will be supplied with clear and graphically detailed instructions.

We met yesterday in Washington with Mr. Jim Gilkey of the enforcement division. Mr. Gilkey stated that he felt that our assembly was a reasonable approach to the requirements of Section S 5.3.3 but, since this is a new concept and no device of this natur e had been seen before, your office should be informed. We have left samples, photographs, descriptive literature and a model of the whip dampener test device with Mr. Gilkey.

Upon receipt of a favorable reply we will submit sample assemblies to an independent testing lab for certification with regard to the complete requirements of FMVSS No. 106 and proceed to apply for a manufacturer's ID #.

We are prepared to return to Washington when required. In the meantime, should you or your staff require further information please feel free to contact me at any time.

ID: nht67-1.17

DATE: 08/07/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Kar Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Haddon asked me to thank you for your letter of June 19 concerning certification procedures for your product.

Apparently our reply of June 14 did not reach you prior to your sending your second letter. I have enclosed a copy of this answer for your reference. This reply was based on the assumption that your KAR Safety Mirror was not original equipment but rather would be sold in the aftermarket.

Your second letter asks three questions. The first question states that the KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968 and asks what steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose. The answer to this question is that the certification obligation contained in Standard No. 111 applies to the vehicle and it is therefore the vehicle manufacturer who will have to certify that the vehicle needs all applicable standards including Standard No. 111. Question No. 2 concerns the transfer of mirrors from cars now equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror, and question No. 3 concerns the certification requirements on 1963 models where the owner installs the KAR Safety Mirror as an after purchase add on piece of equipment. The answer to both of these questions, of course, is that there is no certification requirement at this time for the mirror, as such, as an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Thank you again for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

June 19, 1967

William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Administrator National Traffic Safety Agency

Under date of May 19, 1967, I wrote to you asking for guidance in submitting the KAR Safety Mirror to the proper local authority for certification under the provisions of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Act of 1966. The absence of a reply, to this date, would indicate you have not had sufficient time to implement this prodigious and important program. However, at the risk of being importunate, I earnestly inquire for answers to the conditions presented herein; namely,

1. The KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968. What steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose?

2. A number of owners now having cars equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror will trade for 1968 models and will transfer said KAR Safety Mirror to the new car immediately 'after purchase'. Is prior certification required under these circumstances? If so, how do we proceed?

3. Will prior certification be required for the KAR Safety Mirror when owners of 1968 models buy outright and install said KAR Safety Mirror directly 'after purchase' of the new car?

We would appreciate your comment and reply to these questions at the earliest practical moment.

Alan Axtell, President

cc Honorable George Murphy

cc Honorable Warren G. Magnuson

Will Scott Ford Motor Company

I see no objection to your request of June 28, 1967, to ship the outside mirrors loose in your Econoline models until reaching dealer destination. Since the mirror is shipped and the mounting holes are drilled at the factory, the installation of the mirror by the dealer is purely a routine dealer service.

Sincerely,

William Haddon, Jr., N.B.

DR. WILLIAM HADDON JR DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20591

PARAGRAPH S3.2.1.1 OF STANDARD NUMBER 111 SPECIFIES THAT AN OUTSIDE REAR-VIEW MIRROR QUOTE SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNQUOTE ON APPLICABLE VEHICLES. IT HAS JUST BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT FORD ECONOLINE MODELS ARE SHIPPED WITH OUTSIDE MIRROR LOOSE IN VEHICLE. THIS PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED BECAUSE OF RESULTING INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE FOR LOADING ON LOWER LEVEL OF HAULAWAY VEHICLES IF MIRROR IS INSTALLED AT FACTORY. ECONOLINES EQUIPPED WITH MIRRORS COULD, OF COURSE, BE SHIPPED ON UPPER HAULAWAY LEVEL ONLY BUT SHIPPING DELAYS AND FREIGHT PENALTIES THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UNDERUTILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT MAKE SUCH A PLAN UNREASONABLE.

WE DRILL MIRROR MOUNTING HOLES AT FACTOR TO INSURE THAT MIRROR IS IN FACT, INSTALLED BY DEALER PRIOR TO CUSTOMER DELIVERY. WOULD THIS BE ACCEPTABLE TO BUREAU OR WILL IT BE NECESSARY TO CLASSIFY THESE UNITS AS IMCOMPLETE VEHICLES SORRY TO BOTHER YOU WITH THIS DETAIL WHEN BUREAU HAS FAR MORE IMPORTAND SUBJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION REGARDS

WILL SCOTT FORD MOTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE BLDG DEARBORN MICH

ID: nht92-4.12

DATE: September 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas E. Wilde

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Thomas E. Wilde to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7603)

TEXT:

This responds to your July 28, 1992 letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I note that your letter was stamped confidential; however, in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that you did not object to your letter being placed in our public docket.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which retrofit air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect a retrofit air bag would be

the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section 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.

With regard to retrofit air bags, the existing safety belts (in a vehicle not already equipped with an air bag) are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a retrofit air bag installed by a commercial business interferes in any way with the performance of the safety belt system, it would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition.

You should also note that a retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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

ID: aiam0785

Dear Mr. Ralston: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1972, concerning th applicability of Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, to the bumpers you manufacture for pickup trucks.; Standard No. 215 does not apply to vehicles other than passenger cars so that pickup trucks equipped with your bumper would not have to conform.; We do not have the facilities to conduct product evaluation tests o the type you have in mind. We are enclosing a copy of the standard, however, for your review. The test procedures are set out in sections S6 and S7.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1285

Dear Mr. Burns: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1973 to Secretar Brinegar, concerning outside rear view mirrors.; The existing standard (No. 111) on *Rearview Mirrors*, is found i Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations S 571.111. Paragraph S3.2 established requirements for outside mirrors. This standard applies to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured since January 1, 1968, and establishes requirements for original equipment mirrors. It does not apply to mirrors manufactured for the aftermarket.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1312

Dear Mr. Smith: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1973, concerning th permissibility of installing trailer hitches on your 1974 cars without violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; The attachment of trailer hitches to automobile bumpers will no constitute a violation of any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The testing requirements of Standard No. 215, which are here applicable, specify that trailer hitches are to be removed prior to testing for compliance. Thus, it is only necessary that the automobile comply with the regulation when the trailer hitch is not attached.; We appreciate your inquiry. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4577

Dear Senator Exon: Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, i which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham. In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehicle's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. (Copy enclosed.) If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an 'alterer' under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a 'readily attachable' component. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component. A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an 'alterer.' Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides that no person may 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States,' any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the 'render inoperative' requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. I note that in a letter dated September 25, l987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. 108, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative by installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter. Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Washington Office /;

ID: aiam3085

Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statement made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections 'I' and 'V' of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.; (I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with th automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).; In the second part of your first question, you asked whether convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll- over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.; In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you coul manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of 'convertible,' the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.; (V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growin aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to a convertible, for example) is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in compliance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective).; Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is i compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type *e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard- top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.; I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised i your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5518

"Dear Mr. Hindson: This responds to your letter asking about how thi 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";