ID: nht94-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 13, 1994

FROM: Mary B. Falls -- Sherrard and Roe, Nashville, TN

TO: Office of General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/08/94 from John Womack to Mary B. Falls (A42; STD. 115)

TEXT: Our firm represents Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation USA, who manufactures cars and light trucks in Smyrna, Tennessee. We have been advised that, from time to time, leased Nissan automobiles are stolen for the purpose of removing the plate contain ing the vehicle identification number ("VIN") from the dashboard of the leased car. In most cases, the leased vehicle is recovered with very little damage other than damage associated with the removal of the VIN plate. NMMC has asked us to determine ho w replacement VIN plates can be obtained for these stolen vehicles and what additional steps, if any, must Nissan or the vehicle lessee take to satisfy state and federal laws with respect to the issuance of a new VIN plate. While Tennessee statutes clea rly contemplate the issuance of replacement VIN plates, we have found no federal statute or regulation which addresses this particular issue. Among the various federal regulations we have reviewed are the following: 49 C.F.R. 565 and 49 C.F.R. 571.115. In addition to researching the federal statutes and regulations. we have contacted Peggy Proctor at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. This letter is submitted to you at the request of Ms. Proctor.

The issue we submit to you is as follows: If Nissan complies with the requirements prescribed by the State of Tennessee for the issuance of replacement VIN plates, will Nissan also be in full compliance with applicable federal statutes and regulations pertaining to vehicle identification numbers? If not, what additional steps must Nissan take to ensure full compliance with federal laws and regulations? For your convenience, the balance of this letter describes the process pursuant to which the State of Tennessee will issue replacement VIN plates to Nissan.

Section 55-5-111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, @ 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, transmission, or "other number or mark" may restore such number or mark pu rsuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

Upon written request by the owner of a stolen VIN plate, the Criminal Investigation Unit will issue one (1) replacement VIN plate. Because the vehicles in question are leased, Nissan (as owner) would be the party making the request for the replacemen t plate. In addition to requesting a replacement VIN plate, the written request must include a copy of the certificate of title for the automobile in question (thus verifying the original VIN for that automobile), a copy of the theft recovery report for the automobile in question, and a check in the amount of $ 10.00. Once Nissan receives the replacement VIN plate, the plate is affixed to the door jamb of the vehicle. We have been advised that the replacement VIN plate contains a "control number" whi ch indicates that it is a replacement plate issued by the Tennessee Department of Safety. Apparently this control number permits the vehicle to be tracked and differentiates it from the vehicle bearing the stolen VIN plate. Because the replacement VIN plate bears the same VIN as the original VIN plate, the certificate of title for the automobile, the VIN stamped on other parts of the automobile, and the manufacturer's label affixed to the door of the car do not need to be changed.

Because these leased vehicles cannot be operated without replacement VIN plates, a prompt response would be greatly appreciated. Of course, if you have any questions, we would be pleased to provide any additional information that you desire.

ID: nht94-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1994

FROM: Reidar Brekke -- Market Analyst, Norwegian Trade Council

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation on "Belly Safe" a safety device used by pregnant women

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-14-94 from John Womack to Reidar Brekke (A42; STD 208)

TEXT: The Norwegian Trade Council- New York (NTC-NY) is currently representing the Norwegian companies, HTS and Loyd's Industri, in their effort to introduce Belly Safe to the US market.

Belly Safe is a safety device made to protect the "unborn life". Belly Safe forces the car lap belt under the bulge of the stomach, and ensures that in the event of an emergency stop or a collision, that the "damaging" pressure will be concentrated on t he hip bone and not on the stomach where the fetus is situated.

We were recommended by Mr. Dan Orden, Chief of Import Division, Office of Vehicle Compliance, to contact you for a legal interpretation of this safety device. He felt that this was important even though there are no applicable standard for this type of products in the US.

As you will se from the information enclosed, the product has been tested and approved in both Sweden and in Germany. The product is made of Polyester and Acetal (see Constructional data form).

The product is currently sold in several European countries and in Australia. Belly Safe is patented in Europe and in the US.

We hope this information will be sufficient for you to give Belly Safe an legal interpretation.

4

Pleas contact us if you have any questions or if you need more information.

Enclosed: German approval of Belly Safe under ECE R 16 rules and regulations Constructional data form from TUV Rheinland e.V. Preliminary translation of instructions Test results from the Swedish National Testing Institute Advertisement with references

ID: nht94-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1994

FROM: DOUG BEREUTER -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to Letter Dated 09/16/94 from Christopher A. Hart (for Ricardo Martinez) to Doug Bereuter (A42; Part 303)

TEXT: I am writing to you again regarding my continuing interest in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) long-delayed rulemaking concerning compressed natural gas fuel containers. In previous correspondence, you stated that the final r ule would be sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review. Has this happened or is this no longer necessary? Please send me an update on the current status of the rulemaking. Despite past assurances, this matter continues to be stalled. I w ant evidence that progress is being made. This matter is too important to be placed on NHTSA's back-burner.

ID: nht94-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1994

FROM: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Reflective Tape "Outlined Around Its Perimeter" For Emergency Rear Doors On Type A-1 Sixteen & Twenty Passenger School Buses Under 10,000 Lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Thank you for your clairification of my questions May 2, 1994 letter. You stated that the Emergency Rear Doors of Type A-1 School Buses must be outlined around the perimeter with reflective tape. This brings up a question of tape installation due to th e existance of door hinges, O.E.M. tail light position, and the proximate position of Rear Door bottom edge to bumper.

There is no problem with installing reflective tape across the top and above both doors (see enclosed picture of rear doors on color brochure). There is also no problem running the tape down the left and right sides of the two doors, although the tape w ould not be continuous due to door hinges and the tail light lenses. Tape on the hinges would not last long because water, dirt, snow and ice would get behind it and lift it off also it would be a mess. The tail light lens comes within less that 1/2 in ch of door edge and I don't think it would be a good idea to run the tape over the tail light lens.

The bottom of the Emergency Rear Doors closes on a rubber gasket that touch the anti-hitch filler strip that closes the gap between the bumper and the bus body so there is no place to put reflective tape on the outside perimeter of the door bottom unless it is put on the bottom of the doors in which case it would not be on the "outside perimeter".

Question: Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and downthe left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

Very truly yours,

ID: nht94-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1994

FROM: Darlene E. Skelton, President, National Institute Of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Asst. Administrator-NHTSA Office of Rulemaking

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DARLENE SKELTON (A43; STD. 120; STD. 121; PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice:

The National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety is a nonprofit organization committed to improving safety in the purchase, application, operation, and maintenance of emergency vehicles. Over the course of our work, several items have come to question .

1. We have examined vehicles that the GVW exceeds the tire rating capacity. In such cases the manufacturer places a limitation on the distance and speed the vehicle can travel.

For example, a fire truck with four rear mounted tires rated 7,000 lbs. each or a total of 28,000 lbs. are mounted on a 31,000 lb. axle. The final stage manufacturer actually acquired a letter from the tire manufacturer a. raising the air pressure from 100 to 110 or 115 psi b. placing a limit of driving no more than 55mph for a distance no greater than than seven (7) miles.

Our question is, do these practices constitute a violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)?

2. We have also examined vehicles where the axle has been re-rated.

For example, one manufacturer increased the axle rating because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Because there is less cycling over the highway, they decided that the same axle in a fire truck application could be increased fr om 22,000 lbs. to 24,000 lbs.

Does this re-cycling of axles constitute a violation of the FMVSS?

3. We have knowledge of some manufacturers taking air supply for horns off of the air supply for breaks.

Does this violate the FMVSS?

Any direction you can provide regarding these issues is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-3.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 20, 1994

FROM: Irene M. Thomas (Aurora, CO)

TO: Dee Fujita, NHTSA

TITLE: CarMobile

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Irene M. Thomas (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Thank you for your time and consideration during our phone call this morning about my "CarMobile". Enclosed please find a notarized sketch and description.

I would greatly appreciate an analysis in writing. Thank you!

The CarMobile is a device which is attached by velcro strips to the handrails located at the top of the interior rear car doors. It is made of grosgrain ribbon, with three round rings sewn on to it. Toys can be hung from the rings, so that babies and t oddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats. The children can reach the toys, but not the CarMobile itself.

The toys are not included with the CarMobile.

Inventor: Irene Thomas Dated: June 21, 1994Notarized

ID: nht94-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 21, 1994

FROM: Ralph Harpster -- Laguna Mfg, Inc., Turlock, CA

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-15-94 from John Womack to Ralph Harpster (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: I have been referred to your office for clarification of a program that utilizes the retro-fitting of seat belts in the rear of police vehicles.

Our company manufacturers a replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars. Police vehicles face special needs in the equipment they use and the methods they use to transport arrestees.

As you can well imagine, a great number of persons placed in the rear of a police car, under arrest, are not co-operative, nor do they particularly wish to go to jail, therefore, it is of significant importance that they be solidly restrained and unable to get loose in the rear of the vehicle, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately the seat belt system used by the car manufacturer, while adequate to the task in a collision, will not restrain the prisoner under transport conditions due to the inertia reel retractor system. This allows the person belted in to exercise great range of motion and thus they can extricate themselves from the belt system. They can not only cause a great deal of damage to the vehicle, themselves and the police officer in an attempt to kick out the windows and escape, but can expose themselv es to a significant risk of injury should a collision occur while they are out of the belt.

In an effort to simplify the transport process, we furnish a molded seat that accomplishes several tasks. First, the seat will hold a prisoner upright and in place due to its molded configuration. Secondly, the seat eliminates the ability of the prison er to hide contraband, i.e. drugs, weapons etc. Thirdly the molded seat can be washed or disinfected thus helping a police dept. in its policy to overcome the problems associated with blood borne pathogens. Our query lies in the first task enumerated a bove. We retrofit the car with a seat belt system that overcomes the problem associated with the inertia reel retractor system. In our system we utilize a belt that pulls snugly, in a positive restraint mode and does not use a retractor. When the offi cer places the prisoner in the seat, the belt system is latched in place just as any seat belt would be, then the belt is manually pulled tight and remains in that position until manually released. We use a shoulder lap combination belt for meeting the 3 point fastening criteria, and we use only belts certified to meet M.V.S.S. 209-302. Additionally we use factory seat belt mounting locations. We desire that you review our stated use and render an opinion regarding the use of this system and, if in y our opinion, it fits the criteria established for retrofitting.

I would also, separately, like an opinion if a single shoulder belt could possibly meet any of the requirements. I realize that, like many agencies today, you have to deal with an increasingly heavy workload, but I would be extremely grateful if your of fices could give this the earliest possible consideration as we are trying very hard to do things in the most straight forward and compliant manner that we can.

I will take the liberty of thanking you in advance for any courtesy and consideration you can tender us.

ID: nht94-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 23, 1994

FROM: John G. Klinge -- Executive Vice President, Lightman

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94: Letter from John Womack to John Rlinge (Std. 125)

TEXT: After speaking with your associate Jim Gilkey, it was determined that I should contact you directly with my company's request. Visibility Systems Company has designed (patent pending), and now markets to consumers and law enforcement agencies across the USA, the LIGHTMAN product which is enclosed. Our intention is to also market this product as a warning light source for use by over the road truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. Lightman would augment or replace the need for flares and reflectiv e triangles.

Before attempting to market Lightman for truck and auto fleets, we need to know if we are in compliance with Federal standards (perhaps # 125). Would you please have your staff review Lightman's capabilities as a battery powered light source given ou r plans.

Lightman comes with domes in five colors (clear, red, amber, blue and green). It is powered by two AA batteries and will operate continuously for over three hours. Visibility Systems plans to market a 3-pack to fleets containing three light units, mu ltiple domes (do you have required colors?), attachment devices and 2 heavy duty lithium batteries.

Thanks in advance for your assistance. Should you need more samples or have any questions, please contact me directly. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

cc: James Gilkey

ID: nht94-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 25, 1994 Est

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John A. Boehner -- Member, United State House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 3/25/94 from James Ackley, Carol Baumhauer and Krista D. Subler to John A. Boehner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 7, 1994, to the, Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton.

Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT "approval and color code designation" for their "Life Lites" system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the fron t of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is b raking. It "could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to "approve" or disapprove safety in ventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be in terpreted as our approval or endorsement of it.

The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite in operation; its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effe ctiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appear s clearly erroneous.

Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "knowingly renders

inoperative, in whole or part" the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same consid erations would apply.

However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in w hich the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 2220 3.

ID: nht94-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Saburo Inui to Robert Hellmuth (9205)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the test conditions for the dynamic side impact test of Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

The test conditions are set forth in S6 of the standard. S6.1 explains how to achieve "test weight:"

Test Weight. Each passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away fr om the impact areas in secured places in the vehicle. * * *

You first ask whether the weight of the added test equipment inside the vehicle is added to the test weight, or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." Th e answer is that parts of the vehicle may be removed, but only as a last resort. A brief explanation of how NHTSA calculates test weight follows.

Under S6.1, "test weight" is comprised of the combined weight of the vehicle with all fluids, the cargo and luggage weight, the test dummies, and nothing more. The cargo and luggage weight is derived by subtracting from the gross vehicle weight rating s pecified by the manufacturer the combined weight of the vehicle, fluids, and 150 pounds for each seating position.

There are subtractions and additions to the vehicle weight in preparation for the test. The fuel is replaced with Stoddard solvent, but only to approximately 93 percent of capacity, and all other fluids (oil, washer fluid, etc.) are drained. Thus, the vehicle is lightened by the weight of 7 percent of the

2

fuel and all of the other fluids. However, the added weight of cameras and any other necessary (non-dummy) test equipment usually more than compensates for the fluid weight loss, and the vehicle generally is slightly heavier than the test weight. There fore, other weight must be removed until the test weight is reestablished.

Please note that NHTSA will remove parts of the vehicle to compensate for the weight of the test equipment only as a last resort. The agency will first remove cargo or luggage ballast. If still more weight must be removed (i.e., in the unlikely event t hat the weight of the test equipment exceeds the weight of the removable cargo and luggage) the agency will remove parts of the vehicle. This is only likely to occur in vehicles with very small cargo capacities, such as sports cars. In this event, NHTSA would remove only parts of the car that play no part in the side impact test (e.g. bumpers).

You next ask about the "vehicle test attitude" specifications of S6.2. By way of background, NHTSA determines the attitude of the vehicle in its "as delivered" condition (i.e., the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications) and in its "fully loaded condition," under the vehicle test attitude specification of S6.2. Under S6.2, the vehicle's pretest attitude is equal to either the as delivered or t he "fully loaded attitude" or between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude.

You ask whether the term "fully loaded attitude" means the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition." The answer is yes. Moreover, S6.2 specifies that "[t]he 'fully loaded condition' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1." As mentioned in our response to your first question, S6.1 explains how to load the vehicle to achieve the test weight.

You also ask whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment. The answer is also found in S6.2's specification that "[t]he pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attit ude, or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude." This language describes a range of attitudes, including the left-to-right attitude, which the vehicle may be in at the time of the test. The vehicle must be capable of passing the test anywhere within the prescribed range. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a vehicle, the agency has leeway in maintaining the as delivered left-to-right attitude when adding test equipment. As long as the left-to-right attitude after adding equipment is so mewhere between the attitude in the as delivered condition and the fully loaded

3

condition, an acceptable pretest vehicle attitude will be achieved.

Finally, I would like to note that NHTSA's Enforcement Office prepares updates to its laboratory test procedures on an as required basis. The updates include rule changes and maintenance revisions. We project a maintenance update to the side impact tes t procedures (TP-214D-03) will be published within the next six months. During this update, issues addressed in this letter will be considered.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.