ID: 10032

Mr. Larry Wessels
President
Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation
P.O. Box 280307
Lakewood, CO 80228-0307

Dear Mr. Wessels:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the "Handi-Slide." You state that your invention is a locking system for securing and releasing a sliding semitrailer undercarriage. You further state that the system is tied into the trailer's air brake system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your product is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product that is subject to an FMVSS is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

NHTSA does not have any specific FMVSS for semitrailer undercarriages. However, since the Handi-Slide is tied to a

vehicle's air brake system, your product could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, and specifies performance and equipment requirements for the braking systems on these vehicles. Your product could also affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for the air brake hoses, fittings and assemblies on the vehicle.

If the Handi-Slide 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, including Standards No. 121 and 106. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Handi-Slide were installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires the installer not to 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 FMVSS. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles.

I note that you provide an attachment titled "Current NHTSA Locking Pin Safety Concerns" that references several Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Please note that these regulations are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), not NHTSA. If you are interested in the FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet.

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

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121#106 d:7/6/94

ID: 10035

Ms. Doris Hull
Owner
Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.
Route 2, Box 2291
Sikeston, MO 63801

Dear Ms. Hull:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Counsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that conversation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No.120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tires. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe implies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at the place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehicle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or retreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer purchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer. However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain tire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select only safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new vehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#120 d:8/12/94

ID: 10036

George W. Sudenga, Esq.
Johnson, Sudenga, Latham & Peglow
118 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1180
Marshalltown, IA 50158-1180

Dear Mr. Sudenga:

This responds to your letter following up on my May 18, 1994, letter to your client, Mr. Neil Rowe, about Mr. Rowe's product, the "Glad Grip." In my letter, I provided information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and explained that NHTSA has not issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to a product such as the Glad Grip. In your followup letter, you indicated we did not answer your request for "approval of NHTSA in advance of major marketing efforts," concerning your client's product.

I regret that my earlier letter was unclear on the issue of NHTSA "approval" of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As I stated in the earlier letter, the agency has not issued any safety standards for the Glad Grip. Even if there were an applicable FMVSS, NHTSA would not "approve" the Glad Grip; rather, Mr. Rowe would self- certify his product.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:106 d:7/1/94

ID: 10049

Mr. Eric T. Stewart
Engineering Manager
Mid Bus Inc.
3555 St. Johns Road
P.O. Box 1985
Lima, OH 45801-1985

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1994, asking whether the daylight opening of a door located to the left of the driver's seat can "be used in the calculations of required emergency exit area if it meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 217," Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. The vehicle on which the door is installed has a capacity of 48 children or 40 adults and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms).

During a June 27, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you anticipate producing these vehicles as both buses and school buses. Accordingly, I will address the question separately for each of these vehicle types. As explained below, provided that the exit meets all the performance requirements for a side door exit, it may be possible to apply the area of such a door to the emergency exit area requirements for either type of bus.

Non-School Bus

The emergency exit requirements for non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires non- school buses to have "unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus." That section further requires at least 40 percent of the areas for emergency exit to be on each side of the bus and limits the amount that can be credited for each exit to 536 square inches. If the door otherwise meets the emergency exit performance requirements, nothing in Standard No. 217 would prohibit counting the door as an emergency exit. Therefore, if the 40 percent distribution requirements are met, the

unobstructed area of a door to the left of a driver on a non-school bus can be credited, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

School Bus

The emergency exit requirements for school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. That section states "(t)he area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus." All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency door exit or a side emergency door exit and a rear push-out emergency window. To determine if additional emergency exits are required, the area of "daylight opening" of the front service door and those required emergency exits is subtracted from the total area required.

The formulas in S5.2.3 for subtracting the front service door and the required emergency exits refer to the "size of the available front service door opening" (emphasis added). We interpret this language as allowing the subtraction of the "daylight opening" of a single front service door. The drawings you faxed on July 12, 1994 indicate that the vehicle has a front service door to the right of the driver in addition to the door to the left of the driver. Since the daylight opening of only one front service door can be credited, the daylight opening of the door to the left of the driver cannot be credited as a front service door.

If additional emergency exits are required, they must be added in the following order:

1) Left side emergency exit door near the mid-point of the passenger compartment (if the vehicle has a rear door exit) or right side emergency exit door (if the vehicle has a side door exit and rear push-out window);

2) emergency roof exit;

3) any combination of side emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, or emergency window exits.

Since the door to the left of the driver is not credited as the front service door, the only opportunity for crediting the area would be under the third level above. The door could not qualify for category (1), above, because a left side emergency door must be located near the mid-point of the passenger compartment.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:7/14/94

ID: 10050

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your petition for rulemaking dated May 31, 1994. Your petition concerns the following requirement in S5.3.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release:

In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to open.

A similar requirement is included in S5.3.3.3 for emergency roof exits.

Your petition states:

The requirement for two force applications to open a single release mechanism is new and unproven and in our opinion is not in the best interest of safety.

NHTSA agrees that the sentence in question is susceptible to the reading you gave it. So read, this sentence imposes a requirement not intended by the agency. To avoid such unintended readings, the agency should have worded the sentence as follows:

In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open.

The agency will issue a corrective notice in the future to make this change. Until the notice is issued, we will not take enforcement action against a manufacturer so long as a window or roof exit with one release mechanism requires two force applications to open the exit.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/13/94

ID: 1006

Mr. Michael J. Wirsch
Manager
Electric Transportation Department
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
P.O. Box 15830
Sacramento, CA 95852-1830

Dear Mr. Wirsch:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1995, relating to the disposition of 16 City-El electric vehicles ("EVs") which were imported into the United States in 1992 for purposes of demonstration and testing. The EVs do not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The EVs were imported pursuant to the declaration that, at the end of the test period, they would be exported or brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards not later than November 1995. You suggest that there may be a third alternative, which you would prefer: "transferring ownership" to McClellan Air Force Base for use on base property and not on the public roads. McClellan apparently has been testing another group of 25 EVs.

Although a literal interpretation of our regulations does not permit this transaction without exportation and reimportation of the EVs, we have determined that the transaction you propose is in the public interest, and may be accomplished, subject to the terms of this letter.

In brief, the regulation under which the EVs were imported does not allow transfer of ownership or possession, and provides that such vehicles must be exported or brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the end of the period for which admission has been authorized. The regulations would permit the EVs to be exported to Mexico or Canada, transferred to McClellan, and reimported into the United States by McClellan under the same terms and conditions as the original importation (your letter indicates that McClellan may also be engaged in an evaluation of electric vehicles for use on military bases).

We assume that this course of action would be acceptable to you and to McClellan. Under that assumption, we have tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to forego the formalities and to allow a direct transfer of the EVs to McClellan without requiring them to be exported. However, in order to allow us to reach a final conclusion, we want you to obtain from McClellan and to provide us with a written statement similar to what McClellan would have provided had it imported the vehicles itself. Understanding from you that the EVs will not be operated on the public roads, McClellan should also provide this assurance. We also need a statement as to McClellan's eventual intended disposition of the EVs, which should include an assurance that none of the EVs will be sold to individuals for on-road use. This is especially important in view of the fact that McClellan appears to be one of the military bases that has been selected for closure.

Our eventual agreement to the transaction you propose will not relieve you of your obligation to fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service regarding the original importation of the EVs.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:7/26/95

ID: 10060

Mrs. Carmen Colet
Vice President
John Russo Industrial, Inc.
575 West San Carlos Street
San Jose, CA 95126

Dear Mrs. Colet:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle." As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company is constructing the vehicle "to satisfy proposed U.S.A.F. and D.O.D." specifications. The vehicle is made to operate on airfields. You described the unusual configuration of the vehicle as having a "cockpit" that is "similar to 117A Stealth Fighter," having bumpers that are 5 feet high, and having a "power water turret on top." You further stated that vehicle uses tires 54 inches high and over two feet wide, that are made to be run on only for 20 minutes, at a speed of up to 65 miles per hour.

Enclosed with your letter is a picture of the vehicle, which you asked be kept confidential. Although your request for confidentiality does not comply with NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 512 Confidential Business Information, in order to save time, I will not publicly disclose the picture.

The FMVSSs apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have interpreted this language to mean that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In an interpretation letter of

December 28, 1979, to Walter Motor Truck Company, NHTSA determined that the Walter airport crash-fire-rescue vehicle does not qualify as a motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS. Your description of your aircraft rescue vehicle indicates that the vehicle is to be used only within an airfield. In particular, the size and 20 minute running time of the tires, appears to make the vehicle impracticable for highway use.

Based on the information you have provided, and our understanding that your vehicles are neither used on public roads nor suitable for such use, we conclude that the "aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle" is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, your vehicle is not subject to Standard No. 115. Since you are not a manufacturer of a "motor vehicle," you do not have to furnish NHTSA with information pursuant to 49 CFR part 566 Manufacturer Identification. Enclosed with this letter is your picture of the aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:7/11/94

ID: 10074yes

Mr. Forbes Howard
Goodlife Motors Corporation
Route 3, Box 250-5
Boone, North Carolina 28607

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusual configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of the man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straight sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mirror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has registered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them resemble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf car") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule published May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808)(copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 finalrule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:1/4/95

ID: 10095

Mr. Reidar Brekke
Market Analyst
Norwegian Trade Council
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-7604

Dear Mr. Brekke:

This responds to your letter asking about the legality of "Belly Safe," a device to alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on pregnant women. As described in the material you enclosed, two long straps attached to the "Belly Safe" are attached around the back of the seat. The occupant then sits on the "Belly Safe," attaches the safety belt, brings two straps from the "Belly Safe" up between the legs, and attaches the lap belt through the Velcro on those straps.

The following discussion explains the effect of our regulations on such products and concerns NHTSA has about this specific product.

By way of background information, this agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because the "Belly Safe" is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to the device.

While none of these standards apply to the "Belly Safe," the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding. In addition, while it is unlikely that the "Belly Safe" would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer,

distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

NHTSA is concerned that the "Belly Safe" could be used in a way that adversely affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. The "Belly Safe" places an object between the legs of the occupant. This change in the distribution of crash forces could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about the "Belly Safe." The realigning of the lap belt through the "Belly Safe" could increase the amount of webbing in the belt system. If the straps which attach around the back of the seat or the Velcro holding the lap belt are unable to withstand the forces of a crash, there would be excessive slack in the lap belt. Slack in the lap belt would increase the risk of the occupant sliding under the lap belt (submarining) and slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, both of which would increase the risk of injury. In addition, should a non-pregnant occupant use the "Belly Safe," the device could do more harm than good.

I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Pregnancy: Protecting Your Unborn Child in a Car." This sheet explains that the lap belt should be placed low, across the hips and over the upper thighs. If a woman takes the time to adjust the belt as recommended (an action also needed to install the "Belly Safe"), NHTSA is unaware of any need for a device to keep the lap belt in this position.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208 d:7/14/94

ID: 10098b

Mary B. Falls, Esq.
Sherrard & Roe
424 Church Street, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37219

Dear Ms. Falls:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The answer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen "VIN plate." However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction.

By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the "VIN plate." S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard.

Your letter explained that Nissan manufactures cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that:

Section 55-5111 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, engine, or transmission, or "other number or mark" may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be "in full compliance" with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate.

However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult with the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:115 d:9/8/94