ID: nht91-2.25

DATE: March 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

COPYEE: Thomas Rabago -- Highway Safety Coordinator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 11, 1990, and January 22, 1991, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, 1990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, 1990, to Representative Blaz.

Your letter to us of July 5, 1990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS; however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked "Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?" To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI.

The Governor explains:

By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except (NHTSA believes he means "accept") federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 (sic).

It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands.

(I)t is our position that the FMVSS does (sic) apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law.

The Governor believes that "automobile safety is an internal affair". For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold.

We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential.

Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would "move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law", then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

ID: nht91-2.26

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hiroshi Ozeki -- Executive Vice President, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from Hiroshi Ozeki to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5108)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1990 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that one of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 millimeters. You asked whether, for purposes of positioning the loading device used in the quasi-static test of side door strength, the "lowest point of the door" referred to in S4(c)(2) of the standard would be the bottom of the door moulding or the bottom of the door itself when the moulding extends lower than the door itself.

For the quasi-static test of side door strength under Standard No. 214, S4(c)(2) currently provides that the loading device must be positioned so that ". . . (2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door." Under the current standard, we believe that door moulding should be considered part of the door. Therefore, the "lowest part of the door" would be the lowest part of an attached door moulding. Under the current standard, that would be the reference point to be used in making the five-inch measurement. For your further information, the agency is considering proposing for public comment a possible amendment to the standard concerning the positioning of the test device.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-2.27

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: Rueben K. Brown -- Product Engineer, Crane Carrier Company

TO: Chief Counsel -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rueben K. Brown (A37; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am employed as a product engineer with Crane Carrier and am currently involved in FMVSS 105 testing of our school bus chassis. I am unclear on the applicability of the spike stop requirement for school buses greater than 10,000 lb. GVWR. There appears to be some confusion in the industry on this subject. (I have previously spoken with Zack Fraser, of NHTSA, who referred me to your office for an expert opinion.)

Please provide an interpretation of FMVSS 105 regarding spike stops on school buses greater than 10,000 lb. GVWR.

You can reach me at the Bendix Automotive Proving Grounds, New Carlisle, Indiana 46552 (219-654-7400) for approximately the next 2-3 weeks. After that I can be reached at the address shown above for Crane Carrier.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht91-2.28

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: David A. White -- Manager, Reliability, Grumman Olson

TO: Associated Administrator For Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: A. Charney; K. Sexton

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David A. White (A37; Part 556)

TEXT:

Enclosed is a notification of a noncompliance to 49 CFR (567.4(g)(6) requiring the vehicle identification number be located on the vehicle certification tag. Grumman Olson is petitioning to have the noncompliance be deemed inconsequential and is seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.

Enclosure

DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORT 49 CFR PART 573

573.5(c)(1) Manufacturer name - Grumman Olson

(2) Identification of vehicles involved 1990 and 1991 walk in vans - Models Kurbmaster and Route Star

(3) Quantity - Approximately 380

(4) Percentage estimated to contain the defect - 100%

(5) Description of defect/noncompliance The certification tags of these vehicles listed the Grumman Olson body identification number in place of the vehicle identification number specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(6)

(6) N/A

(7) Bases on which the manufacturer determined the existence of the noncompliance Quality Control found the incorrect information during the normal inspection process.

(8) Description of manufacturers program to remedy the noncompliance.

Grumman Olson wishes to petition to have the noncompliance considered inconsequential. This request is based on the following information. 1) The vehicle identification is located on the VIN tag required by 49 CFR 571.115.4.6 even though this tag is required only on vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, Grumman Olson installs the tag regardless of GVWR.

2) Grumman's records are based primarlly on the body identification number and not the vehicle identification number. Vehicles involved in recalls are tracked by the body I.D. Since Grumman Olson manufacturers a body and installs it on a stripped chassis provided by another manufacturer the body I.D. is the only number Grumman Olson assigns and is more useful to Grumman than the VIN.

(9) Representative copy of communications None

ID: nht91-2.29

DATE: March 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-15-90 from James W. Lawrence to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 4912); Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani (A35; Std. 214; Part 541)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 15, 1990 concerning replacement doors. I apologize for the delay in our response. You quote an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter to Mr. Rowghani concerning Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength. You note that the letter states that "there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214." You requested a clarification of this statement as you believe that the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would require "installation of parts meeting the same performance requirements as OEM parts."

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) would prohibit any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from removing and replacing an undamaged side door, unless the vehicle continued to comply with Standard No. 214. However, that section does not require a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if it has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. The sentence you quote begins, "if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced." The interpretation was intended to be limited to situations where damage is so extensive that the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 214.

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

ID: nht91-2.3

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Schlanger -- President, ROC Capital, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Gene Schlanger to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 3, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the permissibility under Federal and State regulations of a lighted sign" on which messages could be scrolled from left to right. Such a sign "is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window." However, "if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto." The sign would incorporate LEDs and would not project a beam or flash. You intend to sell it "to the general public."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses your device, nor any prohibition against your selling it. The question arises, however, as to whether and under what circumstances Federal law may allow its use.

As a general rule, aftermarket equipment such as this is acceptable under Federal law provided that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, does not entail removal of, or otherwise rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that removal by any of the persons just mentioned of the high-mounted stop lamp that has been required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, in order to substitute your lighted sign, would be a violation of Federal law.

The question arises of whether the lighted sign may be installed in the rear window of any other vehicle, or in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, or on the top of any vehicle, situations where there is no direct removal of safety equipment. The agency regards any impairment of the effectiveness of rear lighting equipment as tantamount to rendering it partially inoperative. Thus, if aftermarket equipment is likely to create confusion or distraction in a following motorist, we regard it as likely to impair the messages that required lighting equipment is supposed to impart. A lighted sign with a changing message is likely to create a distraction, diverting attention from signals sent by stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Thus, we believe that this device has the potential of rendering those lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. Even when installed in a side window, where it may not be visible directly to the rear, the device has the potential of distraction when the vehicle carrying it is approached in other lanes, i.e., at an angle from the rear. We are unable to tell you whether the device is illegal under the laws of each of the 50 States. If you are interested in pursuing this question, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle

Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht91-2.30

DATE: March 13, 1991

FROM: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Bill McCollum -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-81 from Frank Berndt to Roy Littlefield (Std. 119); Also attached to letter dated 1-7-90 from Perry E. Faulkner to William "Bill" McCollum

TEXT:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Perry Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner requested a written interpretation about whether casings imported into this country are required to have the "DOT number." A "casing" means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading. As explained more fully below, casing for retreaded passenger car tires must have the DOT symbol, but casings for tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars (referred to as "truck tires" in this letter) are not required to have the DOT symbol.

At the outset, I note that Mr. Faulkner's letter stated that the "DOT number" on a tire indicates that the Federal excise tax has been paid. That statement is inaccurate. The "DOT number" on a tire only represents the manufacturer's or retreader's certification of compliance with this agency's standards and regulations. If Mr. Faulkner wants further information about Federal excise taxes on tires, he may wish to contact the Internal Revenue Service, since that agency administers the Federal excise taxes.

Mr. Faulkner is mixing two different types of markings when he refers to a "DOT number." The first type of marking is the symbol "DOT." This marking by a tire manufacturer or retreader on a tire is a certification that the tire complies with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Federal safety standards applicable to tires include Standard No. 109 for new passenger car tires, Standard No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires, and Standard No. 119 for new truck tires.

Standard No. 117 (the retreaded passenger car tire safety standard) includes a requirement that all passenger car tire casings to be retreaded must include the symbol "DOT." See S5.2.3(a). Therefore, it is illegal to sell or import into this country any passenger car tire casings that are not marked with the symbol "DOT." However, none of our Federal safety standards set forth requirements for retreaded truck tires. Since there is no standard for retreaded truck tires, there is no requirement that casings for retreaded truck tires be marked with the DOT symbol. I have enclosed a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield that offers a more detailed discussion of this issue.

The second type of marking to which Mr. Faulkner referred was the tire identification number specified in Part 574. This number identifies the manufacturer or retreader of the tire, along with the date of manufacture or retread and other attributes of the tire. A tire identification number is not required on any casing: Standard No. 117 does not require this marking on passenger car casings, and as explained above, there is

no Standard for casings for truck tires. Please note, however, that Part 574 requires all finished retreads, including retreaded truck tires, to be marked with the retreader's identification number.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht91-2.31

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-11-91 from Delbert N. Pier to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5720)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With respect to a contemplated headlamp design using a standardized replaceable light source, you have asked "whether the bulb fixture can be rotated approximately 11 degrees", and have informed us that this will not change the "constants . . . or the relationship of the terminals to the constants."

Standard No. 108 does not specify the orientation of replaceable light sources in headlamps; the socket in the reflector may be in any orientation. In the configuration you present, for the bulb assembly, the terminals appear to remain perpendicular to the base and parallel within plus or minus 1.5 degrees as required in Figure 3-3. The rotation of the socket (in the reflector of Figure 3-7, is not regulated and, therefore, is acceptable under Standard No. 108.

ID: nht91-2.32

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Loren Thomson -- Thomson & Weintraub

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from Loren Thomson to Dorothy R. Nakama (OCC 5213)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Dorothy Nakama of my staff in which you asked for an explanation of the responsibilities of installers and repairers of motor vehicle glazing. I apologize for the delay in this response. In as subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you asked that we provide a response to the following two questions:

1) Would it be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield, an aftermarket business still did not make the wind- shield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205?

2) What would be the consequences if an installer knowingly installed in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205?

Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the safety standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for all windows (called "glazing" in the standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import. sell, or introduce into interstate commerce any new vehicle or new replacement window that does not conform with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies to the motor vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale to a consumer, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . . "

Your first question asked whether it would be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield (by repairing instead of replacing it), an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. The answer depends upon whether or not the vehicle with the broken or cracked

windshield has already been sold to a consumer.

If the vehicle has not yet been sold to a consumer, the "aftermarket business" would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act if the vehicle with the repaired or replaced windshield did not comply with Standard No. 205 in all respects. As noted above, that section of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, importing, or introducing into interstate commerce any new vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 205. Thus, even if a windshield is broken while a vehicle is being delivered from the factory to a new car dealer, the windshield that is in the new vehicle when it is delivered to the first purchaser must meet all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act. I have enclosed a September 3, 1981 letter to the National Glass Dealers Association explaining that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, EVEN IF the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. Upon reconsideration, we reaffirm this interpretation.

Your second question asked about the consequences of an installer knowingly installing in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205. This would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, because the installer would be introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (the windshield) that did not comply with the applicable safety standard. By so doing, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each time it installed a noncomplying windshield, per section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-2.33

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William F. Canever -- Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-1-90 from William F. Canever to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 5713)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Ford's plan to allocate MY 1986 light truck credits to cover MY 1985 and MY 1989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY 1985 and the combined standard for MY 1986 and MY 1989. The MY 1986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY 1985.

In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR S 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that "(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years." Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY 1986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY 1985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by S 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term "class" is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits.

We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term "class of light trucks" is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned "whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter." The term "class" in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (1) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other.

While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how S 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes.

Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of

whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, 1988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY 1985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible.

Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY 1992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking.

For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits.

Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY 1986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY 1985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November 1979 and December 1980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY 1986 credits to its MY 1989 shortfall, incurred against the MY 1989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.