ID: nht92-9.11

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Woodruff Carroll -- Carroll, Carroll, Davidson, & Young

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/91 from Woodruff Carroll to Kathleen DeMeter

TEXT:

This responds to your letter inquiring about how NHTSA's regulations relate to snowplows. Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, has already responded to your Freedom of Information request in a letter dated January 6, 1992. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. A snow plow that is designed and intended to be attached to a motor vehicle would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of the Safety Act. However, NHTSA has not issued any specific standards setting forth performance requirements for snow plows.

While there are no safety standards directly applicable to snow plows, the following circumstances are relevant to equipping motor vehicles with snow plows. If before the first consumer purchase, the original equipment manufacturer or an alterer equips a motor vehicle with a snow plow, the manufacturer or alterer must certify that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with the snow plow.

This leads to the question of what conditions would be used to determine if the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with a snow plow. This question is answered in the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" set forth in 49 CFR S571.3. "Unloaded vehicle weight," which is used to determine a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating for the purposes of the tire and braking standards and to specify the test conditions for NHTSA's crash testing standards, is defined as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use."

Thus, those parts of the snow plow which are permanently attached to the vehicle and any snow plow parts that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle would be in place and their weight would be considered in determining compliance with applicable standards. However, the snow plow blade and any other parts of the snow plow that are ordinarily removed when the snow plow is not in use would not be attached to the vehicle and the weight of these parts would not be considered in determining compliance with the applicable safety standards.

Another relevant provision of Federal law with respect to equipping a vehicle

with a snow plow is S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies 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." If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business added a snow plow to a motor vehicle in such away that any of the elements of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard were "rendered inoperative," that entity would have violated the Safety Act.

This agency also has authority to investigate allegations that motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects related to motor vehicle safety, and to order the manufacturer to notify owners and to remedy without charge any vehicles or items of equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1411-1420.) If there were indications that any snow plows contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would investigate and take appropriate action. Of course, as with any investigation of alleged safety-related defects, the outcome would depend on the facts of the specific investigation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 12217.DRN

Mr. Jay Reese, Engineering Manager
Fontaine Specialized
P. O. Box 289
5398 U.S. Highway 11
Springville, AL 35146

Dear Mr. Reese:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements for trailers. You wish to know whether a trailer, consisting of a gooseneck, a deck, a 2-axle (or 3-axle) bogie and two separate sets of an axle unit attached to tires, is one or several trailers.

As explained below, the answer depends on whether the bogie and axles are sold as one unit or separately. If sold with the gooseneck, deck, and bogie, the axle-tire unit is part of a trailer and would not have a separate VIN. If sold separately, each axle-tire unit is a trailer. Each trailer must have a distinct VIN and must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) certification requirements.

Your letter stated that the axles with tires can separate from each other and from the bogies to form different trailer configurations. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the customer may first buy the trailer with the bogie only, and later buy one or both axle-tire units. Each axle-tire unit consists of a load bed, an axle, and tires. To lessen confusion, especially when the bogie is sold or used separately from each axle-tire unit, you wish to assign separate VINs to the bogie and each axle-tire unit.

Although you ask about VIN requirements (specified at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements), please be aware that NHTSA's vehicle certification requirements, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, also apply. The "VIN Data Plate" you refer to describes information required for the trailer's certification label, including the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR). In answering your questions, I will describe both your VIN and certification responsibilities.

Your letter raised the following hypothetical situations and posed questions based on the hypotheticals.

Hypothetical One: First, your customer purchases a trailer with a 2-axle bogie and two removable axle-tire units. You state that your "VIN Data Plate" includes four axles, the "entire length of the trailer" (by which I assume you include the length of the bogie plus two axles), GVWR (for 4 axles) and other required information.

1. Your first question is if the customer removes the third and fourth axles, so there are only "2-Axles on the ground, is the VIN still in compliance."

The answer is yes. The VIN requirement and certification requirements apply to a new vehicle. If you sell a new trailer with four axles, the VIN attributes and vehicle certification label must identify the trailer as having four axles and describe the appropriate GVWR and other information applicable to a new 4-axle trailer. For NHTSA's purposes, your customer's removing the two separate axles does not affect the VIN and certification label you place on the new 4-axle trailer.

Please note that since it reflects a trailer with four axles, the GVWR on the "VIN Data Plate" would no longer be accurate if the third and fourth axles are removed. However, if you sell a trailer with four axles, and the customer removes two axles, removing the axles would not result in a noncompliance with certification requirements.

2. The second question is, if only 3 axles are used (the bogie plus one axle) for a certain load, would the VIN still be in compliance?

The answer is the same as the answer to the question above. The VIN and certification requirements apply to a new vehicle. Your customer's removing a separate axle does not affect the VIN and certification label you place on the 4-axle trailer.

3. The third question is whether a VIN is required for "each individual removable axle."

The answer to this question depends on how the "individual removable axle" is sold. If the axle is sold as part of a trailer (i.e., with the gooseneck, deck and bogie), the VIN information and certification label on the trailer should reflect the fact that the individual axle is a part of the trailer. For example, the attribute describing vehicle length should include the length of the individual removable axle.

If sold separately, the axle-tire unit should have its own VIN and certification label. The reason is that in your case, "each individual removable axle" is a motor vehicle i.e., a trailer. Under NHTSA's statute, a motor vehicle is defined 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." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

NHTSA defines a trailer as: "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." (49 CFR section 571.3)

Applying the above definitions, each axle-tire unit is a motor vehicle since it is drawn by mechanical power and includes tires that enable it to travel on the public roads. Each axle-tire unit is a trailer since it is designed to carry property and to be drawn by another vehicle. In the case of the axle-tire units, the "other vehicle" may be the bogie or another axle-tire unit.

Please note that 49 CFR 565.4(a) provides that "[e]ach vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." Each motor vehicle must be assigned only one VIN. Therefore, if you assign a VIN to a 4-axle trailer (including two removable axles), you should not assign separate VINs to each axle-tire unit.

Hypothetical Two: In the second hypothetical situation, you state that your customer purchases a trailer with a 3-axle bogie plus one axle-tire unit, with an option to purchase an additional axle-tire unit later. Your certification label ("VIN Data Plate") consists of "4-Axles and GVWR for 4-Axles, and a secondary plate that comprises of 5-Axles and GVWR for 5-Axles." The VIN attributes note the entire length of the trailer for a 5-axle trailer and "all other required information."

Before I respond to your question, I note that if you sell a trailer with 4 axles, the trailer's VIN attributes (including trailer length), should be for a trailer with 4 axles. The certification label correctly provides information for a 4-axle trailer.

1. The first question is, if your customer purchases the fifth axle, will the VIN be in compliance, since the trailer that he bought includes information about vehicles with five axles.

Assuming the VIN reflects a trailer with four axles, whether your customer buys a fifth axle separately and installs it later, that installation has no effect on the original compliance of the trailer with NHTSA's regulations. If the fifth axle is sold separately as an axle-tire unit, it must meet applicable NHTSA requirements for trailers.

Please note that in the past, NHTSA has permitted manufacturers to include information on the certification label beyond that which Part 567 requires. In your case, extra information would include information concerning the addition of a fifth axle-tire unit to a trailer sold with 4 axles. Where NHTSA has acquiesced in this practice, the additional information (the information about the fifth axle-tire unit) has appeared after that required under section 567.4(g).

2. The second question is whether a separate VIN will be required for the fifth axle-tire unit.

As explained in the answer to question three under the first hypothetical situation, the answer is yes. If sold separately, the fifth axle-tire unit must have have its own VIN and certification label, since the fifth axle-tire unit would be considered a motor vehicle, specifically a trailer.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565#567

d:9/25/96

ID: nht87-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/87

FROM: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DIETMAR K HAENCHEN; REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The design of passenger cars has changed in recent years to reduce aerodynamic drag and increase fuel efficiency. Volkswagen is planning to improve interior comfort and reduce energy consumption in future car models by introducing selected areas with re duced energy transmission via ceramic dots on the car's glazing. The reduced energy radiation into the interior increases driver's and passenger's comfort and results in increased active safety. We believe that the application of shaded areas on the wi ndows complies with the applicable safety standards. Different methods exist for shading those areas; the glass may be tinted like shade bands applied to windshields, or small ceramic dots can be applied on the glass surface having the same effect on th e reduction of energy transmission. The sections of glass selected for the application of the ceramic paint could, if not for styling aesthetics, be covered with sheet metal in order to avoid questions of interpretation of FMVSS 205. However, the styli ng incentive is compelling and driver visibility with the proposed configuration is better than total blockage with sheet metal, which would clearly be allowable. We are, therefore, seeking the agency's opinion of this concept which we are considering fo r the next new model line. While the agency does not give advance approval of specific product designs, the agency's opinion of whether the configuration proposed herein appears to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will a id manufacturers in determining whether the numerous variations of the concept applied to various vehicles will comply with the standards.

Volkswagen has reviewed Standard 205 which in turn refers to ANS z26.1 (1980) which establishes requirements for safety glazing material for use in passenger cars. In Section 4.2 of ANS z26.1, specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which VW intends to apply to the windshield and side/rear glass respectively refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "leve ls required for driving visibility".

The term "levels requisite for driving visibility" has been used by the agency in interpretations and on several occasions has been addressed more precisely such as the interpretation to Mr. G. Nield on 15 February, 1974 as follows: "We (the agency) cons ider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to driver's eyes." To our knowledge the agency has not gone beyond the above interpretation in further defining "levels requisite for driving visibility".

In order to comply with FMVSS 205 Volkswagen deems it appropriate to use engineering judgement, applicable standards and technical recommendations to define these "levels" so that driving visibility is properly maintained with the installation of glazing material having areas within a single sheet of less than 70% light transmittance.

Footnote 1 of ANS z26.1 - 1980, although not expressively stated, refers mainly to shade bands and has been so construed and treated by the industry. The automobile industry so far has determined which areas are "requisite for driving visibility" and ha s marked the shaded areas as required. In these cases the industry determined how far shade bands can extend donward from the upper edge of the window and still be in compliance with FMVSS 205.

SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands) also refers to ANS z26.1 when defining "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by USAS z26.1". The SAE recommends shade bands above the 95th eyellipse only, but acknowledged at that time that substantial research to establish the driver's field of view did not exist. Volkswagen also believes that these data do not exist currently.

Guidelines for a determination of "levels" which extend upward from the bottom edge of the vehicle glazing are addressed in Directive 77/649 as amended in 81/643 of the European Economic Community (EEC). The directive specifies levels requisite for driv ing visibility in the driver's 180 degrees forward direct field of vision. Section 5.1.3 specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision by a horizontal plane through V[1] (upper boundary) and by three planes at downward angles of 4 degrees through V[2] (lower boundary). The latter describes the minimum field of view for small persons through the lower portion of the glazing.

The EEC in its effort to set angular limits for the driver's forward direct field of vision used anthropometric data of horizontal head and eye movement to arrive at the 180 degrees limit. The SAE in its information report J985 arrives at the same figur e when the angles of "maximum head movement (is) 60 degrees left and 60 degrees right" and "the eyes can turn 30 degrees to the right in one rapid, smooth movement", are combined.

For the rear visibility in the U.S., the "levels requisite for driving visibility" are not specified if a passenger side rearview mirror is used according to FMVSS 111. Technically, the complete rear glazing can be blocked by a vehicle manufacturer if a passenger side rearview mirror is installed as standard equipment. Volkswagen intends to install a passenger side outside mirror as standard equipment in conjunction with the subject shading configuration and also to provide an area in the rear glazing with transmissability of greater than 70%.

With this background, Volkswagen is planning to include either tinted bands or ceramic dots on glazing as described in Attachments I and II. Volkswagen believes that this concept clearly allows light transmittance in excess of 70% in the areas requisite for driving visibility and consequently should adequately satisfy the safety needs for overall driving visibility.

Volkswagen has tested these boundaries according to the specifications of 77/649/EEC and concluded that ceramic dots in the area defined in 5.1.3 very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small driver's eyes, which are "requisite for drivi ng visibility". In addition we have designated the area adjacent to the right and left hand outside mirrors as requisite for driving visibility.

This proposal has been approved by the German government (KBA) as recommended by the Technical Service Hannover. This approval was based on the fact that it complies with the driver's direct field of view (forward 180 degrees) and that unobstructed outs ide rearview mirrors are used on both sides to supplement the inside rearview mirror for the driver's indirect field of view. This approval is based on compliance with the applicable EEC Directive and therefore will likely be acceptable to all Common Ma rket countries.

Volkswagen requests the agency's opinion of this proposal and an interpretation of whether the markings described in Section 6 of ANS z26.1 would be required to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with the 70% transmittance requirement . If required, Section 6 states that the glazing "shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test No. 2" (70% transmissability). Interpretation is requested of where these markings should be placed for the configurations shown in Attachments I and II if they are required. Since this is under consideration for the next model year, a timely response is requested.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT I

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% and 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% , 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ATTACHMENT II

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ID: 1983y

Mr. Bernie Cantleberry
5958 Maplewood Road
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44l24

Dear Mr. Cantleberry:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked several questions about the standard's requirements for parking brakes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns section S5.2. That section requires specified vehicles to be "manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . ." You asked what is meant by a "parking brake system of a friction type with a mechanical means."

In understanding section S5.2, I believe it is helpful to focus on three aspects of the language quoted above. First, a vehicle must be "manufactured with a parking brake system." The term "parking brake" is defined in 49 CFR Part 57l.3 as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle." Second, the required parking brake system must be "of a friction type," i.e., it must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. For example, a parking brake which presses a brake shoe against a brake drum operates by friction, whereas the parking pawl of an automatic transmission does not. Third, the required parking brake system must have a "solely mechanical means to retain engagement." Thus, the parking brake cannot be held by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air or electricity.

Your second question concerns section S5.2.2. You asked whether it is necessary to meet S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 (i.e., all three subsections) in order to comply with section S5.2.2, or just one of the subsections. Section S5.2.2 provides that "(a) vehicle of a type described in S5.2.l at the option of the manufacturer may meet the requirements of S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 instead of the requirements of S5.2.l," if the vehicle has a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism, and the parking mechanism must be engaged before the ignition key can be removed. (Emphasis added.) Given section S5.2.2's use of the word "and" (as highlighted above), it is necessary to meet the requirements of all three subsections in order to comply with that section's compliance option.

You also asked whether a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have a hand or foot operated control for the brake system. In responding to this question, I assume that the term "parking control in the transmission" refers to a parking pawl. As noted above, a vehicle manufactured with a parking pawl alone, without an additional parking brake, would not meet section S5.2's requirement that the vehicle be "manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . ." Thus, a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have an additional parking brake "of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. . . ."

Finally, you asked whether a vehicle with a hydraulic locking system would be sufficient to meet the requirements specified in S5.2.2. This question was asked both for a vehicle that has a parking control in the transmission and for a vehicle with a manual transmission. The requirement that a vehicle be "manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement" cannot be met by a hydraulic locking system, since such the parking brakes on such a system are held by fluid pressure rather than by "a solely mechanical means." Thus, regardless of whether a vehicle has a parking pawl or has a manual transmission, a hydraulic locking system cannot be used to meet Standard No. l05's parking brake requirements.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l05 d:8/l7/89

ID: GM3.crs

Via Facsimile and Regular Mail

Howard A. Silverman, Esquire
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
Mail Code 480-106-304
Research Engineering Building
30500 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 49090-9055





Dear Mr. Silverman:

This is in response to your letter of June 7, 2000, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4(g) of those regulations prescribes the contents of the certification label that manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles. One item of information that the certification label must contain is the name of the vehicle's manufacturer. Section 567.4(g)(1) provides that the "full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle" must be stated on the certification label, unless any of three specified exceptions apply. The only pertinent exception is the one stated at section 567.4(g)(1)(i). That section provides that "[i]f a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used."

In your letter, you have asked whether General Motors Corporation's (GM's) name can appear on the certification label of the future Hummer H2. You state that GM is solely responsible for the design of this vehicle, which is based on a current GM model. You further state that GM is solely responsible for manufacturing and purchasing all of the parts used to make the vehicle, with the exception of those that you identify as "indirect materials." As described in your letter, these parts will be shipped by GM and its suppliers to an assembly plant built and operated by AM General Corporation (AMG) as a subcontractor to GM, where the vehicles will be assembled and finished. The vehicles will then be delivered to GM for inspection, acceptance, and shipment to GM dealers, which will be exclusively responsible for their sale to the public. Pursuant to a contract that it has entered with AMG, GM will provide the new vehicle warranty to dealers and customers. Your letter states that GM is further "responsible for warranty and recall campaign administration and for representing GM and AMG in connection with any requests for information and allegations about alleged safety defects or noncompliance with safety or emissions laws and regulations."

In light of these circumstances, you contend that it is appropriate for GM's name to appear on the certification label for the Hummer H2 because "GM is the 'manufacturer,' as that term is used in the certification statute," and "the assembler is 'controlled' by GM and GM has assumed responsibility for conformity with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as provided in 567.4(g)(1)(i)." You observe that GM's agreement with AMG provides that GM has "responsibility for product engineering related to the [Hummer H2], including but not limited to testing, certification and compliance with applicable governmental regulations and shall be considered the Original Equipment Manufacturer of the [Hummer H2]." Noting that "GM is the final decision-maker on recalls and conducts recall campaigns," you state that with respect to this vehicle, "GM has assumed responsibility for conformity with standards and the consequences of non-conformity."

You further contend that with respect to the Hummer H2, GM "controls" AMG in the sense that is contemplated within the certification regulations. Although you acknowledge that GM owns no AMG stock, you assert that GM's "control" over AMG is evidenced by the fact that under its agreement with AMG, GM is responsible not only for product engineering, but also "has the right to approve the Vehicle Assembly Specifications and Quality Control Standards." Additionally, you note that "GM has the opportunity to inspect the vehicle assembly process and to inspect vehicles before accepting them."

You note that in an October 13, 1981 letter to Paccar, Inc., this Office stated that Paccar's name could appear on the certification labels for vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, a Mexican affiliate. The letter observed that even though Paccar owned only a 49 percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, it was responsible for the design of the vehicles produced in Mexico and exercised control over all matters relating to their compliance with safety standards. In this circumstance, the letter concluded that Paccar's name could appear on the certification label, notwithstanding its less than majority interest in the Mexican company. The letter noted that

the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the "purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly." Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.

Applying this interpretation, you suggest that NHTSA's focus should be on whether the company that seeks to have its name appear on the certification label has "primary technical responsibility" for the vehicle. You contend that "[w]hether that responsibility is established by contract or by partial ownership is not material." You observe that "GM will have total, not just primary, responsibility for conformity of the design of [the Hummer H2]," and that "GM's responsibility for these vehicles is no less than was Paccar's even though GM does not own AMG stock."

Notwithstanding the broad responsibility that you have identified GM as assuming with respect to the Hummer H2, we have concluded that GM may not be identified as the manufacturer on the certification labels to be affixed to those vehicles. In reaching this conclusion, we are principally motivated by the fact that AMG, and not GM, will be the "actual assembler" of the Hummer H2, and that GM does not "control" AMG, in the sense that it lacks any equity interest in that company. Unless GM were the "actual assembler" of the Hummer H2, or "controlled" the actual assembler, there is no basis for its name to appear on the certification label as the vehicle manufacturer under the express requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1), or under the exception to those requirements stated at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(i).

In contrast to this circumstance, we observed in our letter of October 13, 1981, permitting Paccar to be identified as the manufacturer of vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, that Paccar held a 49 percent ownership interest in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. We further noted that allowing Paccar to be identified as the manufacturer in this instance was in keeping with the reasons the agency had articulated for adopting the "controlling corporation exception to the requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label." The letter stated that this exception was adopted

in recognition of the fact that "particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'" The agency determined that in such a situation, "no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label." See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969.

Because GM owns no stock in AMG, and because both companies are domestic entities, these factors, which influenced our decision to allow Paccar to be identified as the manufacturer of vehicles assembled by Kenworth Mexicana, are not present here.

If GM wishes its name to appear on the certification label for the Hummer H2, there is nothing to preclude the label from stating that the vehicle was manufactured by AMG for GM. We are aware of circumstances in which such wording has been used on the certification labels of vehicles manufactured by one company for another. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of such a certification label, from a 1997 Ford Aspire, which identifies the vehicle as being manufactured "by Kia Motors Co. for Ford Motor Co." Please note that if the certification label states that the vehicle was manufactured by AMG for GM, AMG would have responsibility for the vehicle with respect to all requirements imposed under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567
d.11/15/00

ID: nht91-6.29

DATE: October 17, 1991

FROM: Matthew J. Plache -- Gardner, Carton & Douglas

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: John Rigby Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Matthew J. Plache (A38; VSA 102(3); VSA 108(a)(1)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing to request an interpretation of whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of federal law, including specifically section 1397(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("NTMVSA"), 15 U.S.C. S1397 (a) (1), if it were to sell Daihatsu HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications such as those contained in the Request for Bid issued by the City of Los Angeles Department of General Services on September 9, 1991 (Bid Number F5995), a copy of which is attached hereto.

BACKGROUND

Daihatsu America, Inc. ("Daihatsu") is the exclusive distributor of of Daihatsu HIJET vehicles ("HIJET") in the United States. HIJETs are manufactured in Japan by Daihatsu Motor" Co. Ltd.

HIJETs are general purpose off-road utility vehicles. They are not intended for use on the public roads, streets or highways. As such, HIJETs do not comply with certain of the federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

HIJETs are powered by a 550cc gasoline-powered engine and are unable, as manufactured for the United States market and as sold in the United States, to exceed a speed of 25 mph. Since HIJETs are not intended for on-road use, they are not affixed with a certification of conformity, as described in S1403 of the NTMVSA, 15 U.S.C. S1403. HIJETs were first marketed and sold in the United States in 1977. Since that time, they have always been advertised, promoted and sold as off-road vehicles. They are affixed with a warning label indicating that they are for off-road use only. HIJETs are sold by dealers that do not also sell vehicles that are classified as "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

THE LOS ANGELES BID REQUEST

The attached bid request solicits bids for vehicles being purchased for use by the Recreation and Parks Equipment Division of the City of Los Angeles. The bid request describes the vehicles being solicited as the "Daihatsu full cab 'HIJET' without glass," the "Mitsubishi flow thru SH27F 1/," or equivalent vehicle. The specifications included with the bid request are almost an exact description of the Daihatsu HIJET. See last two pages of the attachment hereto.

Two aspects of the specifications are troublesome to Daihatsu. First, they require that the "vehicle must be capable of being registered for street use in California." In essence, this language, which appears in the third sentence of the first paragraph of the specifications, indicates that the vehicles being solicited are for use on the public roads, streets and highways. In other words, the solicitation is for vehicles that would be classified as "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

The second troublesome aspect of the specifications is the requirement, set forth in the last paragraph thereof, that the contractor must apply to register the vehicles and obtain for them "Exempt Special Equipment 'SE' license plates." This is a special type of California license plate used on government-owned vehicles. Most importantly, "SE" license plates are established for use with "on-road" vehicles; they are not generally available for exclusively off-road vehicles. Once again, this requirement

----------

1/ The Mitsubishi vehicle is similar in design to the Daihatsu HIJET. In October, 1988, NHTSA's Chief Counsel issued an interpretive ruling in connection with the Mitsubishi vehicle, concluding that "the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act." Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Mr. Hiroshi Kato, MMC Services, Inc., page 3 (October 31, 1988).

indicates that the solicitation is for vehicles that would be classified as "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

Daihatsu is not certain that it could comply with these two aspects of the solicitation without running afoul of federal law, including certain strictures set forth in the NTMVSA. As stated above, HIJETs do not conform to all of the federal safety standards applicable to motor vehicles, nor are they affixed with a certificate of conformity as described in 15 U.S.C. S1403. Thus, Daihatsu is concerned that if it were to deliver HIJET vehicles, or even to offer to deliver such vehicles, in accordance with these specifications, it might violate certain of the prohibitions set forth in section 1397 (a) (1) of the NTMVSA, 15 U.S.C. S1397 (a)(1).

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETIVE LETTER

As noted above, I am seeking an interpretive ruling indicating whether Daihatsu would violate federal law if it were to deliver, or offer to deliver, HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications such as those contained in the Los Angeles bid request. Daihatsu is especially concerned about this matter because it has recently received a number of similar solicitations for "HIJET-like" vehicles which, although not as problematic as the Los Angeles bid request, could be interpreted as solicitations for "on-road" vehicles.

Please note that because of its concerns about potential violations of federal law, Daihatsu has refrained from submitting a bid in accordance

with the Los Angeles specifications. Other suppliers of similar vehicles, however, apparently do not share Daihatsu's concerns.2/ Thus, until the issues raised in this letter are resolved, Daihatsu will be at a competitive disadvantage in similar bidding situations.

For these reasons, I request that you expedite your response to this letter. Please note that I recently spoke about this

----------

2/ Indeed, the Los Angeles contract was recently awarded to a supplier of the Mitsubishi vehicle. As noted in footnote 1, above, this vehicle is the subject of a NHTSA exemption letter. As with the HIJET, the Mitsubishi vehicle also fails to comply with certain of the Federal safety standards applicable to "on-road" vehicles.

matter with John Rigby of your office; he suggested I submit a request in writing for an interpretive ruling.

Please let me know if you require any further information.

ID: GF004581

Chris Tinto, Director
Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your June 25, 2004, letter regarding this agencys Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), as amended by a final rule published on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 17960, Docket 12231; corrected on June 22, 2004 69 FR 34612).

You ask about the amendments made by the April 6, 2004, final rule to the standards parts marking requirements for light duty trucks (LDTs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less. For many years the standard required vehicle manufacturers to mark the major parts (parts listed in 49 CFR 541.5(a)) of "high theft" lines of passenger motor vehicles. (A high theft vehicle had or was likely to have had a theft rate greater than the median theft rate for a specified period for all new vehicles.) On April 6, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended the standard to apply the parts marking requirement to: p assenger cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPVs) with theft rates lower than the median theft rate ("below-median theft rate"); and to LDTs with below-median theft rates that "have a majority of major parts interchangeable with those of" passenger cars and of MPVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less (49 CFR 541.3(a)(3))

.

You ask three questions concerning the provision about LDTs. We have restated those below, followed by our answers.

Question 1. Is our interpretation correct that parts marking is only required on LDTs if a "majority" of parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are interchangeable with passenger cars and/or MPVs? In cases where the LDT does have a "majority" of interchangeable [Section] 541.5(a) parts, all of the parts on the LDT listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are required to be marked, regardless as to whether the parts are one of the interchangeable parts.

Answer: As to the first part of your question, the standard applies to (a) high theft LDTs, and to (b) below-median theft rate LDTs if a majority of parts listed in Section 541.5(a) are interchangeable with passenger cars and/or MPVs. If a below-median theft rate LDT is subject to the standard because of the interchangeability of its major parts, all major parts must be marked, not just the interchangeable ones.

Question 2. Are we correct that LDTs with less than a "majority" of interchangeable [Section] 541.5(a) parts do not have to be parts marked? In other words, if an LDT has only one [Section] 541.5(a) part that is interchangeable with a passenger car or an MPV, then the LDT does not have to be parts marked; not even the one part that is interchangeable.

Answer: Our answer is yes, a below-median theft rate LDT that does not have a majority of major parts interchangeable with a passenger car or an MPV subject to parts marking is not subject to the parts marking requirements of the standard. Using your example, not even the one part has to be marked.

Question 3. What is the meaning of "majority," as used in the context of this rule? Websters dictionary defines "majority" as, "a number greater than half of a total." Based on this definition, Toyota believes a "majority of major parts" means that more than half of the LDTs applicable parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) have to be interchangeable with either an MPV or a passenger car before the LDT is required to be parts marked. Thus, a manufacturer first has to count how many parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are present on the LDT, and would have to determine whether more than 50% of the existing [Section] 541.5(a) parts on the LDT are interchangeable to determine whether parts marking is required on the LDT.

Answer: We agree that, with respect to the requirements at issue, "majority" means a number greater than half of the total. Accordingly, a below-median theft rate LDT is subject to parts marking requirements if greater than one half of the major parts present on that vehicle are interchangeable with major parts of a passenger car or an MPV that is subject to parts marking requirements.

You used an example of an LDT that has a total of 10 parts listed in Section 541.5(a) and stated your understanding that the LDT would have to have at least 6 interchangeable parts with an MPV or passenger car before all 10 of the parts on the LDT are required to be parts marked. Your understanding is correct. You also stated, "If the [LDT] has 5 or less interchangeable parts, none of the ten parts on the [LDT] are required to be marked." That understanding is correct with regard to the LDT in this example with the 10 major parts.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.7/27/04

ID: nht89-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: MARK F. HOLMES

TO: STEVE WOOD -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARK F. HOLMES; REDBOOK A34-VSA 108[A][2][A]; STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3980

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Prior to our phone conversation, enclosed please review a bit of information concerning two new multi-purpose products, THE STROBALARM, and THE SPOTLIGHT ALARM that may be of interest to your Company.

For a number of years, I have studied all the car alarm systems that are sold on the market today. During my studies, I have learned that all of these alarms are basically the same with just a bit of variation. There similarity begins with the sounding of a ordinary siren that cannot be seen or detected in a crowded parking lot, or on a dark street covered or uncovered by light. These sirens do very little to ward off a thief, and they offer no real protection for the vehicle, it's valuables, and it' s owner.

The Strobalarm, with it's bright strobe light and 12-volt filament, can be incorporated into any existing alarm system. This unique concept will easily ward off a potential thief by exposing him to the people in his immediate surrounding. The Strobalar m attracts attention like bees to honey. It allows the endangered vehicle to be seen by many in any given area during the course of an evening. It is just as effective in the rain, snow, and fog, as it is on sunny days!

*An example of just how powerful and noticeable a strobe light is can be seen by viewing an airplane in flight during the night. The unique feature of the Strobalarm is that it uses very little energy to produce it's flash.*

The Strobalarm has been reconstructed and redesigned a number of times with the automobile and it's owner in mind. The incorporation of a CAR LOCATOR with its remote control key case is evidence of that. The car locator will allow an owner to locate hi s or her vehicle from a far away distance of 400 feet. The 12-volt filament can be turned on and remain on with the same key case. This will allow the owner to see who may be standing around the vehicle.

The Carfinder, which is the latest device for finding cars, only allows the head lights to blink off and on. But in a crowded parking lot, and if you happen to have a small vehicle surrounded by larger vehicles these blinking lights will not be seen. T he blinking head lights may also be mistaken for something else such as, an alarm going off, someone parked with their headlights on, or the simple switching of headlights to high beams. The Carfinder does not work with vehicles that have hidden headlig hts, such as Corvettes, Porches 928, 944, and Texas AMs.

The DISTRESS EMERGENCY FLARE SIGNAL, would serve useful during emergencies, such as highway break-downs. With the use of pink color lens the Distress flare Signal will eliminate the danger of having to use those pink colored torches that are seen on hig hways at night. Most insurance companies offer premiums on cars equipped with passive alarm, the Strobalarm is such an alarm.

The Spotlight Alarm, which is designed for smaller vehicles with a little less headroom, is equipped with Halogen Beam Lights that blink off and on with the assistance of the key case control. The Spotlight, like the Strobalarm, can be used only as a ca r locator and/or it can be connected to any alarm system.

The STROBALARM and the SPOTLIGHT ALARM are ideas of today and with newer cars having more windshield, side and rear window, these ideas would certainly be items of interest in the future.

Mr. Wood, if you find the alarm or just the Car Locator with or without the built-in Distress to be of interest, feel free to notify me. I would be more than willing to come to your office at my own expense to present the technical drawing for the simpl e to use, easy to install and cost efficient alarm device. A device that is easy to build and does not exceed the cost of systems already on the market.

A preliminary patent search has already been concluded and a disclosure document has been filed with the U.S. Patent Office for Patentability of these concepts.

Sincerely,

ID: 23833.ztv

Mr. Lee M. Calkins
Quality Manager
Canfield Equipment Service, Inc.
22077 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48091





Dear Mr. Calkins:

This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 2001, asking for interpretations of 49 U.S.C. 30122 and 49 CFR 571.108, in connection with equipping a law enforcement vehicle with "blackout lighting."

You reported that "police agencies request that vehicles be equipped with manually operated switches to disable brake/turn and backup lights either singly or combined along with disabling one headlamp with a similar switch." You stated that "(t)his is to protect an officer who is undercover on stakeout or following a suspect." You have enclosed a warning by Federal Signal Corporation dated December 5, 2001, which states that "disabling the brake lights on a vehicle . . . violates the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Please define 'make inoperative.'"

We have not formally defined "make inoperative," but have applied the phrase to specific fact situations in numerous interpretation letters. We shall answer your question by applying it to certain situations that have arisen under 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) states that "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." The phrase "make inoperative" includes the disabling of a device or element of design so that it does not perform its function, such as, with reference to Standard No. 108, disconnection of a lighting device. We have also construed "make inoperative" to encompass any modification of a lamp that might create a noncompliance with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108, such as transforming a steady-burning lamp into one that flashes. The phrase also encompasses any modification to an item of vehicle equipment other than a lamp which affects the performance of an item of required lighting equipment, such as alterations to the vehicle body which affect the visibility of lamps at angles specified in Standard No. 108 that the lamps must meet when installed on vehicles.

"2. Please define 'emergency lighting devices.'"

We have not formally defined "emergency lighting devices" either. We understand them to be lighting equipment that is not original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as strobe lights or flashing red lights. This is in accord with the interpretations you mention in which we considered that flashing lamps were emergency lighting devices. Flashing lights are used on municipal vehicles in motion to indicate to other motorists that the vehicle is proceeding on an emergency mission which has priority over that of other traffic. Flashing lights are used on municipal vehicles at rest to indicate the presence of a potential hazard on or at the side of the road.

"3. Would the addition of these functions [for "blackout lighting"] place the vehicle into non-conformance?"

Yes. There is a specific requirement in S5.5.4 that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes. In addition, S5.5.7 requires the tail lamps (and other lamps) to be illuminated when the headlamps are activated. Activation of other lighting equipment is covered in appropriate SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, alteration of a vehicle to equip it with a switch that would allow disabling of any lighting function would, in our view, create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

"4. If non-conformance occurs, would the temporary nature of it allow the non-conformance to be treated as stated in the reply to Mr. [Larry] Hughson [dated July 30, 2001]?"

No. We see a clear distinction between the performance of lamps so that they flash and disabling them so that they do not perform. Although not clearly described in the Hughson letter, we surmised that police vehicles were equipped with a system that flashed the headlamps, stop lamps, and backup lamps. The clear purpose of this temporary alteration of performance is to increase the conspicuity of police vehicles so that they may proceed appropriately under the circumstances. There is the opposite intent in the system you describe; lighting equipment would be switched off and no visual cue other than reflex reflectors would be furnished to other motorists either when the vehicle was at rest or in motion. We would not extend the Hughson interpretation to "blackout lighting."

"5. Would having an OEM offer these options be acceptable? Or, would the States have to perform these modifications after purchase?

We do not believe that a vehicle manufacturer could certify compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30115, with the switches you describe installed as original equipment. The manufacturer of the switches could not install them without violating Section 30122. Under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a), such a person violating Section 30122 is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $15,000,000 for any related series of violations.

The prohibition of Section 30122 does not extend to any person other than a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business." This means that a purchaser such as a State or municipality could perform these modifications after purchase if the modifications were performed by an employee of the State or municipality, without violating Section 30122. We note that Federal Signal Corporation's Safety Warning is addressed to "users" of equipment that can disable stop lamps, indicating that the equipment was not installed by the manufacturer of the vehicle or equipment.

"6. If the interpretation does not allow for these functions in their present form, what suggestions would you make that could allow for these functions in the market place (e.g.) headlamp switch reset or other device?"

We understand the rationale behind disabling a headlamp, in order to alter the appearance of a surveillance vehicle, and disabling other lamps so that they will not alert a suspect in the event of inadvertent activation. However, the failure of these lamps to perform their intended functions does raise safety issues. Moreover, faced with the need to respond instantly to changed circumstances, such as the need to pursue a suspect, the driver may fail to throw the switches to restore the lighting equipment to its normal use. We do not have any suggestions.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108

ID: nht89-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: CONRAD S. BROOKS -- ENGINEERING MANAGER FISHER ENGINEERING

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM CONRAD S. BROOKS TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2859

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your December 1, 1988, letter concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below.

Question One: "Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle saf ety standard."

Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR @ 571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety s tandards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial bus inesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Question Two: "Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?"

Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term "vehicle payload." We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its "payload." If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth

in 49 CFR @ 571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, "unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity for all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added).

In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D. J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the "unloaded vehic le weight."

If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation.

Question Three: "Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?"

Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR @ 571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire -ground interfaces." The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings.

NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any de termination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised.

Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle.

Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of "gross axle weight rating" and "gross vehicle weight rating," specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference wha t proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle.

We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehic le can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle com plied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in "rendering inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modifications were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the m odifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish som e limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the mod ifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses.

When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engi neering analyses.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,