ID: 12157-3.pja

Mr. Kenneth D. MacArthur
Farm Bed Manufacturing, Inc.
Box A, Eisenman Road
Boise, Idaho 83705

Dear Mr. MacArthur:

This responds to your letter requesting that your vehicle be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, your vehicle is not excluded from the regulation.

Your company manufactures self-unloading bulk trailers that have small conveyer belts at the lower rear of the trailer to unload potatoes and other agricultural products. The rear shaft mount for the conveyor belt protrudes 24 inches from the rear of the trailer in order to drop the potatoes onto another conveyer belt (called a piler) that resides at the unloading site. You believe that the small conveyor belt should be considered "work performing equipment," thus making the trailer a "special purpose vehicle" that is excluded from the requirement to have an underride guard.

After January 1998, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, will require most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. An excluded category of vehicle is special purpose vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Your vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The small conveyor belt at no time passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, and it certainly does not do so while the vehicle is in transit. Therefore, your trailers are not excluded from the standard as special purpose vehicles.

As you pointed out in your letter, NHTSA addressed this issue in the January 20, 1996 final rule on underride (61 FR 2004). The National Potato Council commented that an underride guard would impair the function of the conveyor, without explaining how. NHTSA responded that, if this were true, the vehicle would probably be a special purpose vehicle (61 FR at 2022). However, it now appears that the conveyor function would not be impaired in a manner that would exclude it under the rule as written (i.e., the conveyor does not reside in or move through the guard area while the vehicle is moving).

This letter merely applies the existing regulatory language to the question you posed, and does not constitute a judgment that your trailers could operate with a conventional underride guard in place. There may be engineering solutions that you have not yet explored that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of your vehicle.

If there are solutions that you would not be able to implement before the January 26, 1998 effective date of the rule, you can apply for a temporary exemption. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment. You may also submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, copy enclosed) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard to exclude these vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:224
d.8/22/97

ID: 12158.wpd

Mr. Gilbert Lenkiewicz
c/o Mr. Haydn Doughty
Cybernet Services Incorp.
704 Edgewater Drive
Dayton, TN 37321

Dear Mr. Lenkiewicz:

This is in response to your letter of June 23, 1996, to John Womack of this Office. We are sending it to you in care of Haydn Doughty as your letter has no return address on it, and the envelope in which it came has been misplaced.

We appreciate your including copies of your letter of March 14, 1996, and Mr. Womack's response of April 4 to Cybernet Services Incorp. In the system you described, an aftermarket strobe light is installed in the center highmounted stop lamp assembly to flash before the activation of the stop lamp signal. Mr. Womack informed Cybernet that this is not permissible under Federal law unless the strobe light is installed by the vehicle owner. This is because Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning when the brake pedal is applied.

You inform us in your letter of June 23 that you have revised the design which "still requires the addition of a strobe light . . . but now does not delay the operation of the normal 'Third Stop Light', during the 3-second flash time of the strobe light." To explain, there will be

"a 3 Watt strobe 'flash' approximately 3-4 times for a period of 3 seconds, anytime the brakes are initially applied. This cycle will only repeat when the brake pedal is released and again depressed. The rapid flashing occurs concurrently with the energization of the normal 'Third Stop Light.' At no time are any of the original stop lamps precluded from providing their intended 'steady burning' indication of both the car and driver's action, i.e. stopping."

I am sorry to inform you that this modification does not alter our previous advice to you. The

fact that the center stop lamp filament is activated simultaneously with the strobe light, rather than after it, does not change the fact that the center stop lamp will be perceived as flashing, even if the stop lamp bulb is steady burning.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office 9202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:7/23/96

ID: 12159.mls

Mr. G.T. Bowman
Manager, Product Integrity
Rockwell International Corporation
2135 West Maple Road
Troy, MI 48084-7186

Dear Mr. Bowman:

This responds to your request for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to reconsider a previous interpretation of the dynamometer test procedures set forth in S5.4.2.2 of Standard No. 121. The purpose of these requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capability during and after exposure to prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. In a June 29, 1995, interpretation to Advance Engineered Products, Mr. John Womack, the Acting Chief Counsel, stated that "the same limitation on the pressure which can be used to achieve the deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.1 applies to the deceleration in S5.4.2.2."

In support of your request for the agency to reconsider its interpretation, you reference the March 1, 1976 final rule which states that

The "hot stop"deletion was also supported, though most comments on the proposal stated that the whole section should be deleted and not simply the last sentence. The NHTSA purposely did not delete the whole section, so that the sequence of testing would remain as in the past, to preserve the data on recovery that was developed following "hot stop" testing. Therefore the required test level is deleted as proposed, but the testing remains in the standard to maintain the same sequence as in the past. (41 FR 8733, 8787)

Amendatory language in the final rule states that "Section S4.2.2 is amended by deletion of the last sentence of the text." As a result, that provision reads as follows:

One minute after the end of the last deceleration required by S5.4.2.1 and with the drum or disc rotating at a speed of 20 m.p.h., decelerate to a stop at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. The service brake line air pressure shall not exceed 108 p.s.i.

In the proposal leading to the March 1976 final rule, NHTSA had stated that "For all vehicles, the dynamometer brake power and recovery requirements would be modified by increasing the upper pressure limit. The 'hot stop' dynamometer requirement (S5.4.2.2) would be deleted, since the 14 fpsps deceleration rate is not comparable to the new stopping distance requirements. (40 FR 59222, December 22, 1975)

Based on these prior agency statements, I have decided to modify NHTSA's June 1995 interpretation. Upon further reflection, Standard No. 121 does not specify any limitation on the pressure that can be used to achieve the required deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.2.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:121

d:7/29/96

ID: 12172har.nes

Howard R. Price, Esq.
Brodey & Price
9777 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," as it applies to a child restraint harness. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the design of a particular harness is in compliance with Standard 213. Please note that NHTSA does not issue interpretations about the conformance of a specific vehicle or item of equipment with the standards. Those determinations are usually made in the context of an administrative proceeding when a full examination of the issues is possible, such as an enforcement action.

The "All Our Kids Travel Vest, Model TV600," was tested in 1994 by Calspan Advanced Technology Center (Calspan) for NHTSA as part of the agency's compliance test program of child restraint systems. Calspan found that the restraint appeared to comply with all the requirements of Standard 213 except for certain requirements on labeling and installation instructions. A copy of the test report (213-CAL-94-048) is enclosed for your information.

Your first question concerns S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213, which requires that "The system surface provided for the support of the child's back shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface area of not less than 85 square inches."

You ask whether the restraint meets the requirement of S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213. You describe certain "reinforcing ribs" on a metal plate of a harness provided for support of the child occupant's back. You state that the ribs are 0.62 inches in width, raised approximately 0.25 inches above the surface of the metal plate. In addition, there are "corrugations (grooved in the front, ribbed in the rear)" that are 0.5 inches in width and 0.25 inches below the surface of the metal plate. As you describe the metal plate, it is essentially flat in orientation and thus would meet the requirement.

Your second question asks about S5.2.4 of Standard 213, which states, in pertinent part:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface...shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether the determination that an edge is exposed is made before or after the removal of any padding or flexible overlay material. The answer is that NHTSA first removes padding or flexible overlay material, then measures the height of protrusions and the radius of exposed edges. (See underlined language above.) You also ask whether S5.2.4 specifies a minimum thickness of 1/2 inch for the metal plate. The intent of S5.2.4 is to ensure that edges that might be contacted through any overlay or padding must be rounded. However, the edges of this particular plate, as opposed to the essentially flat surface, would not be contacted by the dummy.

Your third question pertains to S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213, which sets performance requirements for "Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly design to restrain a child using the system...." You ask if S5.4.3.5 or any other paragraph in the standard would prohibit a "'hook and loop' or 'Velcro' closure, designed to fasten around a ring attached to the opposite side of the waist belt...solely because it is not actually a 'buckle'?"

The answer is Standard 213 does not prohibit the "hook and loop" assembly you describe. S5.4.3.5 sets requirements for push button buckles when provided but does not require the buckles types to be standardized. However, in a preamble to a December 13, 1979 final rule adopting upgraded requirements in Standard 213, the agency encouraged child restraint manufacturers to use push button buckles, "so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies." 44 FR 72131, 72136. Our position on this has not changed.

If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: 12186.JEG

Mr. Richard Korytowski
Advantage Autobody Parts
3317 E. Jefferson Blv.
Grand Prairie, Texas 75051

Dear Mr. Korytowski:

This responds to your letter asking about the implications of used car dealers selling vehicles which have not had their supplemental restraint systems (air bags) replaced after an accident. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether "full disclosure" of the fact that the air bag is not operating or has not been replaced, and "accepting [the buyer's] signature of being aware of the vehicle's condition and faults-- it is sole responsibility of such a buyer to notify his or hers insurance company or install SRS on one's own without any further legal implications of the seller, regardless of the buyer's action."

As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle, or prevent a used car dealer from selling such a vehicle. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

While the "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such

as an air bag, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that was damaged in a crash. Therefore, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the State of Texas to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney with respect to potential liability of a repair facility for failure to replace an air bag after a crash, or of a used car dealer for selling such a vehicle.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc. If you would like guidance as to which vehicle systems may require inspection or repair after a crash, we suggest that you contact the selling dealer, zone representative, and/or manufacturer of the vehicle in question.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:10/16/96

ID: 12196.ZTV

Mr. Walter Goodman
Project Coordinator
Recreational Electric Vehicles Int. LLC
9330 Industrial Trace
Alpharetta, GA 30201

Dear Mr. Goodman:

We have received your petition of April 8, 1996, to the Administrator requesting a temporary exemption from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your petition is incomplete, as Taylor Vinson explained when you phoned on April 29. I am enclosing a copy of the temporary exemption regulation (49 CFR part 555) so that my comments will be clearer.

First, every petition must contain arguments as to why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. This information is required by Sec. 555.5(b)(7) and is lacking from your petition.

You have petitioned on alternative bases, which is permissible, but the requirements for each basis differ. Applications for exemptions for low-emission vehicles must contain the information specified in Sec. 555.6(b), and those for equivalent overall level of safety must follow the requirements of Sec. 555.6(d). Although you have explained in sufficient detail the exemptions you require and why you require them, the safety arguments required by subsections (b) and (d) have not been made. We suggest that you submit a revised petition that treats each basis separately. If you have any questions on the petition, you may call Taylor again at 202-366-5263.

For planning purposes, manufacturers should expect a decision three to four months after filing a petition that meets our requirements. This time is needed, in part, to prepare, publish, and evaluate comments to a Federal Register notice which is part of each temporary exemption proceeding.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:555 d:5/3/96

ID: 12198.ztv

J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Admin. Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This responds to your letter of July 3, 1996, to the Administrator asking for interpretations of 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information. These questions pertain to the submissions by Philips Lighting to Docket No. 93-11 for D2R and D2S light sources. As you probably know, Part 564 was amended on May 7, 1996, with amendments effective June 6, 1996 (61 FR 20497).

Your first question is whether manufacturers of these light sources, other than Philips, "should be additionally submitted for the listing of Part 564 and ballasts to be used in combination with those discharge bulbs . . . ." As the agency recently commented (61 FR at 20498)

Any part 564 submittal for a light source requiring ballasts for operation must include information that specifically identifies all ballasts that will be used with the light source. Substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in part 564 is not permitted."

This means that Philips must include with its submission a description of all ballasts that it will use with the D2R and D2S light sources. If a manufacturer other than Philips will manufacture these light sources using any of the ballasts identified by Philips, no submittals are required. However, if a manufacturer other than Philips intends to use the D2R and D2S light source with a ballast other than that listed by Philips, we regard this as a modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed, and the other manufacturer may submit an application in accordance with sec. 564.5(d).

You next ask who should be the applicant for the discharge bulbs and ballasts, the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), the manufacturer of the discharge bulb, or the ballast manufacturer. Under sec. 564.5(a), as amended, applications may be made by a "manufacturer of a motor vehicle, original equipment headlamp, or original equipment headlamp replaceable light source." This means that application can be made by the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), or the manufacturer of the discharge bulbs. If a ballast is required for operation of the discharge bulb, we regard the ballast as an integral part of the light source, but application may be made by a headlamp or bulb manufacturer, not by the ballast manufacturer.

Your next question refers to Appendix B of Part 564. You ask whether it is permissible to furnish only certain information with an application "because the rest of the information to be requested in Appendix B is the same as that of Philips." The answer is yes. Under sec. 564.5(d)(1), a manufacturer may request modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed in Docket No. 93-11 by submitting "[a]ll the information specified in Appendix A or Appendix B of this part that is relevant to the modification requested." This means that the regulation requires an applicant only to furnish information that differs from that already on file with respect to the light source for which modification is requested. For sake of clarity, NHTSA prefers that the submitter identify the specific drawing(s) or text on file in Docket No. 93-11 that is proposed to be changed, and list those desired changes in a tabular format or in text, e.g., item "x" is added to document "y", or is deleted or modified as indicated. If the changes are to the form where a new drawing is to substituted, the submission should be specific as to how the submission is being proposed, e.g., sheet "y" is added to or replaces sheet "x" in Docket No. 93-11, or sheet "y" is different from sheet "x" because [submitter to describe differences]. If the changes are to provide an optical configuration of the light source or a component of the light source, the submission must be clear on how that option is to be exercised and how it is to be identified as a version of the original form.

Your final question relates to the agency's language, quoted in the second paragraph, which prohibits substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in Part 564. You ask whether this covers replacement equipment as well as original equipment. The answer is yes. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires replacement lighting equipment to be designed to conform to the standard for original lighting equipment. Paragraph S7.7 (as amended on Novermber 28, 1995, 60 FR 58522) requires that "[e]ach replaceable light source shall be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564." A principal purpose of Part 564 is to ensure that replacement light sources provide performance that is equivalent to the original light source. This purpose cannot be ensured if a ballast has been substituted that differs from that originally supplied with the bulb, or if the ballast is not listed in Part 564.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-3566-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/20/96

ID: 12200.ztv

Mr. Don Weidman
Mgr., Special Project
Grote Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 1150
Madison, IN 47250-0550

Dear Mr. Weidman:

This responds to your letter of July 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The sentence that concerns you reads as follows: "When activated in a steady-burning state, headlamps shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." You ask whether a transparent cover is permissible.

No cover of any sort is permissible. The standard is absolute in its prohibition and merely uses translucent covers and grills as examples of items that may not be placed in front of a lens. The reason for the prohibition is to preserve original photometric performance of the headlamps, and to prevent deterioration from interference by grills, or which might occur over time from moisture, scratching, and other environmental factors that can affect headlamp covers, whether translucent or transparent.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:8/12/96

ID: 12203.ztv

Mr. Paul G. Schoen
President
Chariot Marine Fabricators & Industrial Corp.
P.O. Box 635
West Frankfort, IL 62896

Dear Mr. Schoen:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1996, for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 as it applies to the location of front side marker lamps and reflectors on a wide boat trailer that you manufacture. You inform us that "questions have been raised by Transport Canada" as to the location of these lamps and reflectors, and that Transport Canada has encouraged "that trailers manufactured by our company for sale in the United States be built to the same lighting specifications as the trailers our company builds for export to Canada."

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that front side marker lamps and reflectors are to be located "as far to the front as practicable." This is qualified by paragraph S5.3.1.3 which states that, on a trailer, they may be located as far to the front as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue. You tell us that in Canada, sec. 108(7)(c) of CMVSS No. 108 states that they "may be located as far forward as practicable, exclusive of the trailer tongue." The Canadian requirement in this respect appears to be identical to the requirement of the United States.

According to a letter that Canada sent you:

"the preferred location of the front side marker lamps and reflex reflectors is where the vertical load-bearing frame members meet at the furthest point forward at the center line of the trailer, at a location not less than one meter (39 in,.) and not more than 1.5 meters (60 in.) behind the coupler with the surface of the reflective device parallel to the longitudinal axis of the trailer."

At present. your company locates this equipment at points A and B, as shown in the diagrams you enclosed. In these locations, it appears that the equipment is located at points closer to the front end of the trailer than they would be under Canada's interpretation of its regulation. However, because the trailer tongue is very short, when the marker lamps are located at points A and B they will be obscured at the 45-degree visibility angle by the side of the towing vehicle, thus reducing some of their effectiveness. This problem is solved when the side marker lamp is placed in the location preferred by Canada

There are a number of areas where FMVSS No. 108 prescribes location requirements in terms of practicability, i.e.,: "as far to the front as practicable," " as far to the rear as practicable," " as far apart as practicable", and "as high as practicable." This is to afford a manufacturer maximum design freedom while indicating preferred locations for lighting equipment. It has been our practice to leave the determination of practicability to the manufacturer who, in his certification of compliance with all applicable FMVSS, certifies that it has located the equipment in accordancewith a practicability specification. It has not been the practice of the United States Government to substitute its judgment of practicability for that of the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer's determination is clearly erroneous.

Your company has previously determined that the front side marker lamps and reflectors on the trailer are "as far to the front as practicable" at Points A and B. Yet in this location the front side marker lamp cannot fully perform its function because it will be obscured at the forward 45 degree angle by the mass of the towing vehicle. Even though relocation rearward would result in the marker lamps no longer being located "as far to the front as practicable" under a literal interpretation of these words, we believe that it is a proper exercise of the manufacturer's discretion in determining practicability to locate lighting equipment where it can best fulfill its intended function. Thus, we concur with Canada's recommendation in this instance for location of the front side marker lamps 1 to 1.5 meter behind their present location at Points A and B..

However, our interpretation does not extend to the front reflex reflectors which, in our view, should remain in their present location at Points A and B. The reflectors serve the important purpose of marking the forward end of the trailer when the side marker lamps are not operating, such as when the trailer is at rest, whether or not it is attached to the towing vehicle. We assume that you are currently using a combination lamp and reflector. If this is so, you may use the same equipment in the new location, but you must provide separate reflectors at Points A and B..

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:9/10/96

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