ID: nht78-1.50

DATE: 12/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Palmer Machine Works

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Dick Palmer Palmer Machine Works Old Round House Road Amory, Mississippi 38821

Dear Mr. Palmer:

This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

Unfortunately, we do not have a simplified version of the standard which applies only to trailers. We have also modified the standard somewhat since the August 1978 version you referred to in your letter. I have attached a copy of the modification as well as a proposed further modification. I realize this is a complex standard, and, therefore, offer the following comments:

1. Since you produce less than 500 vehicles per year, characters 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the VIN will represent your manufacturer identifier. The date by which your manufacturer identifier must be submitted to the NHTSA has been changed to September 1, 1979. It is our understanding that the Society of Automotive Engineers will be willing to help you determine your manufacturer identifier. You should contact: Mr. Leo Ziegler, Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096, (412) 776-4841.

2. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th characters of the VIN represent descriptive information about your vehicles. In the case of trailers, the type of trailer, series, body type, length and axle configuration must be represented. Since your model number can be associated with all these characteristics, you may want to incorporate it into the vehicle descriptor section.

3. The 9th character of the VIN represents the model year of the vehicle, and should be determined from Table II which appears in the standard.

4. The 10th character of the VIN represents the plant of manufacture. Since your firm has only one plant, you may choose any character you desire except one specifically precluded by the standard.

5. Since your firm manufacturers less than 500 vehicles each year, the last three characters of the VIN represent the number that is sequentially assigned to a vehicle in your production process.

6. The check digit which immediately precedes the third character of the VIN is determined by the mathematical operation described in section S5 of the standard. Since most characters in your VIN will be standarized, the check digit should be fairly easy to determine.

Please contact me if you have any further questions. Any trade associations to which you belong should also be helpful in establishing your VIN procedures.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 10, 1978

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S W Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: VIN Coordinator

Gentlemen:

I have just read pages 36448 through 36454 of Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 160 - Thursday, August 17, 1978. This is of course concerning the new VIN Standard No. 115. I am very confused as to how this affects our company as a manufacturer.

Dump trailers are the only product manufactured by the company. All of the trailers are manufactured at the same facility. Between 250 and 300 trailers are manufactured annually.

In S6.1 I notice that I am required to submit the unique identifies for each vehicle by January 1, 1979. Can you please send me a more simplified explanation of this standard that would pertain to trailers only? Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

PALMER MACHINE WORKS, INC.

Dick Palmer

ID: 05-007567drn

Mr. Stuart McKenzie
McKenzie Auto Consulting Limited.
254 Dereham Road
New Costessey
Norwich
NR5 0SN, England




Dear Mr. McKenzie:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. You have a client that is manufacturing an electric vehicle for sale in the United States. This vehicle "will be fitted with an electrically heated front windshield that will solely provide the defrosting and defogging functions required by FMVSS 103". You ask about test procedures under S4.3(a) and (b) of the standard, as they apply to electric vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs, which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America. (See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.) NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

In a final rule of March 9, 1994 (59 FR 11004, copy enclosed), we amended FMVSS No. 103 to make the standard more appropriate for electric powered motor vehicles. As amended, S4.3(a)(1) and (b)(1) provide that for a passenger car equipped with a heating system other than a heat exchanger type that uses the engines coolant as a means to supply the heat to the heat exchanger, the warm-up procedure is that specified by the manufacturer for cold weather starting, except that connection to a power or heat source external to the vehicle is not permitted.

You suggested the following procedure: switch the ignition switch to "run" and set the defrosting and defogging control to maximum. If this procedure is "the warm up procedure that is specified by the manufacturer for cold weather starting", it would be the one used pursuant to S4.3(a) and (b).

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:103
d.11/3/05

ID: 86-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Gary D. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary D. Clark John Deere Tractor Works P.O. Box 3500 Waterloo, Iowa 50704-3500

Dear Mr. Clark:

This responds to your letter dated February 27, 1986, concerning your projected sale of a strip chassis for the class A motor home industry. The identifying information submitted in your letter is being referred to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards which keeps records of manufacturer identification in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566.

Under S114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's documents and test data, which form the basis for this certification, be submitted unless requested by the agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

27 Feb. 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Deere and Company will soon begin marketing a strip chassis suitable for the class A motor home industry. The chassis are designed for GVWRs of 16,000# and 18,000#. As an incomplete vehicle manufacture, we are aware of requirement testing such as FMVSS 105 and 124 and fuel emission testing by EPA and CARB.

I am uncertain as to our responsibility to present documentation to your office. Until word is received from you to do otherwise, we will document the FMVSS 105 and 124 tests internally. These documents and test data will be kept i our records department and will be made available upon written request from your office.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Clark O.E.M. Engineering (319/292-7162)

ID: nht75-6.17

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: FRANK A. BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOHN B. WHITE -- ENGINEERING MANAGER TECHNICAL INFORMATION DEPT. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. White:

This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1975, concerning the importation into the United States of tires that will be mounted on trucks intended for export from the United States.

49 CFR Part 571.7(d) and Section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 specify that no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to

a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.

Therefore, tires which Michelin manufactures for sale directly to a truck manufacturer who will mount them on trucks which are intended solely for export need not comply with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. When imported and shipped to the truck manufacturer, the tires must bear a label or tag indicating intent to export. Such a label must also appear on the outside of the container, if any, in which the tires are shipped. Importation of such tires is permitted by 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), provided they are so labeled. A label need not remain on the tires after they have been mounted on the trucks, provided that the trucks bear similar labels.

Because these tires are not subject to any FHVSS and are beyond the scope of any expected defect notification and remedy program, Michelin Tire Corporation is not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, with respect to them.

Sincerely,

ID: 9560

Maurice Hannigan, Commissioner
Department of California Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-001

Dear Mr. Hannigan:

It has come to our attention that a misunderstanding has arisen about a letter we issued on March 31, 1993 to W.C. Burke of your Department. That letter explained the marking responsibilities of a person who installs replacement glass (referred to as glazing in the Federal standard) under section S6.4 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205, copy enclosed.) On January 12, 1994, Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff contacted Mr. Walter Burke and Mr. Kyle Larson of CHP to discuss this matter. This letter is a follow up to that discussion.

Based on its understanding of the March 1993 letter, CHP is requiring installers to mark replacement glazing with a number (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) and has directed school districts to tell installers of glass to contact NHTSA "[t]o obtain a number as required by [Standard No. 205]." Standard No. 205 does not require the typical aftermarket installer to obtain such a number from the agency.

We explained in the March 1993 letter that a person who cuts glazing (i.e., a typical installer of aftermarket glazing) must mark the piece with the following information required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark.

Mr. Larson stated that he was under the impression that "(3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer" was a number assigned by NHTSA. As we explained to him, this is not the case. The installer devises his own model number. The only number assigned by NHTSA under Standard No. 205 is the code mark assigned to a manufacturer who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material" (known as a "prime glazing material manufacturer").

We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter on this subject. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:2/9/94

ID: nht80-3.14

DATE: 06/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eugene Victor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent mailgram asking whether it is necessary to obtain DOT approval for compressed gas tanks that are to be used as part of an automobile fuel system.

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency does not pass approval on any vehicle or piece of equipment prior to its introduction in the market place. It is up to the manufacturer to certify, on the basis of due care, that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency's enforcement program is based on compliance testing of vehicles or equipment that have already been certified by the manufacturer.

I am enclosing for your information a discussion which sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. From that discussion, you will see that there are no safety standards directly applicable to propane fuel tanks as pieces of automobile equipment. There are, however, specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to propane fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. If your tanks will be used on other than private vehicles, these regulations may be of interest to you. For further information, you may contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

EUGENE VICTOR

06/09/80

MGM TDMT NEW YORK NY

FRANK BERNDT CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ATTN MR OATES

WITH REFERENCE TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF JUNE 6 1980 WE WISH TO KNOW WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE DOT APPROVAL FOR COMPRESSED GAS TANKS USED AS PART OF AN AUTOMOBILE CNG FUEL SYSTEM

FOR GAS ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS INC 65 RUGBY RD BROOKLYN NY 11226 ADAM VICTOR PRESIDENT

14:35 EST MGMCOMP MGM

ID: nht71-3.36

DATE: 07/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Engine Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning compliance of the Norton(Illegible Word) Commando Production Racer with the front side marker requirements of the Federal lighting standard, No. 108.

It is our understanding that the racer fairing is detachable only with considerable time and effort. For all intents and purposes the fairing can be regarded as a permanent part of the vehicle and thus an appropriate place to mount the side markers.

ID: nht95-4.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Danner, Esq. -- General Claim Counsel, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM Paul Danner to John Womack; Also attached to 8/9/89 letter from Kathleen DeMeter to Madeline Flanagan

TEXT: Dear Mr. Danner:

This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1995, to John Womack, then Acting Chief Counsel of this office, in which you asked for an interpretation of the proper application of Federal odometer disclosure requirements in a situation where an insure r is settling with a vehicle owner on a Claim for theft of the vehicle. Specifically, your letter requests confirmation that the information given to you over the telephone by Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accurately reflects the agency's interpretation of these requirements. For the sake of clarity, I will address the proper procedures to be followed, rather than your letter's rendition of Mr. Morse's advice.

After a vehicle has been stolen, it is of course unavailable to the insured-transferor at the time of title transfer to the insurer. Therefore, when completing the odometer disclosure needed to transfer ownership to the insurance company, the insured-tr ansferor may enter a figure that is his or her "best guess estimate" of the mileage on the odometer at the time the vehicle was stolen, not at the time of transfer to the insurer-transferee. In addition, the odometer disclosure must be dated as of the d ate of the theft, not as of the date of the transfer to the insurance company. The insured must certify on the odometer disclosure as to whether the odometer reading at the limits of the odometer, as appropriate.

In 1989, the agency issued an interpretation letter stating that this was the proper procedure for a lessee to follow when completing a disclosure to the lessor under 49 CFR @580.7 for a vehicle that had been stolen. That interpretation is equally appli cable to the situation in which the owner, rather than the lessee, is making an odometer disclosure for a stolen vehicle. I have enclosed a copy of that interpretation letter fro your information.

P2

As for the other issues raised in your letter, the following interpretation applies. Once the insured-transferor has completed the odometer disclosure and otherwise complied with requirements of state law for title transfer, the insurer-transferee shoul d then follow the procedures required by the appropriate state law to obtain title to the vehicle. If the vehicle is subsequently recovered and the insurer sells it for salvage, the insurer (which in this transaction will be the transferor) must inspect the vehicle and record the mileage that appears on the odometer at that time. If the insurer has no reason to believe that the mileage on the odometer is not the actual mileage on the vehicle, it must certify on the odometer disclosure that the mileage is the actual mileage on the vehicle. However, if the insurer does have reason to believe that the mileage shown on the odometer is not actual (e.g., if it is less than the mileage shown on the odometer disclosure statement provided to the insurer by t he insured when title was transferred to the insurance company), it must so certify on the odometer disclosure statement given to its transferee (the salvage company in your example), and indicate on the statement that there is an odometer discrepancy.

I hope this letter answers your questions about the procedures to be followed by the parties to the transactions you describe. If you have any further questions regarding legal interpretations of the Federal odometer statute and regulations, please cont act Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address or at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-7.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Danner, Esq. -- General Claim Counsel, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM Paul Danner to John Womack; Also attached to 8/9/89 letter from Kathleen DeMeter to Madeline Flanagan

TEXT: Dear Mr. Danner:

This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1995, to John Womack, then Acting Chief Counsel of this office, in which you asked for an interpretation of the proper application of Federal odometer disclosure requirements in a situation where an insurer is settling with a vehicle owner on a Claim for theft of the vehicle. Specifically, your letter requests confirmation that the information given to you over the telephone by Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accurately reflects the agency's interpretation of these requirements. For the sake of clarity, I will address the proper procedures to be followed, rather than your letter's rendition of Mr. Morse's advice.

After a vehicle has been stolen, it is of course unavailable to the insured-transferor at the time of title transfer to the insurer. Therefore, when completing the odometer disclosure needed to transfer ownership to the insurance company, the insured-transferor may enter a figure that is his or her "best guess estimate" of the mileage on the odometer at the time the vehicle was stolen, not at the time of transfer to the insurer-transferee. In addition, the odometer disclosure must be dated as of the date of the theft, not as of the date of the transfer to the insurance company. The insured must certify on the odometer disclosure as to whether the odometer reading at the limits of the odometer, as appropriate.

In 1989, the agency issued an interpretation letter stating that this was the proper procedure for a lessee to follow when completing a disclosure to the lessor under 49 CFR @580.7 for a vehicle that had been stolen. That interpretation is equally applicable to the situation in which the owner, rather than the lessee, is making an odometer disclosure for a stolen vehicle. I have enclosed a copy of that interpretation letter fro your information.

P2

As for the other issues raised in your letter, the following interpretation applies. Once the insured-transferor has completed the odometer disclosure and otherwise complied with requirements of state law for title transfer, the insurer-transferee should then follow the procedures required by the appropriate state law to obtain title to the vehicle. If the vehicle is subsequently recovered and the insurer sells it for salvage, the insurer (which in this transaction will be the transferor) must inspect the vehicle and record the mileage that appears on the odometer at that time. If the insurer has no reason to believe that the mileage on the odometer is not the actual mileage on the vehicle, it must certify on the odometer disclosure that the mileage is the actual mileage on the vehicle. However, if the insurer does have reason to believe that the mileage shown on the odometer is not actual (e.g., if it is less than the mileage shown on the odometer disclosure statement provided to the insurer by the insured when title was transferred to the insurance company), it must so certify on the odometer disclosure statement given to its transferee (the salvage company in your example), and indicate on the statement that there is an odometer discrepancy.

I hope this letter answers your questions about the procedures to be followed by the parties to the transactions you describe. If you have any further questions regarding legal interpretations of the Federal odometer statute and regulations, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address or at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

ID: nht70-1.18

DATE: 04/01/70 EST.

FROM: Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Motion Development

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 23 requesting confirmation that vehicles with a curb weight of 1,000 pounds or less are not required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

As Mr. Vinson of my staff informed you, 49 CFR @@571.7(a) requires conformance to Federal standards of "motorcycles and trailers regardless of weight and...all other motor vehicles over 1,000 pounds curb weight." Thus your dune buggy with a "weight" of 385 pounds appears to be exempt from the Federal standards.