ID: nht79-2.46

DATE: 01/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1978, to Mr. E. T. Driver, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter depicted the use of two headlamps, both round and rectangular, mounted side by side, and also one above the other.

Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle they must be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The same requirement applies to taillamps, stoplamps, and reflex reflectors. This has been interpreted previously, in the case of reflex reflectors, to mean that if two are used they may be mounted only side by side. Four headlamp systems are not permitted on motorcycles. These are specified in the new paragraph S4.1.1.34 in the amendment published in the Federal Register July 27, 1978. A copy of the new amendment is enclosed, along with copies of previous notices that constitute FMVSS No. 108. However, if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle, they still must be mounted side by side and equidistant from a vertical centerline of the body of the motorcycle.

This Agency is currently considering an amendment to the standard that will, if approved, permit the positioning of headlamps and reflectors one above the other when two are mounted on a motorcycle. The necessary rulemaking procedures, if initiated, would take several months and there is no certainty that the contemplated amendment would be issued.

We welcome your further comments and questions.

ID: 571-213--Graco armrest

ID: 10287

Ms. H. Kristie Jones, President
P.J.'s Fabrication, Inc.
P.O. Box 880
Stanfield, OR 97875

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufactures trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Commander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufactures trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that "Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." The term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that "P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications." This statement indicates that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manfacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indicates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers.

As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correctly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's.

You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the "Certificate of Origin." Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the state's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American

Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMVA is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:115 d:10/5/94

ID: nht94-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: H. Kristie Jones, President -- P.J.'s Fabrication, Inc., Stanfield, OR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/18/94 letter from H. Kristie Jones to John Womach

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufacturers trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Co mmander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufacturers trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that "Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." The term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications ." This statement indicates that P.J.'s is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manufacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indic ates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers.

As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correct ly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's.

You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the "Certificate of Origin." Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the st ate's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMV A is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to city of Philadelphia; 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Environmental Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be in stalled on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 36333.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double-lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.

In its petition for the marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:

The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunger on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. for convenience, this also locks all the other doors; if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 deg rees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are "double locked"; after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside ha ndle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the "double locked" mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openi ngs due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicl e (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 20 6 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the locking system required by the standard. Since according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.

The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependent on whether the system interferes with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking m echanism is engaged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior o perating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must not inter fere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous int erpretations are overruled.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Brian McLaughlin, NHTSA

RE: BMW Petition for Exemption from Part 541 - Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

In our recent telephone conversation, you informed us of NHTSA's reservation about BMW's double-lock feature as described in our petition for exemption from Part 541.

In particular, you indicated concern about the compliance aspect of this feature with FMVSS 206, S4.1.3.

We ask that you consider the following, which shows why the door lock and anti-theft system is in compliance, is safe, and has potential for saving lives by deterring theft.

DESCRIPTION OF DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM IN NEW BMW CARLINE 7

The new BMW Carline 7 passenger car is a four-door sedan with a standard central locking system and an auxiliary anti-theft system incorporating, among other things, a double-lock feature. This additional feature ensures significantly greater security ag ainst attempts of unauthorized persons to open the doors when the car is parked. While the double-lock feature is separate from the central locking system, it is natural to combine it into the total locking system for convenient but distinct operation.

CENTRAL LOCKING SYSTEM

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. The locking mechanism of the central locking system is activated by rotating the key 45 degrees in either the driver's door or the front passenger door lock. Th e inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical-moving plunger on each of the four doors. If raised, the plunger allows opening the door via either inside or outside door handle. In the lowered position, the door cannot be opened by using either the inside or outside door handle.

If any of the four plungers is pushed down into the lowered position by an occupant of the car, it can easily be raised again by that person inside the car. Occupants can lock and unlock the back doors individually via the door plungers, or all doors sim ultaneously using the plunger on either front door.

To prevent locking the key in the car upon exiting, the car can only be locked by using the ignition key in a front door after the door has been closed.

Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees in the lock and removed in the conventional manner, all four door plungers are lowered, the doors are locked and the door plungers remain operable.

ANTI-THEFT LOCKING

If the key is rotated twice as far as the normal locking position, past the detent to the 90 degree position and removed from the lock, the doors are "double-locked"; the plungers remain lowered and, additional to the central locking system, the door loc ks are mechanically inhibited. In this mode, the door plungers cannot be moved from their lowered position, and neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to deactivate the theft system - it can only be deactivated by using t he key in a front door lock. This prevents use of a slimjim, or slipping in a wire to lift a plunger, and prevents opening a door by breaking a window and reaching in to use a door handle or plunger.

SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH STANDARD AND ITS INTENT

FMVSS 206, 54.1.3 requires each door to have a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 defines the function of the operating means to be the engaging of the locking mechanism by requiring the front door locking mechanism to make the outside door handle inoperative. From the disengaged condition, the BMW door lock can be engaged at all times, thus locking the outside door handle as required by S4.1.3.1.; the double-lock feature, then, in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being engaged at any time.

The stated purpose, "S1 ... to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.", shows that the standard was not intended to ensure occupant egress, but to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle under certain circumstances. Further support for this is provided by NHTSA's May 10, 1974 letter of interpretation to the City of Philadelphia, wherein it is stated that FMVSS 206 does not require inside door handles, and that no federal standard requir es window handles.

The entire history of this rulemaking points toward this objective. In 34FR158 of Aug. 19, 1969 the Agency stated the standard's purpose succinctly, "... retaining the driver and passengers in case of collision...", and in 36FR1913 of Feb. 3, 1971, "... intended to afford protection against ejection through side doors ...". The agency thus has demonstrated that FMVSS 206 does not address egress from the vehicle, but rather the prevention of being thrown from the vehicle during an accident. NHTSA has not in the intervening 12 years since provided otherwise by amending this standard.

Our lock fully complies with this intention. In the engaged position, the BMW door lock disables the outer door handle to prevent occupants from being ejected during impact and the double-lock in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being enga ged to make the outside door handle inoperative.

Also, the requirement of the standard to have an operating means inside the vehicle presupposes that there is someone inside the vehicle to operate this means. Our door lock system complies with that requirement of FMVSS 206. When a vehicle is parked and left unattended, the driver may activate, in addition to the vehicle's normal locking mechanism, a vehicle anti-theft system. This system, which has an integrated double-lock feature, is not used when the vehicle is occupied. The Owner's Handbook will c aution the vehicle operator to activate the anti-theft system only when the vehicle is parked and left unattended, much the same as the Handbook warns against removal of the ignition key when the vehicle is in motion, because the anti-theft steering lock would be engaged and the vehicle rendered unsteerable.

It is further our position that the double-lock is an additional feature that does not prevent the primary lock from complying, much like the child safety lock, which, although it does not interfere with the operation of the locking mechanism per se, pre vents the opening of the door. In that respect the child safety lock has greater egress consequences, since it is intended to be in operation when the vehicle is occupied.

GUARDED AGAINST ENTRAPMENT

The operating means of the anti-theft system also provides security against entrapment. In order to activate the anti-theft system from inside the vehicle, the ignition key is required. For the vehicle to be driven with the anti-theft system activated, t he driver would have to use the key to start the engine, open a window, turn off the engine, remove the key from the ignition switch, open,and close the door, reach through the open window, insert the key in an outside door lock, turn the key past the de tent to the 90 degree position, remove the key, and reinsert it in the ignition switch and restart the engine - A MOST IMPROBABLE SCENARIO.

Further when the engine is running, or the key is in the accessory position, the doors cannot be double-locked, even if a second key is used in a door lock cylinder. The double-lock system cannot be engaged until the key is removed from the ignition and the driver's door is then opened and reclosed.

The lock inhibit position can only be achieved by inserting the ignition key in the outside keyhole of a front door and rotating the key past the detent through 90 degrees. In this condition, for anti-theft purposes, all plungers are lowered, and plunger s and inside and outside door handles are locked in position, and no door can be opened. Standing at the side of the car while locking the door with the key. a person can easily see the entire inside of the vehicle, including any person inside and a blin king warning light on top of the dashboard indicating that the anti-theft system is engaged. Thus, the probability of a person accidently being locked inside is virtually nil.

Because a passerby can also see into the passenger compartment, intentional entrapment in the passenger compartment is equally unlikely considering the availability of the car's trunk for that purpose. In this connection, we note that in 49FR47276 of Dec ember 3, 1984, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking that would have required a handle on the inside of a car's trunk lid, on the basis that entrapment is extremely unlikely. We submit that entrapment inside the passenger compartment is even less likely and therefore not a real concern.

DOUBLE-LOCK SYSTEM WILL SAVE LIVES

In the letter of interpretation of December 15, 1978 to Congressman Bud Shuster, NHTSA conceded that there are competing safety considerations involved with front door locks.

During the rulemaking process for FMVSS 114, Theft Protection, NHTSA made the point that stolen cars are much more likely to be involved in accidents than unstolen cars. In 43FR18578 of May 1, 1978, and again in 45FR85450 of December 29, 1980, NHTSA stat es that stolen cars are 47 to 200 times more likely to be in an accident.

There is no question that the double-lock system will make it extremely difficult for an unauthorized entry into the vehicle and therefore will significantly reduce auto theft. Based on NHTSA's own accident analysis of stolen vs. unstolen vehicles, we ca n only conclude that the BMW door lock system will save more lives than a vehicle without such a feature. Further, this anti-theft device has received no objection in Europe, Japan, Australia and other countries having a type-approval procedure and we st rongly believe that the effectiveness of the system together with the overall safety benefit it provides, due to the reduced theft rate, should not be compromised for some perceived negative impact the system might have in the unlikely event of misuse.

Since this is such an important issue to us, we ask you to hold our petition in abeyance if you still have concern.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Environmental Engineering

See 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to City of Philadelphia and 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster.

ID: GF009527

Mr. Richard Coffel
456 Coos Bay Wagon Rd.
Roseburg, OR 97470




Dear Mr. Coffel:

This responds to your e-mail dated December 14, 2004, asking "what wattage bulb is legal in a motorcycle headlight?"

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.   The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. FMVSS No. 108 does not regulate the wattage of light sources (bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps that are marked "motorcycle".Instead, these headlamps must conform to the photometric requirements, measured in candela, in Figure 32 of FMVSS No. 108.

For all other motorcycle headlamps that incorporate replaceable bulbs, S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires, in part, that each replaceable light bulb be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information (these specifications are available online at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3397). That is, a replacement bulb must be manufactured to conform to specifications applicable to the original bulb. Replaceable light bulb manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the requirements of S7.7 by marking the light bulb with the symbol "DOT".

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/17/05

ID: nht78-3.9

DATE: 03/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: O'Sullivan Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1978, to Mr. Guy Hunter of my staff, requesting assignment of a "DOT" code number for purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You state that you supply vinyl plastic sheeting to your customer who, in turn, laminates and polishes this sheeting for use as glazing in the rear window opening of convertibles.

Under paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 (a copy was previously mailed to you), the assignment of a code number is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers. Prime glazing material manufacturers are those who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. Since you merely supply the material to your customer who then laminates and polishes it for use as glazing, you are not considered the prime manufacturer and assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate. Your customer is the prime manufacturer in this case and it is his responsibility to certify that his glazing meets the requirements by the means specified in FMVSS No. 205.

If I can be of further help, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

O'Sullivan Corporation

February 3, 1978

Guy Hunter -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY & TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

We used to calender clear vinyl plastic sheeting which was subsequently laminated and polished and used in the automobile rear windows.

Our former customer recently ordered another quantity of this plastic. We understand that suppliers of this type of materials must obtain a D.O.T. number and we would appreciate having one assigned to us.

Yours very truly,

R. C. Evans, Vice President Director of Research & Development

cc: J. S. Campbell; C. R. Creamer; N. R. Hamblin

ID: nht94-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: David L. Ori -- Manager Vehicle Control Division, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation

TO: Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David Ori (A42; STD. 205; Part 567

TEXT: I would like to thank you for the assistance you gave to one of my staff members, Kris Singer, when she recently telephoned you regarding Federal glazing standards relating to limousines. Since the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is addressing this issue at the present time, I would appreciate your assistance in confirming the information which Mrs. Singer received.

You explained that limousines which seat less than ten persons are categorized as passenger cars for the purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 (FMVSS 205). As such, these vehicles may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tintin g product which does not meet FMVSS 205. This prohibition also applies to vehicle modifications completed during the second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process. Further, the company which alters the original vehicle is required to ce rtify that the finished product is still in compliance with FMVSS 205.

Limousines which seat ten or more persons are categorized as buses and, therefore, would not be restricted regarding the use of sun screening products on windows located behind the driver's area of the vehicle. These vehicles would also require certific ation from the second stage manufacturer of continued compliance with FMVSS 205.

I would appreciate receiving your confirmation of the above information, at your earliest convenience, at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Room 104, T & S Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120. If there is any additional information whic h you feel may be pertinent to Pennsylvania's efforts to address this issue, please include it with your response, or contact me at (717) 787-3184.

ID: nht76-5.45

DATE: 03/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

COPYEE: J. CARSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, to Mr. Fred Vetter, expressing your concern about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is well aware of the importance of the VIN and its use in requirements for certification, defect investigation, recall campaigns, inspection and registration. We are also well aware of its importance to other users such as State administrations, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers. The VIN is crucial to the identification of stolen, junked and recycled vehicles.

It was NHTSA's intention with the initial issuance of FMVSS No. 115, to include within its scope all aspects of vehicle numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applied, and to leave any aspects for which there were no specific requirements to the discretion of the manufacturers until such requirements could be issued. This, of course, is the basis of our position that any state rules in this area must be the same as the Federal standards.

We agree, however, that the VIN may be more effective if it is standardized in structure, format, and information content. The NHTSA, through its personnel who are members of the Society of Automotive Engineers and International Standards Organization Committees, has been participating in the efforts to develop a worldwide VIN system for several years. The NHTSA plans to issue in the next few months an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 115 that will specify requirements for a standardized, uniform identification numbering system for all motor vehicles on a worldwide basis. We welcome all help and recommendations in this action.

I sincerely hope that VESC will provide comments and recommendations to the docket as we proceed in our rulemaking action.

ID: nht94-5.49

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: David L. Ori -- Manager Vehicle Control Division, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation

TO: Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David Ori (A42; STD. 205; Part 567

TEXT: I would like to thank you for the assistance you gave to one of my staff members, Kris Singer, when she recently telephoned you regarding Federal glazing standards relating to limousines. Since the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is addressing this issue at the present time, I would appreciate your assistance in confirming the information which Mrs. Singer received.

You explained that limousines which seat less than ten persons are categorized as passenger cars for the purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 (FMVSS 205). As such, these vehicles may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product which does not meet FMVSS 205. This prohibition also applies to vehicle modifications completed during the second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process. Further, the company which alters the original vehicle is required to certify that the finished product is still in compliance with FMVSS 205.

Limousines which seat ten or more persons are categorized as buses and, therefore, would not be restricted regarding the use of sun screening products on windows located behind the driver's area of the vehicle. These vehicles would also require certification from the second stage manufacturer of continued compliance with FMVSS 205.

I would appreciate receiving your confirmation of the above information, at your earliest convenience, at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Room 104, T & S Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120. If there is any additional information which you feel may be pertinent to Pennsylvania's efforts to address this issue, please include it with your response, or contact me at (717) 787-3184.