Colin Pewarchuk, Esq.

Vice President, General Counsel

New Flyer of America, Inc.

711 Kernaghan Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba R2C 3T4

CANADA

Dear Mr. Pewarchuk:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls, telltales and indicators. You advise us that your company manufactures and sells transit buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg). Based on the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, I can confirm your understanding framed in your September 19, 2006 letter that as a result of the August 17, 2005 final rule amending FMVSS No. 101 (70 FR 48295), the standard does not regulate, restrict or otherwise affect the use of foot-operated controls.

In your letter, you advise us that the majority of transit buses manufactured by your company for sale in the United States include foot-operated controls, including the turn signal control and the high beam control. You stated your belief that most other manufacturers in the transit bus industry, and perhaps manufacturers in the over-the-highway bus or coach industry also manufacture their products with similar foot-operated controls.

FMVSS No. 101 specifies that each covered vehicle fitted with a control listed in the standard must meet the requirements of [the] standard for the location, identification, color, and illumination of that control . . . . See S5. In the final rule of August 17, 2005, control was defined at S4 as:

the hand-operated part of a device that enables the driver to change the state or functioning of the vehicle or a vehicle subsystem.[1]

Since the standards revised definition of control is limited to hand-operated controls, foot-operated controls are not regulated by FMVSS No. 101.

We note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration explained its intent not to continue to regulate foot-operated controls in FMVSS No. 101 in the preamble to the August 17, 2005 final rule. See 70 FR at page 48298. The standards requirements for foot-operated controls had been very limited. Specifically, FMVSS No. 101 had required that certain foot-operated controls (service brake, accelerator, clutch, high beam, windshield wiper, and windshield washer) must be operable by the driver when restrained by his or her seat belt. In the final rule preamble, we explained that we had proposed and, in the final rule were deciding, to limit the term control (and thus FMVSS No. 101 itself) to hand-operated controls because we were unaware of any current vehicles whose high beam, or windshield washer or wiper controls were foot-operated and because we saw no need, as a practical matter, to state as a regulation that service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be located so as to be operable by the driver.

Your letter has made us aware of the continued use in transit buses of foot-operated controls, contrary to the assumption expressed in the recent rulemaking. We note, however, that our rationale for not seeing a need, as a practical matter, to include a requirement that service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be located so as to be operable by the driver also appears applicable to other foot-operated controls needed during driving. That is, we believe it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers that use foot-operated controls necessary for the driving task will locate them such that they are operable by the driver when wearing their seat belt.

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,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:101

d.3/28/07

Bill Loshbough, President

ExecuWest Consultants

P.O. Box 25944

Albuquerque, NM 87125

Dear Mr. Loshbough:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of S5.1.3(e) of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. S5.1.3(e) specifies that, when a school bus passenger seat is subjected to the forward application of force, Seat components shall not separate at any attachment point. You wish to know if a school bus seat with a sheer [sic] pin on both sides of the seat that break and separate into two pieces and fall loose from the seat is acceptable and meets the intent of FMVSS 222. Based upon the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, Ive concluded the seat structure you describe would not fail under FMVSS No. 222.

The answer depends on the location of the shear pin. The term attachment point in S5.1.3(e) refers to attachment points to the vehicle body structure, i.e., the pedestal and school bus side wall. The shear pins that we understand are the subject of your question, are part of the internal seat mechanism and are not attached to the vehicle body structure. These shear pins are designed within the seating system to break in certain accident or belt loading scenarios as part of the functionality and protection of the seating system. The breaking of the shear pins in such a school bus seat design would not be a failure to meet S5.1.3(e) of FMVSS No. 222; however all other provisions of S5.1 of the regulation would still need to be met. (I would also observe that this reasoning is similarly applicable to the identical language of S5.1.4(e) of FMVSS No. 222 concerning the rearward application of force.)

I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of a June 16, 1978 interpretation letter to Blue Bird Body Company addressing the meaning of the phrase seat components shall not separate at any attachment point.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations laws, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref #222

d.12/20/06

Ms. Julie Laplante

Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc.

830, 12 ime Avenue

Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9

CANADA

Dear Ms. Laplante:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on affixing 1 inch retroreflective tape on the outside perimeter of the rear emergency exit door on your single rear wheel model school bus. You provided photographs showing that the top half of the rear emergency exit door is flanked by two windows, one each to the right and to the left. The windows are placed close to the doors such that there is not enough room for the 1 inch retroreflective tape outlining the rear emergency exit door to lie flat. Under these circumstances, you wish to know how to place the tape so that the bus meets requirements for identifying school bus emergency exits at S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 217.

S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217 states:

(c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters [one inch] and either red, white or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131), meets the criteria specified in Table 1 of that section.

The purposes of the retroreflective tape requirement are to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers, and to increase on-the-road visibility of the bus.

As discussed below, based on our understanding of your letter and the photographs you enclosed, there are ways to apply the 1 inch-width tape to meet FMVSS No. 217. Please note, however, that you based your inquiry on the use of 1 inch tape, stating without further explanation that you are using this width tape to standardise our production. The standard requires tape of a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters (cm) (1 inch). A manufacturer cannot claim it is impracticable to meet the standard using a tape of a width greater than 2.5 cm (1 inch) if it would be practicable to mark the perimeter using 2.5 cm (1-inch) tape.

Your Question. Your photographs show that the windows on each side are so close to the rear emergency exit door that the 1 inches of tape that you use cannot be placed around the outside of the door without overlapping the windows.[1] You state that you cannot move each window one inch away from the door because there is no room to move the windows.

In the photographs on the page labeled #1, you show that the space around the rear emergency exit door is not wide enough to accommodate the tape. You indicate that if you were to put the tape around the outside perimeter of the door, the tape would overlap the frame of the adjacent windows, i.e., only inch of the tape would be on a flat surface on the outside perimeter of the door, and 1 inch of the tapes width would be in a fold in the curved surface of the fixed rear upper windows, resulting in what you describe as bad finishing, tear and dont [sic] stay in place.

Given the close proximity of the rear emergency exit door and the two rear windows to the right and left, you ask about three approaches for outlining the rear emergency exit door. The first approach involves not applying the tape to the perimeter of the door by the rear windows, while another approach involves cutting the tape in that area to a width of -inch. The last approach involves placing the tape on the door itself.

The first two suggestions would not meet the standard. Your first suggestion is to interrupt the portion of the tape (18 inches on each side [of the door]), that is, to not have any retroreflective tape for 18 inches on each side of the door. This approach would not enable the bus to meet the requirement of S5.5.3(c) that the emergency exit opening be outlined around its outside perimeter since a large portion of the perimeter would not be outlined.

Your other suggestion is to cut off the portion of the tape that sticks on the curved surface of the fixed upper windows. (It would leave a width of of an inch for those two 18 inches portion of tape.) This approach would not meet S5.5.3(c) because the two 18-inch portions of the tape would not meet the minimum width requirement of 2.5 centimeters [one inch].

Your last suggestion (slightly revised) would meet the standard. Your last suggestion is to affix the tape of the whole two side perimeters on the door directly. We agree that you may apply the tape to the door itself, as near as possible to the outside perimeter of the door. This is in accordance with an interpretation letter of June 8, 1994 to Van-Con Inc., in which we addressed a situation where there was no room available for placement of retroreflective tape outside of the doors bottom edge. In the Van-Con instance, NHTSA permitted a portion of the retroreflective tape to be on the door itself, stating:

Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuers ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

Accordingly, you may affix the tape for the vertical sides of the exit directly on the door.[2] However, we do not agree that you need not have tape at the door handle, since it appears from photograph #3 that there is sufficient space on the inside perimeter of the door to accommodate a 1 tape width.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. Occasional breaks in the tape for the hinges shown would not appear to negatively affect a rescuers ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

#ref:217

d.2/5/07

Mr. Charles I. Sassoon

Panor Corp.

125 Cabot Court

Hauppage, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Sassoon:

This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of a combination Stop, Turn Signal, Taillamp (STT) and backup lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS). Based upon the information you provided the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your design incorporating 18 white Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) on the outer perimeter of the STT would not be prohibited under FMVSS No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

The lamp you have designed consists of two areas, an inner area containing what appear, from your illustrations, to be nine LEDs, and an outer ring containing 18 white, 8 millimeter LEDs, which will serve as a backup lamp. You ask if there is any provision of FMVSS No. 108 which would prohibit this configuration.

The standard does not prohibit this combination lamp, as long as when a specific function is activated, the lamp performs that function in a manner that meets the minimum performance requirements established by Standard No. 108. It is the manufacturers

responsibility to confirm that the lamp meets all FMVSS No. 108 requirements relative to the functions for which the lamp is certified. We note that these issues have been raised in a 1990 letter to Mr. Suichi Watanabe,[1] and a copy of that interpretation has been included for your convenience.

If you have any more questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

d.3/5/07

ref:108

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Yeager

664 Church Avenue

Nekoosa, WI 54457

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Yeager:

Senator Herb Kohl has requested that we respond to the concerns you expressed to him in an email message about converting your model year (MY) 2004 TrailBlazer and MY 2005 Colorado into dual fuel vehicles capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol. You reported that your dealer said that a Federal law prevents it from making such a conversion.

As background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue a FMVSS to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by gasoline and those powered by an alcohol fuel (e.g., methanol, ethanol). Specifically, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity, regulates the fuel system integrity of gasoline and alcohol-powered light vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 10,000 pounds. FMVSS No. 301 requires each vehicle subject to it not to leak more than a limited amount of fuel after being crash tested. As both the TrailBlazer and the Colorado are light vehicles with GVWRs under 10,000 pounds, they were required to meet that standard when they were manufactured and sold.

This agency does not administer any law or regulation that prohibits the conversion of either of these vehicles into a dual fuel vehicle. However, the laws we administer do require that special care be taken when such a conversion is made by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

Section 30122(b), 49 U.S.C., prohibits those entities from removing, disabling or otherwise "making inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicles to comply with a FMVSS:

(b) Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Page 2

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Yeager

If one of the above-named businesses were to modify a gasoline vehicle (after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith other than for resale) so that it can use either gasoline or ethanol, that business would be required to ensure that it did not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, the compliance of that vehicle to any applicable safety standard, e.g., FMVSS No. 301. Accordingly, since all light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (which include passenger vans and sport utility vehicles) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must meet FMVSS No. 301, any aspect of their conversion to dual fuel vehicles must not make them more vulnerable to fuel leakage or otherwise impair their fuel system integrity.

The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who convert their own vehicles. Thus, under the laws administered by NHTSA, a vehicle owner may modify his or her own vehicle regardless of the modifications effect on compliance with the FMVSSs. NHTSA, however, encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Finally, please also note that individual States may regulate the modifications that affect the emission control systems of used dual fuel vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me personally or to have your staff contact me at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Herb Kohl

ref:VSA

d.11/15/06

Mr. Eike Krochmann

Schefenacker Vision Systems Germany GmbH

Alfred-Schefenacker-Str. 1

71409 Schwaikheim

Germany

Dear Mr. Krochmann:

This responds to your letter regarding the placement of rear lamps and reflectors under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). You asked several questions regarding the placement of the rear side reflex reflector and side marker lamp, as well as the necessity of using additional lamps when rear lamps are placed on a tailgate. We are pleased to provide responses to your questions.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Your first question asked whether it would be in compliance with FMVSS No. 108 to mount a rear red side marker lamp on a tailgate without installing an additional similar lamp on the body of the car. Our answer is that it would be acceptable. Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Location of required equipment, states that Table IV contains the location for lighting equipment for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Table IV specifies that a red side marker lamp must be located as far to the rear as practicable. Thus, if the tailgate extends to the edge of the vehicle, a side marker lamp located on the tailgate would meet that requirement, and require no additional rear side marker lamp.

Your question also brings up the issue of whether the tailgate constitutes a rigid part of the vehicle, as required by paragraph S5.3. It is our opinion that it does. We would consider the tailgate to be a rigid part of the vehicle, and note that this specification was adopted primarily to forestall installation of rear reflex reflectors on mud flaps.[1]

In your other question, you note that for the same car design, the tailgate covers the complete rear and there is no possibility to mount the rear lamps on the car body. You indicate that the rear lamps meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the tailgate is closed, and ask if you are required to install another set of compliant rear lamps for use when the tailgate is open. The answer is that this is not necessary. With regard to tailgates, when we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The normal driving position of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. As long as your lamps are compliant while the tailgate is in the closed position, we would consider that compliant with Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.10/19/07

Dean L. Sicking, P.E., Ph.D.

Chairman

Safety Trailers, Inc.

2620 Woodleigh Lane

Lincoln, NE 68502

Dear Dr. Sicking:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether your product, the Trailer Truck Mounted Attenuator (Trailer TMA) is a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment as defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102. Based on the information you provided, and also consideration of materials included on your companys website (www.safetytrailers.com) it is our opinion that the product is a motor vehicle, and, more specifically, a trailer.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products.

In your letter, you state that the Trailer TMA looks somewhat like a trailer. You argue, however, that the new device does not serve any of the functions of a trailer. According to your letter, the product is designed to replace attenuators that are mounted to the rear of work zone trucks. You state that when attached to a construction vehicle, the TMA can safely accommodate full-size passenger cars, SUVs, and light trucks impacting the back of a work vehicle at closing speeds up to 100 km/h (62 mph).

You state that the Trailer TMA works by utilizing a

bursting tube energy dissipation system to slow impacting vehicles. When struck, the rear impact face is pushed forward and mandrels attached to the back of the impact face are pushed into the square tubes that form the side frames of the Trailer TMA. Tapered walls on the mandrels force the sides of the tube apart and cause all four corners to burst The bursting of the side walls of tubular rail elements safety decelerates impacting vehicles to a stop.

In arguing that the Trailer TMA does not serve any functions similar to a trailer, you state that it cannot be used to carry or transport any materials or equipment. You state that the Trailer TMA consists only of a tubular frame, an impact plate, an axle to support the energy absorbing frame rail elements and a mechanism for attaching the device to a work truck.

Based on our review of the information you provided, as well as materials included on your companys website, it is our opinion that the Trailer TMA is a motor vehicle, and, more specifically, a trailer.

The statutory definition of motor vehicle at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) is 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.

The Trailer TMA is a vehicle drawn by mechanical power, and is designed to be used on the public highways. As such, it is a motor vehicle.

The term trailer is defined at 49 CFR Part 571.3 as: a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

It is our view that the Trailer TMA comes within this definition. We would consider the attenuator itself to be the property being transported. In addition, information provided on your companys website[1] indicates that the Trailer TMA is designed to accommodate light weight flashing arrow boards or other optional equipment. Thus, the Trailer TMA is similar in relevant respects to a product of Solar Technology, Inc., to which we addressed a January 4, 2006 interpretation letter (copy enclosed) stating that wheeled, portable solar-powered LED displays that are intended to convey messages are trailers.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA

d.6/15/07

Mr. John Coursen

Product Line Manager

Structural Composites Industries

325 Enterprise Place

Pomona, CA 91768

Dear Mr. Coursen:

This responds to your email in which you seek confirmation of the proper bonfire test procedure when two or more compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel containers are connected to a common manifold under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity (Standard No. 304). Specifically, you ask if it would be proper to perform bonfire testing as specified under paragraph S8.3 with the entire group of interconnected containers and their shared pressure relief devices (PRDs) being tested, as opposed to testing containers individually. Based on the information you have provided, we would not conduct the Standard No. 304 test in the manner you describe, because the standard specifies that in the bonfire test, NHTSA tests CNG fuel containers individually. However, this does not prevent you from performing additional testing of your interconnected CNG fuel containers as a group if you wish to do so.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

In your letter, you describe a system of CNG containers in which two or more fuel containers are interconnected by a manifold, with multiple PRDs attached to the manifold for venting the fuel containers as a group. You state that two CNG containers, with a common manifold with two PRDs, would be the expected configuration.

Standard No. 304 is an equipment standard, which specifies requirements for the integrity of [CNG] motor vehicle fuel containers (Standard No. 304, S1).[1] Standard No. 304 regulates CNG fuel containers individually with their PRDs: note, for example, that every use of the term CNG fuel container in the standard is singular, not plural. Regarding the bonfire test in particular, both S7.3 and S8.3 refer to the CNG fuel container, not to containers or to fuel container systems. This is reflected in our enforcement offices laboratory test procedure for Standard No. 304, which tests each CNG fuel container individually, and states that each shall be equipped with a pressure relief device or integral thermal protection system.[2]

Even though Standard No. 304 does not require multiple interconnected fuel containers to be tested as a group, you may perform such a test yourself. The FMVSSs provide a minimum threshold of safety, as established by performance and testing requirements. However, you are free to perform additional testing of your products in order to ensure that they do not pose an unreasonable risk of safety when used on the road.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:304

d.3/29/07

James Freiburger, Senior Staff Engineer

Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

1408 Courtesy Road

High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Freiburger:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials, regarding a requirement that in school buses, exposed edges shall be banded.

You state that you manufacture a school bus that has bonded in place glass panels that do not open in locations that include the windshield, panels in the drivers area, doors and rear stationary glass. You ask whether the glass panel edge must be banded even when the edge is not exposed to the seated school bus passengers. Second, you ask whether glass used in the passenger and driver windows that is encased in the windows frame work would satisfy the banding requirement.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 205 has incorporated by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). Section 6, Edges, of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 states:

In vehicles except school buses, exposed edges shall be treated in accordance with SAE J673 Automotive Safety Glazing. In school buses, exposed edges shall be banded.

Your first question asks whether the bonded in place glass panels must be banded. The photographs you enclosed are difficult to see clearly, but it appears that the bonded in

place glass panels are attached to the window frame without encasing the edges of the glass within the frame. It appears that the glass is made to adhere to the frame and that there are one or more edges of the glass that are exposed on the exterior of the bus.[1]

You believe that the answer to the first question is no, that exposed edges in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 refers to edges exposed to the seated school bus passengers. We do not agree. Nothing in Section 6 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, or any other part of FMVSS No. 205, limits the banding requirement only to edges exposed to seated school bus passengers. Moreover, if we were to read Section 6 as you suggest, an implication could be that exposed edges of the glass on the exterior of the bus need not be treated at all, which would seem to raise the possibility of the edges posing an unreasonable risk of laceration. There could also be different safety risks in post-crash situations depending on whether the exposed edges are banded. Because of these issues, we cannot, by interpretation, apply the banding requirement only to edges that are exposed to seated school bus occupants, or only to windows that can be opened.

Your second question related to school bus glazing encased in the windows frame work. You ask if encasing the windows in the frame work would be considered banded. Our answer is that, if all edges of the window were encased in the window frame, there would be no exposed edges and thus no need for banding.

Finally, you also raised the issue of whether a State can change the FMVSS requirement because the State believes they are requiring a higher level of safety, or if the State must accept a bus built to FMVSS requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally states that (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1)) when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard; however, a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle obtained for the States own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable FMVSS. We cannot answer your specific question without more information about the State law at issue and the vehicles to which the State standard applies.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:205

d.5/21/07

Mr. Stuart McKenzie

McKenzie Auto Consulting

254 Dereham Road, New Costessey, Norwich, NR5 0SN;

Registered office: 6 Corunna Court, Corunna Road,

Warwick, Warwickshire, CV34 5HQ

Dear Mr. McKenzie:

This responds to your emailed letter requesting an interpretation on a proposed VIN correction system to be employed in the event of the application of an incorrect VIN to a series production vehicle. Specifically, you describe a situation in which a small vehicle manufacturer mistakenly applies an incorrect vehicle identification number (VIN) to a vehicle, voids the original incorrect VIN, and applies the correct VIN immediately below that position. You ask whether this system would be acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if the manufacturer later imported such vehicles into the U.S. through a Registered Importer.

In a follow-up email to Rebecca Schade of my staff, you clarified that the mistake would be identified while the vehicle was still on the production line; and that you are only asking about correcting the stamping of an incorrect VIN on the chassis and are not asking about destroying or obliterating the VIN on the vehicles dash, certification plate, or parts required to be marked by the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 511).

Based on the information you provided, our answer is that you may correct a mistake made in the number stamped on the vehicles chassis in the manner you described.

Discussion

NHTSA requires vehicles to be marked with VINs to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns (49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements). Among

other things, Part 565 specifies that the VIN must be marked on the vehicle dash.[1] In addition, NHTSA also requires the VIN to be on the vehicles certification label (49 CFR Part 567) and an identifying number (usually the VIN) to be marked on 18 major parts subject to the parts marking requirements of the theft protection standard (49 CFR Part 541). The purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles.

The chassis is not among the major parts that must be marked under the theft prevention standard (see 541.5). Since the chassis is not required to be marked by Part 541, NHTSA does not prohibit you from voiding (which you said involves destroying or obliterating) the incorrect marking on the chassis and applying the correct VIN immediately below that position.[2] The number you marked on the chassis is simply a number, and is not subject to prohibitions against altering VINs. Any alteration of an identification number on a vehicles chassis is not subject to regulation, and would need no correction system.

Importing the Vehicle

Under the scenario you described, the vehicle manufacturer realizes the VIN is incorrect and corrects the VIN on the dash and on the certification label while the vehicle is still on the production line. Since the vehicle will not have destroyed or obliterated VINs on the dash plate, certification label or on the 18 major parts listed in the theft protection standard (541.5), NHTSA would have no problem with the vehicle being imported into the U.S. through a Registered Importer, as long as it complied with all other safety, bumper, and theft standards.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:565

d.4/10/07