ID: 21866.drn

Monsieur Jean-Yves Le Bouthillier
Standards Manager
Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil Inc.
304 12^th Avenue
Laurentides, Quebec JOR 1C0
CANADA





Dear Monsieur Le Bouthillier:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether the interior emergency exit designation on a school bus exit door may be placed on the top half of the emergency exit door. The answer is yes.

With your submission, you provided a photograph (which you call Picture 483) of the rear interior of a Corbeil school bus. In the vehicle's interior, a large piece of equipment (described in your submission as the air conditioning unit) entirely covers the area (in both length and width) above the emergency door, and under the interior roof. On the top half of the emergency exit door, on the glazing, is the designation "Emergency Exit." You write that because of the air conditioning unit's location, the interior emergency exit door designation cannot be placed above the door. You therefore propose the top half of the emergency exit door for the interior "Emergency Exit" designation.

Among other requirements, Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies at S5.5.3(a) that each school bus emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," and that the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has addressed your question in a letter of September 28, 1977, to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (copy provided). In that letter, NHTSA interpreted the emergency exit door designation requirement "to mean that the emergency door label must be located on the top half of the door or directly above the door."

Your Picture 483 shows the interior "Emergency Exit" designation to be placed on the door's glazing, on the top half of the door. Since the designation is located on the top half of the door, a school bus with the designation placed in the depicted location would meet S5.5.3(a) of Standard No. 217.

I note that S5.5.3(a) specifies that the designation be placed "on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus." Since your designation is on the emergency exit door's glazing, you may be interested in the enclosed letter of October 2, 1987, to Ward Industries, Inc., in which NHTSA determined that a school bus with an interior label placed on the emergency exit door's glazing that is visible from the outside of the school bus meets exterior and interior placement requirements. The words "Emergency Exit" or "Emergency Door" must be readable (not backwards) when viewed from inside the school bus and from outside of the school bus.

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 at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref.217
d.8/11/00

ID: nht94-8.33

DATE: February 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maine E. Peace -- Supervising Revenue Officer, State of Washington, Department of Revenue

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 8/3/93 from Maine E. Peace to Robert Hellmuth (OCC-8957)

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we "provide authority for the department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada, providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety."

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety standards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non-resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible.

However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non-conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would be inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards.

Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to export them back to Canada.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

ID: 8957-2

Mr. Maine E. Peace, Jr.
Supervising Revenue Officer
State of Washington
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 1176
Bellingham, WA 98327

Dear Mr. Peace:

This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we "provide authority for the Department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada, providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety."

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety standards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non-resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible.

However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non- conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would be inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards.

Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to export them back to Canada.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#VSA d.2/3/94

ID: 8975-2

Mr. Maine E. Peace, Jr.
Supervising Revenue Officer
State of Washington
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 1176
Bellingham, WA 98327

Dear Mr. Peace:

This is in response to your FAX of August 3, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to the disposition of Canadian vehicles seized in the State of Washington for violations of Washington law regarding the possession and transportation of illegal cigarettes. I apologize for the delay in our response. You have requested that we "provide authority for the Department of Revenue to sell the vehicles locally even tho (sic) they were manufactured in Canada, providing of course the vehicles meet most if not all the standards regulated by your agency regarding vehicle safety."

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides, among other things, that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle that does not comply with U.S. safety standards. When a vehicle that doesn't meet the U.S. safety standards crosses the border from Canada into the United States, its driver is regarded as the importer, and, unless the driver or circumstances indicate otherwise, we view the importation as a temporary one by a non-resident for his or her personal use, and hence, permissible.

However, if the State of Washington were to seize the vehicle and sell it locally, the action of the State would have the effect of converting the temporary importation of a non- conforming vehicle into a permanent one. We believe that such action would be inconsistent with the Safety Act's requirement that no person import into the United States any motor vehicle that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards.

Non-conforming Canadian vehicles are admitted into the United States on the condition that they will be exported back to Canada within one year. We believe that the most appropriate way for the State of Washington to dispose of the vehicles would be to export them back to Canada.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#VSA d.2/3/94

ID: 20563.ztv

Lance W. Shinder, Esq.
Barket & Shinder, P.A.
Biscayne Bldg., Suite 112
19 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130

Dear Mr. Shinder:

This is in reply to your letter of August 23, 1999, asking for an opinion.

You write that your client "is desirous of importing vehicles, displaying them on a car lot to purchasers, then my client will be exporting the vehicles." You ask whether that practice would be in compliance with the laws that we administer.

We assume that the vehicles to which you refer have not been manufactured and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (because the practice you contemplate would be legal if they had been so manufactured and certified). Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), no person shall (among other things), sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless it complies and is certified as complying with the FMVSS. However, an exception is made for importation of a motor vehicle "intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . .and on the outside of any container of the vehicle . . . and exported." (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)).

The export provision is intended to allow manufacturers in the United States to ship nonconforming vehicles to ports for export to destinations where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply. It also facilitates transshipment of nonconforming vehicles through the U.S. for destinations elsewhere. Under the practice you describe, your client would not be importing vehicles "intended only for export," they would be intended for display before export. Thus the condition of Sec. 30112(b)(3) would not be met and your client would be in violation of Sec. 30112(a). Your use of the word purchasers also raises an inference that the nonconforming vehicles could be offered for sale, even if later exported, and such an offer would also violate Sec. 30112(a).

You have also asked "is it proper to have the cars exported to either Puerto Rico, Guam, and/or the Virgin Islands?" The answer is no. The statute that I have cited applies within the United States. Under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), "State" means a state of the United States, "the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands."

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.9/21/99

ID: 1984-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America,Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bruce Henderson Automobile Importers of America, Inc. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002 Arlington, Virginia 1002 Dear Mr. Henderson:

This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Vinson of this office, in which you asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you would like to know whether a supplementary turn signal unit may be added to each front fender near the wheel well of a vehicle already equipped with a turn signal system meeting Standard No. 108. You also asked whether there were any restrictions on the mounting height of such a lamp.

Standard No. 108 allows lighting equipment additional to that required by the standard provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (paragraph S4.1.3). The supplementary turn signal unit that you describe would appear to enhance the effectiveness of the required turn signals rather than detract from them. There is no requirement that equipment, added at the option of the manufacturer, meet the specific requirements of the standard applicable to identical or similar items of equipment; i.e., the supplementary unit is not legally required to have the same flash rate as the primary turn signals, nor is it subject to the same mounting height restrictions. Obviously, if these specifications are met, supplementary equipment is less likely to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment within the meaning of S4.1.3.

As you are no doubt aware, some manufacturers are wiring their front side marker lamps to flash with the turn signals. This type of supplementary system is acceptable to us.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 17, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vincent Office of Chief Counsel - NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

We would like to request all interpretation of the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (in particular, FMVSS 108) in the following case:

A passenger car complies fully with the requirements for turn signals in FMVSS 108. Is it permissable to add a "turn signal repeater lamp" to each front fender near the wheel well? This repeater lamp would indicate to a vehicle in an adjacent lane an intention to change lanes. The vehicle would continue to to meet requirements in FMVSS 108 for rate of flash, bulb burnout indications, etc.

If the use of such turn signal repeaters in addition to the "four-corner" signal lamps is permissible, is there any restriction on the mounting height - maximum or minimum?

Thank you for your attention and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, Bruce Henderson BH:bd

ID: 10098b

Mary B. Falls, Esq.
Sherrard & Roe
424 Church Street, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37219

Dear Ms. Falls:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The answer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen "VIN plate." However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction.

By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the "VIN plate." S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard.

Your letter explained that Nissan manufactures cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that:

Section 55-5111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, '55-5-112 provides that

the owner of an original engine, serial, engine, or transmission, or "other number or mark" may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be "in full compliance" with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate.

However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult with the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:115 d:9/8/94

ID: nht81-1.40

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Zemaitis; NHTSA

TO: Poly Dyne Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Date: March 16 1981 NO9-00

Subject: Poly Dyne Engineering P.O. Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

From: Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX

To: Office of Chief Counsel NOA-30

Enclosed is a letter dated March 6, 1981, and an attached brochure illustrating a reflective device.

We would appreciate your response to the subject.

Joseph Zemaitis

Enclosure

Poly Dyne Engineering Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

March 6, 1981

Joseph F. Zemaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Mr. Zemaitis:

Recently, we have requested copies of regulations pertaining to standards and usage of triangle type flares of warning signals as related to overland trucks. Your office has been helpful in supplying us with copies of current DOT regulations along with procedures to follow for possible amendments.

The purpose of this letter and prior inquiries was to initiate some action that would allow the use of our new patented triangle signal either in addition to or in place of the type that now is carried by truckers to be set on the ground in proper orientation to disabled or parked trucks.

Our product, photos and literature enclosed, has been designed for either rear or side mount on trucks, RVs or any other vehicle and is automatically deployed into its triangular configuration upon withdrawal from the case. Not only is the signal weather tight, but it is permanently mounted on a vehicle and can be rapidly deployed in a matter of seconds or re-encased in the same amount of time. Naturally, the product has been designed to meet DOT specifications for size, reflective surface area, reflectivity and environmental requirements. We have found that a signal of this type mounted a minimum of 3 to 5 feet above the road surface becomes highly visible to approaching traffic from far greater distances than those sitting on the ground. Additionally, they are not subject to the effects of high winds, theft, or the all too common breakage from passing traffic and, by the ease with which they can be deployed, would encourage their use by truckers as well as by RV owners, truck and trailer rental companies, delivery services, etc...We believe that more extensive use of this type of warning device would add significantly to traffic safety.

Needless to say, we are enthused about our new warning signal and have received unusually enthusiastic response from truckers and fleet owners who have seen this device and would like to see it used in place of those now required for road surface display.

We would appreciate your review of the enclosed information as well as your opinion of its benefits and your estimate of the amount of time and effort that may be involved in obtaining DOT approval for its use.

O. Vandewege, Pres. PolyDyne Engineering

OVbb

ID: nht91-7.7

DATE: November 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-19-91 from Thomas D. Turner to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6385)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 19, 1991, requesting an interpretation of section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. That section specifies two force application options for release mechanisms of emergency exits, low force application and high force application.

Your letter was sent in connection with an investigation by NHTSA's Office of Enforcement of a possible noncompliance of a 1990 Blue Bird bus with that standard, and you sent a sample bus window to assist in understanding your letter. You requested confirmation of your understanding that the requirements of section S5.3.2, "with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not the release mechanisms being activated by the forces." You also requested confirmation of your "understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary motion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism." You asked these questions to support your contention that the release mechanism of the 1990 Blue Bird bus window can be operated by a force that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, and that the high force application option is therefore available for that window. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Section S5.3.2 specifies that certain emergency exits "shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to (a) or (b)." Subparagraphs (a) and (b) set forth requirements for the two application force options, low force and high force. The specified requirements cover location, type of motion, and magnitude. The type of motion specified in (a) for low force application is "rotary or straight"; the type of motion specified in (b) for high force application is "straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface."

We agree that the requirements in (a) and (b) concerning type of motion refer to the force applications that would be made by a single occupant and not to the release mechanisms that are activated by such force applications. While we do not disagree with your contention that it is possible for straight linear forces to cause rotary motion to occur, we do not believe, based on our examination of your sample bus window, that the force application that must be made by a single occupant to release the window would be "straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." We interpret the term "type of motion," as used in (a) and (b), to refer to the entire motion of a force application that would be made by a single occupant in releasing an exit. In order to operate the release mechanism on the Blue Bird bus, it appears that a single occupant must lift the release handle upward as well as pulling it outward. Given the upward part of the motion, it would not be "perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." Therefore, the high force application option is not available for such a design, and it must meet the low force application requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht72-2.35

DATE: 02/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: D. M. Schwentker, Esq. -- Busby, Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of November 30, 1971, you ask if you may assume certain statements to be true. My reply lists your statements and discusses each separately.

"1. 571.5(a) applies to SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices referenced in the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standards contained in Part 571 as well as to the primary references.

The Initial Standards incorporate many SAE materials, probably due in large part to the statutory mandate that they be based upon existing standards. The intent of 571.5(a) appears to be to insure that those materials are legitimately incorporated into the Federal requirements, and that materials subject to change are in fact "frozen" as of a day certain, so that the Federal Standards are not subject to attack on grounds of vagueness. J575 is not directly "referred to" in Standard No. 106, but since its inclusion in Standard No. 108 is required to complete the structure of the Standard, I do not regard a direct reference as necessary to bring it within the ambit of 571.5(a). The SAE Standards that are part of Standard No. 108 "refer" to J575 and this is sufficient.

"2. [Materials] . . . 'in effect on the date of adoption of this Part . . . means [materials] . . . in effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or regulation in which they are referenced . . .'

The answer is obviously "yes" with reference to the Initial Standards; February 3, 1967, was both the "date of adoption of this Part" as well as "the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or regulation in which they are referenced."

The answer is "no" with respect to Standards published after February 3, 1967. Section 571.5(a) says that materials subject to change incorporated in any Standard published subsequent to February 3, 1967, are those in effect on February 3, 1967, unless the reference to them provides otherwise.

"3. '. . . in effect . . .' with respect to SAE Standards and Recommended Practices means formally adopted by SAE although not necessarily printed in the SAE Handbook.

In the strict legal sense, an SAE Standard is never "in effect" since adherence to it is voluntary. One revision supersedes another but cannot be said legally to "revoke" it, ending its "effectivity."

SAE Standards do not have effective dates. They bear an identifying month and year indicating when the latest revision was approved by the appropriate SAE approval body. Thus, J575d, November 1966, means that the (Illegible Word) was approved by the SAE lighting committee in November 1966. J575d was then printed and circulated to SAE members in January 1967, subsequently appearing in the 1968 Handbook.

J575d then was "in effect" on February 3, 1967 end before appearing in the 1968 Handbook, whether considered as becoming effective upon approval by the SAE lighting committee or upon publication and distribution to SAE members.

"4. SAE J575d is the revision subreferenced in Table III of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (32 F.R. 18033) under passenger cars, tail lamps (effective January 1, 1969).

Yes. Standard No. 108 was amended to adopt Table III in December 1967, based upon a proposal published on February 3, 1967. The agency did not manifest its intent, in the SPRM or any correspondence that I have been able to discover, that the referenced and subreferenced SAE Standards in the proposed standard were those appearing in the 1967 Handbook (e.g. J575c). It is a general SAE policy, however, as expressed in its Handbooks, that where revision letters are not used, the assumption is that references to Standards will designate the latest revision. Since J575d had been published and circulated in January 1967, it may be reviewed as incorporated by reference into those SAE materials referencing J575 that were part of the NPRM of February 3, 1967.

I hope this answers your questions.