ID: aiam1325

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1973, concerning th installation of seat belts and seat belt anchorages for passenger seats in school buses. The belts would be used to assist handicapped passengers in remaining seated while the bus is in motion.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, which regulates the strength o seat belt anchorages, applies only to the driver's seat in a bus. The passengers' seats are not covered by the standard. As a result, an anchorage provided at a passenger seat in a bus does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 210.; If you plan to acquire conventional automotive seat belts for use i the buses, you will find that all belts must be certified to Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*, by the belt manufacturer. Because of this the belt should not be a problem for you.; We would encourage you to construct the belt anchorages so that the have the capacity to protect the passengers in sudden stops or crashes, as well as to keep them in the seat during normal service. However, the anchorage standard does not have to be met for these seats and will not be an impediment to fulfilling your customers' orders for anchorage-equipped seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1326

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1973, concerning th installation of seat belts and seat belt anchorages for passenger seats in school buses. The belts would be used to assist handicapped passengers in remaining seated while the bus is in motion.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, which regulates the strength o seat belt anchorages, applies only to the driver's seat in a bus. The passengers' seats are not covered by the standard. As a result, an anchorage provided at a passenger seat in a bus does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 210.; If you plan to acquire conventional automotive seat belts for use i the buses, you will find that all belts must be certified to Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*, by the belt manufacturer. Because of this the belt should not be a problem for you.; We would encourage you to construct the belt anchorages so that the have the capacity to protect the passengers in sudden stops or crashes, as well as to keep them in the seat during normal service. However, the anchorage standard does not have to be met for these seats and will not be an impediment to fulfilling your customers' orders for anchorage-equipped seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel.

ID: 16805.ztv

Mr. A. Dorian Challoner
311 Carriage Place
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Dear Mr. Challoner:

Representative Jane Harmon has asked us to address the problem you reported to her office about your mother's car.

According to the information you provided Ms. Harmon, the car is a 1990 Dodge Dynasty manufactured for the Canadian market. Since 1990, your mother has driven the car in the United States under Ontario registration. She has become a permanent resident of the United States, specifically, California. However, California will not register the car until you obtain a letter from its manufacturer saying that the vehicle is identical in all material respects to one that was manufactured to conform to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, it requires that you contact this Department "for the proper clearance letter."

You have attempted to obtain such a letter from Chrysler Corporation. However, the company has informed you that it cannot grant your request because the Canadian-market car fails to comply with the requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that a 1990 model car must be equipped with either an automatic seat belt system, or an air bag. It also advises that modification is not feasible, due to the cost.

Your mother's situation is similar to that experienced by a number of others in California who have tried to register a Canadian car. I would like to explain how the importation process was supposed to have worked in your mother's case. As a general rule, a motor vehicle must conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and be certified as meeting those standards, in order to be imported permanently into the United States. Non-residents of the United States are permitted to enter their non-conforming vehicles into the United States for a continuous period of up to one year, provided that they declare in writing that they will not sell the car in the United States and that they will export it at the end of that time. If the vehicle remains in the United States for longer than a year, there is a technical violation of the importation regulations. If your mother made yearly trips to Canada in her car, there would appear to be no violation of this regulation if the successive re-importations were for periods of a year or less.

There is a substantial similarity between Canadian and U.S. passenger car safety standards, so much so that the agency admits Canadian vehicles on a permanent basis if their manufacturer provides a letter to the owner attesting to the vehicle's compliance. However, if a manufacturer will not provide such a letter, the owner must follow the procedure established by statute. This procedure was established by Congress and requires the Administrator of this agency to have made a decision that the vehicle in question is capable of being conformed to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This decision is made on the Administrator's motion, or after a petition by a Registered Importer. A Registered Importer is a person that the agency recognizes as capable of modifying and certifying noncomplying vehicles to meet the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and who has agreed with the importer to modify and certify the car. If the Administrator finds that the particular vehicle model is capable of being so modified, the vehicle may be imported under bond. Conformance work would be performed by a Registered Importer, who then certifies the car to NHTSA. When the agency is satisfied with the Registered Importer's certification, it issues the bond release letter that California requires for registration. Thus, had your mother followed the course prescribed by law for permanent importations, she would have contracted with a Registered Importer, who would have petitioned on her behalf. If such a petition had been granted (no decisions have ever been made regarding 1990 Canadian Dodge cars), the Registered Importer would have brought the vehicle into compliance with Standard No. 208, and the vehicle then could have been registered in California.

At this point, your mother has two options. The first is to return the vehicle to Canada (or export it to Mexico, which is closer to you). Second, she may contract with a Registered Importer for the petition/modification and certification procedure described in the previous paragraph. The closest Registered Importer to you is G & K Automotive Conversions, 3231 South Standard Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (phone: 714-545-9503; fax: 714-545-7667). While this procedure may seem to be unduly burdensome for the owner of a vehicle that has been operated in the United States for some years, there are benefits to following it. If Chrysler Corporation, which manufactured the car, recalls 1990 Dodge Dynasty vehicles for safety or emissions reasons, the Registered Importer is required to notify your mother of the recall and provide an appropriate remedy. In addition, the presence of the certification label on the vehicle should relieve future owners of the car of the need to re-satisfy registration authorities in California or elsewhere that the vehicle meets all U.S. requirements, and thus make possible resale easier.

If your mother chooses to sell the car rather than to arrange for it to be brought into compliance with Standard No. 208, she would not be violating Federal law if she sold it in the United States. However, it would be in the best interest of motor vehicle safety if the sale of this nonconforming vehicle took place in Canada, its country of origin, where it conforms to local standards, or in Mexico, where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not in effect.

We regret that we cannot be of greater assistance. If you have any additional questions, please contact Taylor Vinson of this Office at phone number 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Representative Jane Harmon
Torrance, CA Office
ref:591
d.2/18/98

ID: aiam4331

Dear Mr. Takechi: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1987, with reference t the legality of a proposed concealed headlamp design.; As we understand the proposed design, the headlamp could be used in th 'concealed' position as a forward warning (which you believe 'is similar to the daytime running light principle' and 'is useful to avoid accidents') and in the unconcealed position as a headlamp to provide visibility of the roadway ahead. A portion of the vehicle body in front of the concealed headlamp would be clear, allowing the beam from the concealed lamp to shine through it. The steady burning forward warning signal would be given by pulling a spring-loaded switch. Releasing the switch would turn off the headlamp. Thus, the concealed headlamp would not, as a practical matter, be used for providing visibility of the roadway ahead but as an alternative to the vehicle's audible warning device, the horn. The proposed use would be a visual 'horn.' Finally, you state that the beam pattern and intensity of the lamp 'is corresponding to the headlamp's,' although you do not explain how this is possible, given the potential for interference from the vehicle's body.; Standard No.108 prohibits covers or other styling features in front o a required headlamp when it is being used for purposes such as illuminating the roadway ahead or increasing the visibility of the vehicle in conditions of reduced visibility. We do not consider this prohibition applicable when a headlamp is being used, in all likelihood momentarily, for forward signalling as described. Further, use in this manner would not appear to impair the lighting equipment required by the standard. Additionally, headlamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes, as you have proposed, however, we are unable to advise you whether operation of this device is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. Your letter does not indicate whether the beam utilized is the upper beam or the lower beam, some jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Virginia prohibit use of the upper beam for signaling purposes. Others may restrict use of headlamps or a portion of them during daylight hours, we expect to learn more about this in comments to the docket on the daytime running lamp proposal. In the meantime, I would advise you to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, for its views on State laws.; You have stated that this use 'is similar to the daytime running ligh principle.' However, as proposed by the Government of Canada, and by the U.S. Government in the Federal Register (52 FR 9316) such 'DRLs' would be automatically energized, and not energized at the driver's choice as is your device. Therefore, we do not view the operation of your device as similar to the daytime running light principle.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3990

Dear Mr. Bagg: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staf concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway,' of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.; Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various type of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as 'Items' in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials.; Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification an marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.; Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicl equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201 sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard (sic) including Standard No. 201.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with Safety equipment. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would 'render inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that 'render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicl owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.; Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilitie under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 *et seq*., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety Act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any more questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3988

Dear Mr. Bagg: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staf concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway,' of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.; Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various type of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as 'Items' in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials.; Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification an marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.; Under Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicl equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201 sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard(sic) including Standard No. 201.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would 'render inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that 'render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicl owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.; Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilitie under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 *et* *seq*., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety Act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any more questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4496

"Dear Mr. Negro: This responds both to your revised report, date January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint 'phase-in' requirements during the 1987 production year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period. Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that were counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may 'count' Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purpose of satisfying the 10% 'phase-in' requirement for production year 1987, found at S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year. The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in S4.1.2.1 of the standard. Section S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies the amount of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 shall be not less than 10 percent of either the manufacturer's average annual production between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, or the manufacturer's annual production between September 1, 1985, and August 31, 1986. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 production year report. The reference to production encompasses all passenger cars produced by the manufacturer during the relevant time period. Thus, absent an exception to S4.1.3.1.2, a manufacturer may not exclude any of its cars in determining either average annual production or annual production. For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987, section S4.1.3.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production: A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.) The same single exception is set forth in section S4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 production year, and in section S4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 production year. This exception expressly permits manufacturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius', literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 means that complying convertibles cannot be excluded. This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with S4.1.2.1. However, this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 Alfa Romeo convertibles it reported as complying with S4.1.2.1 when making its 1988 production year calculations, as required by S4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average annual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(b), Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1. In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then Fiat may not 'count' those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 1985-03.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 6, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakamegura, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation regarding Figure 4-1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With reference to a two-lamp system headlamp with two reflectors, you have asked which of three specified Points should be regarded as the "center of aiming pattern" within the meaning of Figure 4-1. The answer is Point B, of the center of the bulb for the lower beam. NHTSA provided a clarification of this in the final rule permitting two-bulb replaceable bulb headlighting systems, published on May 22, 1985. I enclose a copy for your information. In it, the agency remarked that "NHTSA expects the aiming pads to be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion of the headlamp when only one light source is used for the lower beam." Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 19975-1.pja

Major P.D. McClellan
Commander
Office of Licensing and Commercial Standards
Ohio State Highway Patrol
1970 W. Broad Street
P.O. Box 182074
Columbus, OH 43218-2074

Dear Major McClellan:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether Ohio's school bus construction standard is in conflict with our standard as to the location of side window emergency exits. Based on our understanding of your standard, our answer is no.

You explain that your standard requires school buses with a seating capacity greater than 50 to have "two emergency swing out windows on the right and left side of the body" located in the front and rear third of the bus. Thomas Built Buses has told you that they have an interpretation letter from us stating that Standard No. 217 requires a window exit at the midpoint of the bus no matter how many exits are on each side of the bus. (Although you did not identify the letter, we believe you are referring to our August 4, 1995, letter to Ms. Jane L. Dawson of Thomas Built Buses.) You ask whether your standard may require the swing out windows in the front and rear third of the bus.

S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with certain numbers and types of emergency exits, at specified locations. At the school bus manufacturer's option, a school bus may either have:

(1) one rear emergency door and the additional exits described in Table 1 of the standard (S5.2.3.1(a)); or

(2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side, a push-out rear window, and the additional exits described in the standard's Table 2 (S5.2.3.1(b)).

According to your letter, your school buses have a push-out rear window installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b). We gather from this that the two additional windows to which you refer are those described in Table 2, which permits manufacturers the option of installing the two window exits in lieu of a right side exit door. Our August 4, 1995, letter states that Standard No.217 does not specify a fore-aft location for a right side exit door or for window exits installed in lieu of a right side exit door. The letter states that these exit windows should be positioned fore-and-aft in the school bus so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable. We believe that your requirement that the two exit windows be placed on each side of the bus and in the front and rear thirds of the bus provides for appropriate accessibility. On this point, our standards are consistent.

However, there are some potential differences between our standards that we would like to highlight.

• According to your letter, your standard requires all type B-D school buses, regardless of seating capacity, to have at least two window exits. S5.2.3.1 of our standard allows buses seating less than 46 persons to have only a single rear exit door, or a left side exit door and a rear exit window, with no other exit windows.
• For buses with seating capacities between 46 and 49, your standard requires two side exit windows located at the midpoint. S5.2.3.1(a) of our standard allows an option of either two side exit windows or a left side exit door located as near as practicable to the mid-point of the passenger compartment (see Table 1 and S5.2.3.2(a)). Because a side exit window and a side exit door cannot occupy the same location, under your standard the side exit door option is essentially no longer available.
• For buses with seating capacities of 50 to 62, your standard requires four side emergency window exits, while S5.2.3.1, Tables 1 and 2 of our standard require only two.

Section 30103(b) of our statute, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., states:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However,  . . . a State . . . may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by [the Federal standard].

To the extent that the Ohio requirements are different from those in Standard No. 217, their application to private school buses would be preempted. With respect to buses procured for the state's own use (including use by local school districts), the state standard is not preempted. The state standard results in no apparent reduction in the number of emergency exits and the locations appear to be reasonable and practicable.

If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217# 205
d.5/30/00

ID: aiam5515

"Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995 asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108. SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that 'paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108.' This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that 'license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate.' However, you acknowledge 'that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate.' You believe 'that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical.' We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel";