ID: 04-003879-2drn

Rod Nash, P.E.
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.You ask how the standard applies to school bus seats that are adjoining, yet have individual sized backs for each passenger" and "unique cushions for each student."You enclosed copies of product literature from Freedman Seating Company that indicates that each seat is 17 inches wide, and that two seats together are 35 inches.

You first ask about the test procedure in S5.1.3, Seat performance forward. S5.1.3 specifies that school bus passenger seats must deflect in a specified manner when force is applied through a loading bar that is centered behind the seat back. The loading bar is described in S6.5 of FMVSS No. 222. S6.5 specifies, "the length of the loading bar is 102 mm less than the width of the seat back in each test. "

You ask whether the "width of the seat back" as stated in S6.5 refers to the width of one seat back or the width of both seat backs together. Our answer is that in this situation the two seats would be considered as a single "seat" for the purposes of FMVSS No. 222. Our answer is consistent with an August 16, 2004, interpretation letter to American Suzuki Motor Corporation, on FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection. In the letter to Suzuki, we noted that the term "bench seats" is not defined in FMVSS No. 214 and stated:"However, seats are commonly considered bench seats when their separate sections are side-by-side, as shown in your photographs, even when they are separately adjustable. "

Therefore, the width of the seat back used in the determination of the length of the loading bar would be the overall width of both seat backs together. The seat back width would be measured on a horizontal plane 406 mm above the seating reference point across both seat backs and the loading bar would be 102 mm shorter than this measurement.

Your second question asks about the correct method of determining the necessary projected surface area of the seat back under S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. S5.1.2 states:

Seat back height and surface area. Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 508 mm above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 508.

Although your letter asks about "the correct place to determine seat back width," in fact the requirement for projected surface area is based on seat bench width. Thus, the required projected surface area is calculated by multiplying 508 times the seat bench width, which in this case encompasses both adjoining seats, and then multiplying by 0.9. In your example, the seat bench width is 889 mm (35 inches). The projected area is calculated excluding the V-shaped notch area in the back seat in the same manner that the area of the radius of the corners of conventional seat backs is removed (reference TP-222-03).

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,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:222
d.9/21/904

ID: 1985-03.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: K. Weight

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo, UT 84601

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows in automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.

FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a new passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent; clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.

Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the "black window" is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so long as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5/4/85

Elizabeth Dole - PERSONAL National Highway Traffic Admin. 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

I wrote you 4/26/85 re several safety questions I had.

I am wondering why black windows are allowed on automobiles now? With kidnappings, and failure for a police officer to see into a car, I am thinking these dark windows should be banned.

If I am writing to the wrong dept. please tell me who to write.

Very truly yours,

K. Weight 65 E 200 N Provo, Utah 84601

ID: nht90-3.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.; Signature by Kazuo Iwasaki

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-18-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 101)

TEXT:

This letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101 (Controls and Displays) would apply to two vehicle systems that Nissan is considering using. These systems are described below.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering offering a car phone for use in certain of its passenger cars. The car phone would be installed in the vehicle's console, in the lower, forward portion of the driver's field of vision. The car phone would have five visual displays, each of which is bright enough to be seen under all ambient lighting conditions. The illumination for these displays is not variable and the system may not be turned off while the vehicle ignition switch is in the "ON" position.

The first display shows the number that is being dialed (see Figure) through an LED. This display is illuminated whether or not the telephone is in use, and the number being dialed is shown during the time that the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons for dialing numbers. This display is illuminated when the first button is pushed when dialing a number, and the display remains illuminated for a period of ten seconds.

Finally, the system uses three LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use." The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when the system is outside an area where cellular phone service is available (i.e., "no service" ), as determined by the failure of the system's "roaming" function to lock on an available phone line. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when this "roaming" function is operating, when outside the system's local operating area.

It is our understanding that this phone system would comply with FMVSS 101 requirements if the five information displays are considered to be "telltales." The term "telltale" is defined in section 4 of FMVSS 101 as "a display that indicates the actuatio n of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or a failure to function." Since the displays used in the phone system indicate operation of various functions of the phone system, the displays may meet the definition of "telltale" in sec tion 4 of the standard. If so, the system would appear to be consistent with the requirement for telltales in section 5.3.4(a) of FMVSS 101, since the illumination of the displays is bright enough to be visible under all ambient lighting conditions. On the other hand, the system would not appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.5 of the standard

if the displays are considered to be other "sources of illumination," since the displays do not have variable illumination, are brighter than "barely discernible" in night conditions, and may not be turned off without shutting off the vehicle.

Please inform us whether the displays used in this car phone system are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated whenever the air-conditioning system operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. When the air conditioner or the ignition switch is turned "OFF," the indicato r light is extinguished.

Nissan believes that the air conditioner indicator qualifies as a "telltale," since it indicates the "actuation of a device." If the air conditioner indicator display is considered to be a "telltale," it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions.

On the other hand, this display would appear to be comparable to the radio display that is described in NHTSA's January 7, 1988, letter to Isuzu. In that letter, the Agency concluded that the illuminated radio display is considered to be one of the other "sources of illumination" in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 101. Since the radio display can be turned off by turning off the radio, NHTSA considered it to be consistent with section 5.3.5(3). In the same manner, the air conditioner indicator display can be tu rned off by shutting off the air conditioner system. The radio display referred to in the Isuzu interpretation would also seem to meet the "telltale" definition, although the radio display serves the function of aiding tuning of the radio in addition to indicating whether the device is operating.

Please inform us as to whether the proposed air conditioner lighting display is considered to be a "telltale" or an "other source of illumination" under section 5.3.5 of the standard, and whether the display would be consistent with applicable requiremen ts.

If you require further clarification regarding the proposed Nissan systems, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff at 202/466-5284.

(Drawing attached).

ID: nht81-2.31

DATE: 06/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: North American Classics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1981, asking two questions with respect to the temporary exemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) and implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 555).

Your first question is:

(1) Assuming North American Classics designs the total engineering of the Thunderbird reproduction; selects all components to be incorporated therein; retains primary control over quality control, testing, FMVSS compliance in design; and manufacturing assembly sequence; and markets the produced vehicles on its behalf to its customers, does North American Classics remain eligible to apply for exemption from meeting certain FMVSS requirements for this vehicle in the event that the actual responsibility for the assembly of the vehicles is contracted by North American Classics to a manufacturer which produces more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year?

Although you have not said so, I understand from Taylor Vinson that the manufacturer with whom you would contract is a foreign corporation which has never produced motor vehicles for the American market. We also understand that it may be less expensive to have your car built abroad than at home.

Under the circumstances you describe, the foreign corporation appears to be nothing more than your agent in fabricating the vehicles and returning them for sale. This would not affect your eligibility for exemption. You would retain the responsibility for certification, as we understand it, even though the name of the foreign manufacturer would also appear on the certification label, as required by 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1).

Your second question is:

(2) In the event that North American Classics enters into an agreement to have such vehicles produced or assembled by a major automotive manufacturer, who would not be so eligible, and if such agreement provides for the sharing of profits derived from the sales of the finished product between North American Classics and such manufacturer, as a means of providing North American Classics assurance that projected costs of such manufacturer do not increase beyond North American Classics' ability to survive financially, in such event would North American Classics retain its eligibility status, assuming North American Classics retains control of the functions outlined in paragraph?

We do not believe that a profit-sharing agreement per se would affect your eligibility for exemption. Were the foreign company to receive a majority share of the profits or to purchase sufficient stock in your company to give it effective control, however, we would have substantial questions about which party actually exercises primary control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

North American Classics Corporation

April 15, 1981

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel (NOA-30) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing on behalf of North American Classics Corporation, a Michigan Corporation, formed in July of 1980 for the purpose of initially engineering and designing; assembling; and marketing motor vehicles which resemble the 1957 Ford Thunderbird. In September 1980, as attorney for the Corporation, I met with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office concerning North American Classics' project.

The purpose of this letter is to request of your office a written opinion concerning the following inquiries:

(1) Assuming North American Classics designs the total engineering of the Thunderbird reproduction; selects all components to be incorporated therein; retains primary control over quality control, testing, FMVSS compliance in design; and manufacturing assembly sequence; and markets the produced vehicles on its behalf of its customers, does North American Classics remain eligible to apply for exemption from meeting certain FMVSS requirements for this vehicle in the event that the actual responsibility for the assembly of the vehicles is contracted by North American Classics to a manufacturer which produces more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year?

(2) In the event that North American Classics enters into an agreement to have such vehicles produced or assembled by a major automotive manufacturer, who would not be so eligible, and if such agreement provides for the sharing of profits derived from the sales of the finished product between North American Classics and such manufacturer, as a means of providing North American Classics assurance that projected costs of such manufacturer do not increase beyond North American Classics' ability to survive financially, in such event would North American Classics retain its eligibility status, assuming North American Classics retains control of the functions outlined in paragraph?

As the inquiries intimate, North American Classics is considering having the actual asembly work of the vehicle completed by an automotive manufacturer that now produces more than 10,000 vehicles per twelve calendar months. It is uncertain at this time what the agreed upon terms of such an agreement might be that satisfies the interest of both parties. My primary concern in requesting an opinion is to assure myself that North American Classics does not inadvertently contract away its rights to apply for certain exemptions from FMVSS should the need to do so arise.

I thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard.

Thomas W. Elkins Secretary

ID: aiam2002

Dear Mr. Lightcap: This responds to your letter of June 12, 1975, requesting confirmatio that you as a final-stage manufacturer would only have to check the application and release times of a truck whose chassis you shortened or lengthened in order to certify that vehicle to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Certification of vehicles to the standard is an area which ou statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturers, and in which, aside from discussion of general principles, the agency has declined to issue statements of approval.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated tha actual road tests by final stage manufacturers are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard No. 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small organizations cannot be expected to test to the same scale or by the same methods as the large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers are expected to use statutory 'due care' to see that their products conform.; From this discussion it should be apparent that verifying only th brake actuation and release functions will probably be an insufficient basis for certifying that the vehicle will comply, for example, with the stopping distance requirements of the standard. Engineering calculations may, however, satisfy you, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle as modified meets all the requirements of the standard.; The incomplete vehicle documentation provided with the vehicle woul generally serve as the basis of certification to equipment requirements, to the degree that the equipment is undisturbed. The addition of an axle may cause the air reservoirs to no longer satisfy the air volume requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3737

Dear Mr. Le Guen: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of thi office asking several questions with respect to the amendment of Standard No. 108, June 2, 1983, which permits semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamps.; First, you mention certain sealing specifications, contrasting the with references to designed openings, and ask for our comments on this. Although the design that Ford intends to use is not a vented system, the amendment does not specify or prohibit either vented or unvented systems. A vented system using the standardized replaceable light source and the O-ring seal is permissable (sic) if the headlamp passes all the recently adopted environmental tests.; With reference to your further questions, there are no tolerances o the dust test. You have also asked whether, assuming that a European type headlamp using the new light source 'passes all tests mentioned in the amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval?' If the lens- reflector unit is bonded, and if with the light source inserted the lamp meets U.S. photometric requirements and all environmental tests specified in the amendment, then the manufacturer of the lamp may apply the D.O.T. symbol to it. This is the certification that the lamp meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under this self- certification process, the manufacturer, rather than D.O.T., approves the lamp for sale.; Finally, you have asked who will manufacture the new bulb and where yo might be able to obtain test samples. Ford's initial supplier will be Sylvania/GTE, and you may write GTE Products Corp., West Main Street, Hillsboro, NH 03249, Attn: Mr. Richardson.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3512

Dear Mr. Granatelli: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1981, with respect t 'a non-substantive disagreement' of your Safety Alert Device 'with a strict interpretation of (FMVSS No. 108)'. Your system is wired into and operated through a vehicle's back-up lamp system which you have modified by adding 'a yellow sleeve over half of the back-up light bulb'. You state that the light cast is 'essentially the same as the white light. You further say that any deviation from Standard No. 108's requirement that back-up lamps emit white light is 'nonsubstantive'.; I assume that your letter to me is in response to the one that Georg Parker, Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, sent you on September 2, 1981. In that letter he explained that S4.1.3 prohibits the addition of equipment 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment' required by Standard No. 108, and stated that any activation of your system while the back-up lamps are in operation would be covered by this prohibition. As for color, you were informed that S4.1.3 imposed an absolute prohibition if the color of the light emitted by the deceleration warning system were green or white.; We cannot concur that the deviation from Standard No. 108 i 'non-substantive'. Standard No. 108 requires back-up lamps to be installed in motor vehicles and to emit a white light. We view S4.1.3 as precluding any device that would operate lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 for a purpose other than that for which it is originally installed. Further, even if your system did not operate through the back-up lamp system but through separate and additional lamps, we would view use of a color other than red or amber as an impairment of the equipment originally installed to indicate the deceleration through braking of the vehicle (*i.e.*,, stop lamps).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2140

Dear Mr. MacEachern: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of you wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by 'federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971.'; Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since i does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.; You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol statin that it was amending its regulations; >>>'to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the typ 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation'.<<<; Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded b Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.; Notwithstanding California's 'approval' of your headlamp, your sale o this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a) (1) (A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $1,000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5496

Dear Mr. Brooks: This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, t John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ('IAD') is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but 'will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards.' You have asked for help 'with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary.' Because we did not understand what you meant by 'definition', Taylor Vinson of this Office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the extent of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash demonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification. Your letter also asks about 'the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future.' Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998, and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on. Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2000

Dear Mr. Lightcap: This responds to your letter of June 12, 1975, requesting confirmatio that you as a final-stage manufacturer would only have to check the application and release times of a truck whose chassis you shortened or lengthened in order to certify that vehicle to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Certification of vehicles to the standard is an area which ou statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturers, and in which, aside from discussion of general principles, the agency has declined to issue statements of approval.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated tha actual road tests by final stage manufacturers are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard No. 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small organizations cannot be expected to test to the same scale or by the same methods as the large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers are expected to use statutory 'due care' to see that their products conform.; From this discussion it should be apparent that verifying only th brake actuation and release functions will probably be an insufficient basis for certifying that the vehicle will comply, for example, with the stopping distance requirements of the standard. Engineering calculations may, however, satisfy you, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle as modified meets all the requirements of the standard.; The incomplete vehicle documentation provided with the vehicle woul generally serve as the basis of certification to equipment requirements, to the degree that the equipment is undisturbed. The addition of an axle may cause the air reservoirs to no longer satisfy the air volume requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel