ID: 1767y

Mr. Richard L. Story, Sr.
34855 Annapolis Ave.
Wayne, MI 48184-2133

Dear Mr. Story:

This responds to your letter asking whether manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no.

The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird.

We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NHTSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:4/3/89

ID: nht92-6.15

DATE: June 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/92 from Robert S. McLean to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts. In response to your March 9, 1992 letters, I sent you a March 30, 1992 letter explaining how our requirements apply to automatic belts. Specifically, I explained that an automatic shoulder belt is not a Type 2a belt, as defined in Standard No. 209, and that automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts. I noted that all the requirements applicable to automatic belts are set forth in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208.

On May 19, 1992, you sent a FAX to Steve Kratzke of this office asking for a further clarification of the requirements applicable to automatic belts. You followed the FAX up with a telephone call on May 27, 1992, during which you explained that you were seeking an opinion from me with respect to an interpretation that is being asserted in litigation in which you are involved. The issue involves the crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection and sets forth specific belt installation requirements for each option. However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This section provides that an automatic seat belt assembly may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required by that option.

You explained that another party in your litigation is asserting that an automatic belt, which consists solely of a shoulder belt, could not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of any option in S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. This is so because, according to this argument, an automatic belt which consists solely of a shoulder belt is not a "seat belt assembly." The reason it is asserted that a shoulder belt alone cannot be a "seat belt assembly" is that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 requires that "a seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint." Since an automatic belt that consists solely of a shoulder belt does not provide pelvic restraint, this argument concludes that automatic belts that do not provide pelvic restraint must not be "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of Standard No. 209. If these belts are not seat belt assemblies, they are not eligible to be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 in place of seat belt assemblies otherwise required by Standard No. 208.

This argument is without merit. Contrary to the assertion in this argument, automatic belts which consist solely of a shoulder belt are "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 209. That section defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any

accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." An automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt falls squarely within this definition. Thus, an automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt may be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of the standard and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required.

It may be that this argument was offered because the person was not aware that automatic belts are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to manual seat belt assemblies, as explained in my March 30, 1992 letter to you. Thus, S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 does not apply to automatic belts. In place of Standard No. 209's general requirements for manual seat belt assemblies, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth special requirements for automatic belts. No provision of S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 precludes the use of automatic belts that consist solely of a shoulder belt.

I hope this information clarifies any lingering questions you may have had. As before, if you need any further information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 16039.nhf

Mr. Roger Gangitano
Nationwide Wheelchair Lift
1536 Cypress Avenue
Melbourne, FL 32935

Dear Mr. Gangitano:

This responds to your letter requesting "blanket approval" to remove the air bag sensor and disable the air bag system in all vehicles modified to be driven by a person with a disability in which the location of the vehicle's air bag sensor interferes with the installation of a power seat base. I regret the delay in responding. As explained below, our answer is we will not grant "blanket approval" to remove the sensor and disable the air bag system each time the installation of a power seat base requires removing the air bag sensor.

You explained that modifying a van to accommodate a person with a disability often necessitates the installation of a six or eight way power driver seat base. You stated that most vehicles could be fitted with a power seat base that did not interfere with the air bag sensor located beneath the driver's seat. However, you stated that the installation of a power seat base in certain vehicles, in particular the 1997 Chevy Astro or 1997 GMC Safari, required removal of the air bag sensor. Consequently, you explained that you would require the agency's authorization to remove the air bag sensor and disable the air bag system each time you needed to install a power seat base. You requested "blanket approval" for such situations so that you would not have to request authorization each time you must remove the air bag sensor to install a power seat base for a customer with a disability.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) would require businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which modifiers or repair businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. We have always done this on an individual, case by case basis.

In situations such as the one you describe where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of the "make inoperative" provision a purely technical one justified by public need. The agency has issued letters stating that it would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modified a vehicle to accommodate a particular person's disability. Although we understand your desire to avoid writing to the agency each time you need to install a power seat base in a vehicle where the location of the air bag sensor is incompatible with the power seat base, we will not grant blanket approval at this time for such a modification.

We do note, however, that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#208
d.2/18/98

ID: nht88-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: J. W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER COMPLIANCE VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORP

TO: ERIKA L. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS-124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 03/17/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LEON STEENBOCK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, manufacturer of "WHITEGMC" and importer of "VOLVO" trucks 26,000 lbs and greater GVWR, respectfully requests you reconsider and rescind the interpretation of FMVSS-124 issued by the Administration on March 17, 1988. Spe cifically, VolvoGM believes the March 17 statement "locking hand throttle controls are expressly prohibited by Standard 123" should either be rescinded or restated in such a way as to continue to allow installation of the devices described in this reques t.

All VolvoGM trucks available in the United States are diesel powered and do not have automatic low speed limiting devices such as automatic chokes used on gasoline engines. Like most, if not all heavy truck manufacturers, we install a hand throttle to a llow the driver to increase the low speed idle at will for a multitude of reasons. The most common uses of these hand throttle are for engine warmup, extended idle periods (some times in cold weather diesel trucks will not be shutdown for days) and voca tional applications such as pumping, ready mix delivery, compacting, etc. The vocational applications usually occur when the vehicle is stationary, however, there is no lockout device restricting their use to the non "drive" transmission positions. All hand throttles we install are "locking hand throttle controls" in that once set they hold engine idle at a driver selected level until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed or disengaged the throttle.

FMVSS-124 @ 4 Definitions addresses hand throttles.

"Idle position" means the position of the throttle at which it first comes in contact with an engine idle speed control appropriate for existing conditions according to the manufacturers recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning, and emission control, and the use of throttle setting devices." (emphasis added)

Source: 37FR pg. 20035 September 23, 1972

The throttle setting or hand throttle control provisions of the Standard are in direct response to a Mack Truck petition addressing hand throttles for heavy duty diesel truck. The FR37, No. 186 preamble discussion on page 20033 dated September 23, 19 72 expresses the Administration's intent at the time the Standard was promulgated.

"Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position". Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within t he same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the use of throttle positioners."

The standard has been in effect for 15 years during which time hundreds of thousands of heavy duty diesel trucks have been equipped with these devices apparently with no safety problems. We trust this discussion clears the technical issues and if we may be of assistance are most willing.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: aiam4941

"Dear Mr. Conway: I have been asked to respond to your letter t Administrator Curry, in which you asked about the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, to van conversions and motor homes with raised roofs. In your letter, you suggested that the currently specified roof crush resistance test procedure is inappropriate for such vehicles because of their unique physical characteristics. Additionally, referring to the greater floor to roof height of a van conversion or motor home as compared to a typical passenger car, you questioned whether the five inch roof displacement pass/fail criteria are appropriate for these vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address these issues. As you know, on April 17, 1991, NHTSA published a final rule extending the application of Standard No. 216 to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 (56 FR 15510). That rule requires that the roof of any such vehicles be moved not more than five inches when a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight is applied to either side of the forward edge of the vehicle's roof. This is the same test procedure specified for passenger cars, with one exception. For passenger cars, the standard specifies applying a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less. As indicated above, the alternative 5,000 pound crush force limit that applies for passenger cars was not adopted for light trucks, buses, and MPVs. During the rulemaking process that led to this extension of Standard No. 216, NHTSA received comments requesting that the agency consider modifying the roof crush resistance test procedure to accommodate the particular physical characteristics of some motor homes, vans and van conversions, including those with raised roofs. More specifically, some commenters including RVIA suggested that the specified test procedures could not be used to position the test device on some vehicles with raised roofs. Other commenters, especially Ford, questioned the need for a five-inch roof crush limitation for vehicles with full standing headroom and suggested that NHTSA consider relating the maximum roof crush requirement to the available occupant headroom. After carefully evaluating these comments, NHTSA concluded that, based upon the available information, the roof crush resistance test procedure was practicable, met the need for motor vehicle safety, and was appropriate for MPVs, trucks, and buses, if those vehicles had a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. The issues identified by the commenters were significant primarily for such vehicles with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. NHTSA acknowledged that it was possible that there could be some light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that would experience the same problems with the specified roof crush resistance test procedure as larger vehicles would. However, the agency had no information showing that those difficulties would actually be experienced by particular light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. See 56 FR 15514, April 17, 1991. In your letter, you raised the same issues that had previously been raised in these comments, that is, you suggested that the test device could not be positioned properly on vehicles with a raised roof and that the five inch crush displacement limit was inappropriate for vehicles with a raised roof. As was the case with those comments, your letter did not provide any specific information identifying particular vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less whose physical characteristics would cause it to experience some particular compliance difficulties or testing difficulties. If you have some information showing compliance or testing difficulties for actual light truck models with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to the agency. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of any compliance or testing difficulties for light trucks subject to the extended requirements of Standard No. 216. Absent such information, NHTSA has no basis for changing its previous conclusion about the specified test procedures and requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht68-2.45

DATE: 05/31/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of January 15 and March 25, 1958, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to snow removal and heavy duty on-off highway vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh.

Standard No. 108 requires that headlamps be mounted not more than 54 inches above the road surface. Since your snow removal vehicles may be used in hauling operations as a secondary function, and since your heavy duty vehicles are used on the public roads, they are required to be equipped with headlamps located in accordance with Standard No. 108. Additional headlamps mounted on the cab roof or elsewhere on the front of the snow removal vehicle is permitted by the standard.

With reference to your heavy duty vehicles, headlamps located in the bumper, with adequate openings in front of the headlamps; or headlamps located below the bumpere, with protective shields around the headlamps would be permitted by Standard No. 108.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, we must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard. The certification information that you have provided us in your letter of January 15 is in accordance with our requirements.

We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with the existing safety standards.

ID: nht73-4.9

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hyland Manufacturing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which you asked whether the date a vehicle is completed, with reference to the date of manufacture placed on the vehicle certification label, is the date a vehicle comes off the "main production line" or the date it comes out of the "final finish production area".

On this question we are willing, in light of the wide variety of possible factual situations, to let a manufacturer use his own discretion within reasonable limits. As you have described your situation, either date may be used, up to the point where the last physical operations are completed. The "final quality control checkout", however, would appear to be an operation taking place after the manufacture as we normally understand it is completed.

ID: nht89-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WENDELL D. KEGG -- TIRE WHEEL CONSULTANTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/14/88 FROM WENDELL D. KEGG TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2560

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kegg:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. You were uncertain about section S4.3.1's requirements related to the inflation pressure for spare tires specified on vehic le placards. You asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire's sidewall.

As you know, FMVSS 110 sets forth requirements related to vehicle placards in passenger cars. Section S4.3 requires that the placard be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location" and display the vehicle capacit y weight; the designated seating capacity; the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition; and the ve hicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. FMVSS 110 does not have any provision requiring the inclusion of information on the placard related to spare tires or air pressure related to spare tires. Accordingly, a passenger car manufacturer may, but is not required to, specify information related to spare tires on the placard.

In response to your question whether a passenger car manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the spare tire's sidewall, section S4.3.1 of FMVSS 110 states that the vehicle placar d must not specify an "inflation pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure" required to be molded on the tire itself by section S4.3 of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, unless the alternative inflation pressure satisfies the three con ditions set forth in S4.3.1. The first condition requires that the alternative inflation pressure be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The second condition requires that the vehicle loading condition be specified for the alternative reduced pressure. The third condition requires that the tire load rating be specified by an individual manufacturer for the tire size at that inflation pressure that

is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that vehicle loading condition. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify on its placard an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum permissible inflation pressure.

I am enclosing a December 13, 1984 letter to Mr. Alberto Negro of Fiat, which explains the agency's position concerning a manufacturer's specification on the placard of an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire. As that letter indicates, a manufacturer would have to meet each of the conditions specified in section S4.3.1, including that the alternative inflation pressure must be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Because spare tires are sub ject to these requirements like any other pneumatic tire, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on that tire.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 1651y

Mr. Wendell D. Kegg
Tire/Wheel Consultants
12190 Hoover Avenue, OH 44685

Dear Mr. Kegg:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. You were uncertain about section S4.3.1's requirements related to the inflation pressure for spare tires specified on vehicle placards. You asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire's sidewall.

As you know, FMVSS 110 sets forth requirements related to vehicle placards in passenger cars. Section S4.3 requires that the placard be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location" and display the vehicle capacity weight; the designated seating capacity; the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition; and the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. FMVSS 110 does not have any provision requiring the inclusion of information on the placard related to spare tires or air pressure related to spare tires. Accordingly, a passenger car manufacturer may, but is not required to, specify information related to spare tires on the placard.

In response to your question whether a passenger car manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the spare tire's sidewall, section S4.3.1 of FMVSS 110 states that the vehicle placard must not specify an "inflation pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure" required to be molded on the tire itself by section S4.3 of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, unless the alternative inflation pressure satisfies the three conditions set forth in S4.3.1. The first condition requires that the alternative inflation pressure be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The second condition requires that the vehicle loading condition be specified for the alternative reduced pressure. The third condition requires that the tire load rating be specified by an individual manufacturer for the tire size at that inflation pressure that is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that vehicle loading condition. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify on its placard an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum permissible inflation pressure.

I am enclosing a December 13, 1984 letter to Mr. Alberto Negro of Fiat, which explains the agency's position concerning a manufacturer's specification on the placard of an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire. As that letter indicates, a manufacturer would have to meet each of the conditions specified in section S4.3.1, including that the alternative inflation pressure must be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Because spare tires are subject to these requirements like any other pneumatic tire, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on that tire.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:109#110 d:l/l8/89

ID: nht88-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL A. RENEAU

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER UNDATED TO NHTSA FROM PAUL A. RENEAU, OCC - 1495

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reneau:

This is a response to your undated letter which this agency received in January 1988. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you presented a schematic and an engineering explanation of a power window system design and operation, an d asked whether the system meets Federal safety standard 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR @ 571.118). Based on my understanding of the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that your power window system would comply with Standard 1 18.

As I understand your system description, there are two electrical circuits that control power window operations. In the principal circuit, when the vehicle ignition key system is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, the power windows are operable. In m ost power-operated window systems, turning the ignition key to the "OFF" position means that the power windows no longer are operable.

However, in your system, a second, parallel circuit connects to the power window motor, and provides an energy source to allow an operator to close a power window when the ignition key is in the "OFF" position. The parallel energy source permits operati on only for a limited time period controlled by the electronic circuitry. My understanding is that with your design, the parallel circuit includes door switches which stop power window operation irrespective of the ignition key system position, whenever either vehicle front door is opened during the window closing sequence. According to your diagram and explanation, in such a circumstance, an operator must close the door, and return the ignition key to the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position to reactivate th e power window system.

Paragraph S3 of Standard 118 specifies that power window systems may be closed only under certain listed conditions. One of those conditions is when the ignition key is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, as specified in S3(a). When the ignition key is in the "OFF" position, the power windows may be closed only under the conditions described in S3(b)

(by muscular force unassisted by a vehicle power source), S3(c) (upon activation of a key-locking system on the exterior of the vehicle), or S3(d). Paragraph S3(d) reads as follows:

During the interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of e ither of its front doors.

Based on my understanding of the information you supplied, the only time the power windows in your system can be closed with the ignition key in the "OFF" position is during the interval between engine deactivation and opening of either of the vehicle's front doors. Standard 118 expressly permits this, so your system appears to comply with that standard.

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

Sincerely,