ID: nht90-1.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1990

FROM: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President,Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Michael F. Trentacoste -- Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3- 23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598)

TEXT:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has recently received a copy of your letter of August 8, 1989, to Ms. Karen Finkel, Executive Director of the National School Transportation Association, Springfield, Virginia. Thomas is vitally concerned with the opinion you ha ve expressed in your letter regarding the requirements for school buses that, by definition are engaged in "interstate commerce", to comply with the non-school bus requirements for emergency exits as specified in FMVSS No. 217, (571.217), as released on September 1, 1973.

Our concern is rooted in the fact that because of the special requirements of school bus seating, it is patently impossible, in many critical applications, to comply with these requirements.

As you are aware, the NHTSA has revised FMVSS 217 subsequent to the September 1973 issue date. We refer primarily to the revisions made effective October 26, 1976 and February 10, 1982. You are probably not aware of two letters of interpretation receiv ed by Thomas Built Buses, Inc. from the Office of Chief Counsel of NHTSA in 1977 and 1984, as well as recent interpretations received from the legal staff of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge et.al., all of which Thomas believes are in disagreement with the opi nion expressed in your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel. We present for your consideration the following items:

1. Prior to the revisions to FMVSS 217 (571.217) by the NHTSA in 1976 and 1982, the language of FMCSR 393.61(b) (2) requiring that "a bus, including a school bus....must conform with NHTSA's 571.217"....left no alternative but that the schoo l bus "engaged in interstate commerce" would have to meet the non-school bus requirements since, because of the exclusion of school buses by NHTSA from these requirements, only non-school bus requirements were spelled out. The 1976 and 1982 Revisions to FMVSS 217 by NHTSA removed the exclusion for school buses spelled out in the September, 1973 version of FMVSS 217 and added specific emergency exit requirements for school buses of all classes.

Currently, with no revisions to the language of section 393.61(b) (2), the reference of 393.61(b) (2) to 571.217 now points the school bus user to the school bus requirements, and not to the non-school bus requirements.

2. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA re application of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. J. J. Levine, Jr., NOA-30, September 29, 1977) verified that paragraph S5.2 containing the requirements for buses other than school buses does indeed apply only to non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

3. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA, again re applications of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. Frank Berndt, letter to Mr. Ron Marion dated July 5, 1984) verified that even in the cas e of school buses that are also used for "charter buses or general transit vehicles", these buses do not need to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 for non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

4. In a separate review of the facts of this matter by the legal firm of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has been advised that in their opinion, school buses are not required, in any instance of usage or travel, to comply with the non-school bus requirements of FMVSS 217. A copy of this letter is attached.

Mr. Trentacoste, in light of the information submitted herein, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. respectfully requests that your office review and revise your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel to bring it into agreement with these interpretations.

We appreciate your taking the time to review this material, and look forward to hearing from your office on this matter.

ID: nht94-2.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TO: Edward Jettner -- Safety Standards Engineer, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 208 Compliance for 1988 Pickup Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/94 from John Womack to Michael E. Klima (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you in advance for your time and effort in responding to the following questions relating to the application of the dynamic requirements of FMVSS 208 to pickup trucks. The pickup truck in questions has a production date of April, 1988 and a GVWR o f 4,400 pounds.

Specifically, does the S6 'Injury Criteria' requirements of 49 CFR 571.208, that includes the Head Injury Criteria (HIC), apply to this 1988 model pickup truck equipped with a Type 2 lap and shoulder belt protection system for the front outboard seating positions and complies with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3?

Secondly, is a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test required for this 1988 model pickup truck to comply with all applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.208?

Finally, do all of the requirements listed in the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? If not, which portions of 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? Is this truck in compliance with the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard if it meets or exceeds th e portions that you have identified?

I would appreciate your timely written response with regard to this matter. For your convenience a copy of the standard is enclosed. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Please contact me at (810) 649-3775 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-7.17

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TO: Edward Jettner -- Safety Standards Engineer, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 208 Compliance for 1988 Pickup Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/94 from John Womack to Michael E. Klima (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you in advance for your time and effort in responding to the following questions relating to the application of the dynamic requirements of FMVSS 208 to pickup trucks. The pickup truck in questions has a production date of April, 1988 and a GVWR of 4,400 pounds.

Specifically, does the S6 'Injury Criteria' requirements of 49 CFR 571.208, that includes the Head Injury Criteria (HIC), apply to this 1988 model pickup truck equipped with a Type 2 lap and shoulder belt protection system for the front outboard seating positions and complies with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3?

Secondly, is a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test required for this 1988 model pickup truck to comply with all applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.208?

Finally, do all of the requirements listed in the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? If not, which portions of 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? Is this truck in compliance with the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard if it meets or exceeds the portions that you have identified?

I would appreciate your timely written response with regard to this matter. For your convenience a copy of the standard is enclosed. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Please contact me at (810) 649-3775 if you have any questions.

ID: nht92-2.36

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK

TO: WILBUR D. OWENS, III, ESQUIRE -- BOUHAN, WILLIAMS & LEVY, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-15-92 FROM WILBUR D. OWENS, III TO OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA (OCC 7761)

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992.

You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both.

Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $ 30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $ 22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with "NCC-20."

Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings.

The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude "walk-in vans" from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term "walk-in van" is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of "walk-in van" to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines "walk-in van" as "a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position." See S2.1.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 7761

Wilbur D. Owens, III, Esquire
Bouhan, Williams & Levy
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
The Armstrong House
Bull & Gaston Streets
Post Office Box 2139
Savannah, GA 31498-1001

Dear Mr. Owens:

This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992.

You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both.

Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with "NCC-20."

Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings.

The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude "walk-in vans" from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term "walk-in van" is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of "walk-in van" to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines "walk-in van" as "a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position." See S2.1.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#571 d:11/10/92

ID: 006341drn-2

Mr. Thomas V. Kazyaka
Chief Executive Officer
T.V.K. Industries, Inc.
P. O. Box 1161
Gualala, CA 95445

Dear Mr. Kazyaka:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Raymond P. Owings, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations, Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Analysis, expressing the view that manual transmission shift levers "may be required to be backlit and possibly display the gear engaged" in order to comply with S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. Because your letter seeks a legal interpretation, I am responding on Dr. Owings behalf. As explained below, S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 does not require manual transmission shift levers to identify the gear engaged or have backlighting.

S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 specifies the following requirements for vehicles with manual transmissions:

Manual transmissions. Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

While this paragraph requires identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, it neither requires identification of the gear engaged nor backlighting.

I also note that no other FMVSS requires vehicles with only manual transmission shift levers to identify the gear engaged or to have backlighting.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:101#102
d.10/15/03

ID: nht81-3.7

DATE: 08/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1981 asking for an "exemption" from the requirement of paragraph S4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that an illuminated pilot indicator be provided in each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit.

In your opinion, the front turn signal lamps mounted on the handlebars of certain motor scooters that you manufacture can serve as pilot indicators; if a front turn signal lamp fails to operate, the failure is readily apparent to the operator; if a left turn signal lamp fails, there is an "appreciable change in the flashing rate" of the front lamp.

We concur in your interpretation. Although S4.5.6 does require the indicator, SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, incorporated by reference, requires it only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Because the operability of both front and rear turn signal lamps on the vehicles you describe may be confirmed by the front turn signal alone, the front lamp is the functional equivalent of a turn signal indicator, and a separate indicator need not be provided.

As this is a matter of long-standing interpretation of Standard No. 108 we have no plans to amend S4.5.6 to incorporate it.

SINCERELY,

Date: 7th July 1981.

To

The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Subject: Petition for exemption from the requirements for illuminated pilot indicator (Illegible Word) to 49 CFR PARTS 571 S 108 Lamps - Reflective devices and (Illegible Word) equipment.

Dear Sir,

We are herewith making a petition in connection with the above stated reference for exemption from fitting illuminated pilot indicator. The facts concerning this are placed below for your kind consideration.

PETITION:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, S 4.5.6 states "Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J 588 (e) Turn Signal Lamps" (September 1970) except where a variable lead turn signal flasher is used on a bus, truck, multipurpose passenger vehicle etc.

According to SAE J 568 (e) "Failure of one or more lamps to operate should be indicated by a "Steady On" or "Steady Off" or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated pilot indicator". Also it states "If any signal lamp is not readily visible to the driver, ther shall be as illuminated pilot indicator to give him a clear and (Illegible Word) indication that the turn signal system is turned "ON".

Also SAE J 568 (f) (Reference SAE Hand Book 1981) states "If one right and one left turn signal is not readily visible to the driver there shall be an illuminated indicator provided to give clear and unmistakable indication that the turn signal system is (Illegible Word)."

The Motor Scooters, we are manufacturing fall under the (Illegible Word) of Class I motorcycles. The scooters are provided with turn signal lamps both at the front and the rear. The front signal lamps, one left and one right are positioned on the handle bar and are directly in front of the rider and are fully visible to the rider. In our opinion those from signal lamps themselves can serve as pilot indicators based on the following analysis:

CASE (a): When both the signal lamps on one side, say right side are working, the front right lamp is visible to the rider.

CASE (b): If any of front signal lamp is not operating, the failure of it is directly observed by the rider.

CASE (c): The failure of rear lamp to operate is indicated by a appreciable change in the flashing rate of the front lamp.

In view of this, in our opinion, the vehicle conforms to the provisions of SAE J (e) and J 568 (f) without providing an illuminated pilot indicator.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF ORDER

In view of the above points made we would like exemption from the requirement of illuminated pilot indicator and also an ammendment in 49 CFR PART 108 S 4.5.6 saying "If visible to the rider, (Illegible Word) front signal lamp can serve as the pilot indicator".

We are enclosing herewith photographs illustrating the location of the front signal lamps on our vehicle for your observation and kind consideration.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:

M. S. (Illegible Word) MANAGER (RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT)

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED (Illegible Word)

(Illegible Word) - 411 055 INDIAN.

Thanking you, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

(M. S. (Illegible Word) MANAGER ((Illegible Word))

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 2521y

Mr. Ken Stone
Automotive Safety Engineering
Canewdon Consultants Group Limited
The Maltings, Locks Hill
South Street
Rochford, Essex SS4 1BB
England

Dear Mr. Stone:

This is in response to your telefax to Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning the definition of a walk-in van. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

You requested a definition of the term "walk-in van," particularly with regard to floor to roof height requirements, bulkhead requirements, step height requirements, and the presence of a front passenger seat. Although Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 uses the term to describe a specific type of vehicle, neither that standard nor any other agency regulation defines the term. None has been necessary to date since the term is largely self-defining. For a vehicle to be regarded as meeting the term, it must be possible for a person to enter the occupant compartment in an upright position. Examples of walk-in vans include the GMC Step Van, and the large delivery vans used by the U.S Postal Service and the United Parcel Service in this country.

If you need further information concerning whether the vehicle you propose to import would be considered a walk-in van, I suggest that you provide this office with information concerning the configuration and dimensions of the vehicle. Photographs of its interior and exterior would be helpful as well.

I hope you have found this information useful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref: VSA d:6/29/90

ID: nht91-5.4

DATE: July 22, 1991

FROM: Ernest Wolf -- President, Sky-Top Sunroofs, Ltd.

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS-118, Power Windows

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ernest Wolf (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation and opinion is submitted by the International Sunroof Institute (ISI), which I represent as the chairman of the Legislative Issues Subcommittee of the Technical Committee. ISI is an organization of approximately one dozen companies engaged in the manufacture and/or import/distribution of 'open air products' for the U.S. automotive market. ISI is incorporated as a non-profit organization in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Open air products include pop-out sunroofs, manual sliding and/or venting sunroofs, electric sliding and/or venting sunroofs, and manual or electric spoiler roof panels.

This request is being submitted specifically with the concurrence of those ISI member companies involved with power operated sunroofs, which will be covered by the FMVSS 118 rules as published in the April 16, 1991 issue of the Federal Register. The identities of these companies and the signatures of their representatives (via FAX communication) are shown on the attached Addendum.

Our request is for clarification of the applicability of the automatic reversing requirement when a one-time activated closing panel meets a resistive force of 22 lbs (10 kg or 100 Newtons) or more (ref Para. 571:118 Section 5(a)), with such applicability being related to operator location.

The background commentary preceding the proposed amended Standard No. 118, as published in the above cited reference, pages 15290-15295, and the amended rules proposed for implementation September 1, 1992, refer specifically to EXTERNAL key and non-key locking systems and to REMOTE control systems where continuous device activation is required to operate a power operated window system. Section 4(c) and Section 4(d) address exterior or remote activation devices; Section 5 specifically addresses one-time activation of EXTERIOR (a.1) or REMOTE (a.2) devices, or continuous activation from a distance of more than 20 feet (a.3). The reversing requirement by a force of 22 lbs or more relates only to these exterior or remote situations. That these were the singular focus and intention of this new rulemaking also becomes apparent when reading prior NHTSA publications and internal memos (e.g., B. Felrice to P. J. Rice, dated 10/16/90).

Therefore, it appears evident to us that the amended Standard No. 118 does not preclude roof panel closing by one-time activation of an internally positioned activator (switch) within a vehicle by an operator seated within that vehicle.

Legal Counsel is requested to provide an interpretation of the proposed rules relating specifically to the one-time activation of a sunroof panel

from the open to the closed mode (express close from open) by a vehicle operator, seated within the vehicle under either the Section 4(a) or Section 4(e) circumstances.

We respectfully submit that the proposed rules, as written, do not prohibit one-time activation for the closing of a power operated sunroof panel by a vehicle operator acting within 118 Section 4(a) or Section 4(e), and that the reversing pressure limitation in Section 5(a) does not apply to such a situation. The Legal Counsel's interpretation and opinion is sought at the earliest possible time.

ADDENDUM TO JULY 1, 1991 LETTER FROM ISI TO LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

The undersigned members of ISI (International Sunrool Institute) concur with the request for interpretation and opinion contained in referenced letter relating to FMVSS-118, Power Windows:

ASC Incorporated Skylite Sunroofs and Automotive One Sunroof Center Accessories, Inc. Southgate, Mi 489195 (Formerly C&C Inc.) 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, MI 48116

(Signature omitted) John Marcozzi, Director, Phillip Edwards, President Direct Sales and Secretary of ISI and ISI President

Donmar Enterprises, Inc. Webasto Sunroofs, Inc. 7980 Bayberry Road 2655 Product Drive Jacksonville, FL 32256-7410 Rochester Hills, MI 48063

(Signature omitted) (Signature omitted) Kal Levinson, President Mike Thibideau, Aftermarket and ISI Treasurer General Manager and ISI Vice President

Farmont Limited Partnership 350 East Douglas Road Oldsmar, FL 34677

Michael Winzkowski, Partner and ISI Member

ID: nht94-3.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York School Bus Distributors Assn. (Penn Yan, NY)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217(2))

TEXT:

As a liaison and so termed "answer man" for the NYS School Bus Distributors, a question has arisen relating to vehicles (school buses) less than 4,356 kilograms - and pupil capacity - because of special use - handicapped and other - having a passenger se ating capacity ranging from as low as two (2) to as much as sixteen (16) seated or wheelchair positions in combination.

The direct question - do these vehicles - less than 4,356 kilograms, have to be equipped with the retroreflective tape as depicted in S5.5.3 (c) "school bus"?

The question really arises in the fact that - in most other instances where GVWR is depicted as a related factor - unless there is a GVWR related factor for a lesser capacity the lesser capacity is not required or mandated to meet the same factors as the stated GVWR. (See S5.4.2.1 of the amended FMVSS 217

Any response to the "question" will be greatly appreciated, by myself and the membership of the association.