ID: nht94-2.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Derrick Barker -- John Martin Designs (Stourbridge, West Midlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/93 from Derrick Barker to Mary Versilles (Versailles)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the buckle release requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You asked for the "tensile load requirements for the buckle and tongue." There is no specific requirement in Standard 213 for the tensile force that a child restraint buckle must withstand. Instead, the buckle must maintain its integrity when the chil d restraint is subjected to a simulated frontal impact at 30 mph with either a six-month-old (17 pounds (lbs.)) or three-year-old (33 lbs.) sized dummy restrained in the car seat. At the conclusion of the simulated impact, the force required to depress the latch button to release the buckle is measured and must be 16 lbs. or less.

You also asked for a copy of Procedure D of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D756-78. Section S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 213 sets forth those requirements by making reference to section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209. which, in turn, leads to the reference to Procedure D of ASTM D756-78. The material you requested is enclosed.

In addition, you asked for a list of laboratories that test child safety seats and buckles. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint complia nce tests. There may be other laboratories that can test child safety seats and buckles.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have further questions.

LABORATORIES CONDUCTING CHILD RESTRAINT COMPLIANCE TESTS (Partial List - Addresses current as of Dec. 1993) CALSPAN CORPORATION (CAL) 4455 Genesee St. Buffalo, NY 14225 Phone: 716-632-7500 FAX: 716-631-6843

COMMERCIAL TESTING CO. (CTC) (Flammability testing) 1215 S. Hamilton Street Dalton, GA 30722-0985 Phone: 404-278-3935 FAX: 404-278-3936 DETROIT TESTING LABORATORY, INC (DTL) 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren, Mi 48092-0869 Phone: 313-754-9000 FAX: 313-754-9045

MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION (MGA) 12790 Main Road P.O. Box 71 Akron, NY 14001-0071 Phone: 716-542-5515 FAX: 716-542-4437

MGA PROVING GROUNDS 5000 Warren Road Burlington, WI 53105 Phone: 414-763-2705 FAX: 414-763-0934

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MSE) 19867 Cajon Blvd San Bernadino, CA 92407 Phone: 909-887-1938 FAX: 909-887-5937

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 9920 LaCienega Blvd., Suite 708 Inglewood, CA 90301 Phone: 310-641-3606 FAX: 310-641 -1930

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER OF OHIO (TRC) 10820 State Route 347 P.O. Box B67 East Liberty, OH 43319 Phone: 513-666-2011 FAX: 513-666-5066

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (UST) - (Flammability testing) Engineering Services Division 291 Fairfield Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: 201-575-5252 FAX: 201-575-8271

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: 201-792-2400 FAX: 201-656-0636

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE (UMTRI) 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150 Phone: 313-936-1103

ID: nht94-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax/letter dated 2/14/94 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC 9677)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, relating to a policy of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regarding importation of vehicles from Canada.

Under this policy, and because of the close congruence of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards of both the U.S. and Canada, OVSC has, in essence, waived the requirement for bond and entry through the registered importer process if the Canadian vehi cle is accompanied by a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. standards, except for minor labelling variations. You state that this policy has been restricted to personally owned vehicles and does not allow "importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use." Instead, these vehicles must be entered under bond and conformance verified or achieved by a registered importer. You state that you do not understand t he distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, as a general matter, a noncomplying vehicle may enter the United States permanently only if it is imported by a registered importer who brings it into compliance. However, an exception is made by 15 U.S.C. 1397(f)(1)(B) which allows importation by a person other than a registered importer if that person has a conformance contract with a registered importer and if the vehicle is imported "for personal use, and not for purposes of resale, by any i ndividual (other than an individual described in subsections (g) and (h)). . . ." The term "individual" refers to a human being and not a corporate person. Therefore, the Act distinguishes both as to whether an importation is for personal use AND wheth er the importer is an individual or a corporation.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht94-2.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributor Association, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/14/94 and 1/12/94 from Richard Kreutziger to Walter Myers (OCC 9559); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This responds to your Fax of January 12, 1994, requesting an information on the extent to which a state can adopt requirements for school buses which exceed the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This also responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the location requirements for a side emergency door exit in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

Your January 12, 1994 FAX requested clarification of when a state could impose requirements on school buses which exceeded the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Specifically, you asked whether the state could impose suc h requirements on (1) a public school and (2) a contractor providing transportation for a public school. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State o r political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with th e otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable FMVSS that are different from the applicable FMVSS, except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirements would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires ALL school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would n ot be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. In addition, the agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a pri vate contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

Your February 14, 1994 FAX asked whether the November 2 final rule permits a right side emergency exit door to be to the rear of the passenger compartment.

The answer is yes. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors. I have attached for your i nformation an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

(Appendix omitted.)

ID: nht94-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 11, 1994

FROM: David Huff -- Co. Chairperson Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University

TO: Charles Holt -- NHTSA

TITLE: Wheelchair Restraint Standards Clarification

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/14/94: Letter from John Womack to David Huff (Stds. 209 & 222)

TEXT: The Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation, 1995 Standards for Special Needs Bus Body Committee is currently working on appropriate standards for wheelchair and occupant restraint systems. During our research, we have encountered a situati on we feel requires clarification by your office.

Wheelchair securement anchorages as defined in FMUSS 222, $ 5.4.1.1 through $ 5.4.1.3 requires that the anchorage(s) withstand certain force. Paragraph $ 5.4.1.3 indicates when more than one securement device share a common anchorage, the anchorage shal l be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 newtons multiplied by the number of securement devices sharing that anchorage. We agree with this requirement.

Wheelchair securement devices as indicated in paragraph $ 5.4.2, if incorporating webbing or strap, shall comply with the requirements of type 1 safety belt systems in $ 4.2, $ 4.3 and $ 4.4(a) of FMUSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

Many of the wheelchair and occupant restraint systems use an Integrated occupant restraint system which is anchored in series with the wheelchair securement device, such that, the lap belt anchors to the wheelchair securement near the wheelchair seat.

Our concern is that the webbing or strap for the wheelchair securement device in the integrated system has not been addressed in the amendments to FMUSS 222. It is our feeling that the wheelchair securement device webbing or strap on the integrated syst em should be required to withstand twice the normal load indicated in FMUSS 289, since this webbing or strap is actually securing both the rear of the wheelchair and the occupant simultaneously.

Several manufacturer's adjustment hardware is designed in such a manner that the webbing or strap is doubled in order to remove slack from the securement device. However, there are others who use only a single webbing for this purpose.

Please advice us of your understanding or interpretation of the load requirements for the webbing or strap used in the integrated systems. This information is needed as soon as possible so we may continue drafting our proposed standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht94-2.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eldon J. McLauchlin -- President, Valley Automotive Specialties, Inc. (Spokane, Washington)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/25/94 from Eldon J. McLauchlin to John Womack (OCC 9612)

TEXT:

This responds to your January 25, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Automated Fire Extinguisher System (AFES). You state that your product's purpose is to allow the operators and occupants of a vehi cle to exit safely in the event of a fire. Apparently, the AFES sensors will detect smoke and heat and respond by automatically opening some sort of control valve, whereupon a manifold assembly with "strategically placed directional nozzles" will flood the passenger compartment with some sort of fire extinguisher/retardant. You do not state what kind of fire extinguisher/retardant is used. You explain that the automatic nature of this system will provide time to extract even an unconscious or incapac itated operator or occupant.

Apparently, the AFES has wide applicability. You explain that the AFES proto-type can be installed in a car, truck, boat, RV, or bus or other vehicle running on a 12 volt battery. Apparently you will modify the AFES so that it will run off the 110 volt current in homes and commercial buildings.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS'S) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to t he motor vehicle... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We de termine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is i ntended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the AFES, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial

portion of the expected use of the AFES system relates to motor vehicle operation. The system is intended to protect anyone occupying a vehicle when a fire occurs. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor veh icles.

While it appears that the AFES system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the pr oduct's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

We have some concerns about the safety impacts if the AFES were to activate while the vehicle is moving. Is it possible, for example, that a driver smoking in the car on a hot day could accidentally set off the sensors, or that they could malfunction sp ontaneously? Although we do not know what will be coming through the nozzles (fluid, foam, and inert gases are common fire extinguishing agents), we are concerned that AFES activation could cause the driver to lose control in what is otherwise a control lable situation. We urge you to thoroughly consider these and other factors that could affect the safety of motor vehicle operation.

If the AFES were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the AFES installed complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by certain AFES insta llations are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," and Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection."

A commercial business that installs the AFES system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable F ederal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 208 might be degra ded if it were necessary to mount the AFES manifold or directional nozzles in front of the driver or passenger. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each viola tion.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the AFES in their own vehicl es, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA

encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Roberts -- John H. Roberts Well Drilling Co. (Brighton, MI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/7/94 from J. Roberts to John Womack (OCC 9780)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1994. You ask for clarification of the agency's position on HMMMV vehicles, as expressed in our letter to Senator Nunn, a copy of which I sent you on February 28.

Specifically, you ask for "the list of the specific objections your department based its recommendation on." As we explained to Senator Nunn, this agency has specifically exempted military motor vehicles from the statutory requirement that all motor veh icles be manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The standards that would otherwise cover HMMMV vehicles are those that apply to "multipurpose passenger vehicles" or to "trucks", depending upon the end configura tion of any specific HMMMV vehicle.

Thus, our objection was based on the fact that military HMMMVs are not manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have no knowledge of the specific standards that military HMMMVs do and do not meet, since we have never asked its manufacturer to provide this information.

ID: nht94-2.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Massillon, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from Adam A. Freund to Walter Myers (OCC 9556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors.

You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space, in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation.

Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4-inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5- inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. Th e correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I.

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion.

ID: nht94-2.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ted H. Richardson -- Fleet Coordinator, Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Mt. Pleasant, Texas)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Ted H. Richardson to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9478)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone c onversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert live stock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable t o motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

(A) motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3 is c omposed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channe l livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped doll y which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute.

With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not c onsidered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour ar e not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor veh icles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, inclu ding FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Hulshof -- Nedap N.V. (The Netherlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter/fax dated 12/14/93 from J. Hulshof to Patrick Boyd (OCC 9448)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Patrick Boyd requesting a written interpretation concerning whether your sunroof would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or g ives assurances of compliance of any product. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these r esponses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and are subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine your product and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those resu lts will control.

You explain in your letter that your power-operated sunroof (which is a power operated "roof panel system" under Standard 118) can be closed only in four circumstances. In three of these, the ignition key must be activated. In the fourth, the sunroof c an be closed when there is "Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable (sic) closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle."

Standard 118 requires sunroofs other than those that have an automatic reversing feature to close only in certain circumstances. One of those (S4(a)) is when the key controlling the vehicle's engine is in the activated (i.e. "on", "start" or "accessory" ) position. The three circumstances you described where the ignition key must be activated to operate the sunroof appear to satisfy S4(a).

With regard to the fourth circumstance, Standard 118 also permits sunroofs to close "Upon continuous activation of a remote actuation device, provided that the...device shall be incapable of closing the (sunroof) from a distance of more than 6 meters fro m the vehicle" (S4(d)). The circumstance you described appears to satisfy S4(d). Your sunroof will close only upon continuous operation of a "Central close mechanism," and the mechanism is incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: Christopher A. Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Doug Bereuter -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/94 from Doug Bereuter to Howard Smolkin

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter concerning a rulemaking related to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. You express concern about the time it is taking to complete the rulemaking.

I fully understand your concern over this matter and want to assure you that the agency is working diligently to reach a final decision. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking we issued in December 1993 was an essential step toward permitting the use of CNG containers that employ new technologies. We have now reviewed the comments received on this notice and are preparing the final rule. As agency representatives explained when they met with you in December 1993, the final rule will be reviewe d by the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

ATTACHMENT 12/3/93

Dear Congressman Doug Bereuter:

This is in response to your November 22, 1993, letter regarding the actions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in regulating the safe performance of compressed natural gas motor vehicles and fuel containers. I understand that represen tatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are scheduled to meet with you during the week of December 6 to discuss the points you raised in your letter. I think that they will be able to address your concerns at that time; however, I' d be happy to talk with you further about this if necessary.

Sincerely,

Federico Pena