ID: nht92-3.35

DATE: 10/01/92

FROM: JESS R. THURMAN

TO: MARY VERSAILLES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JESS R. THURMAN (A40; STD. 207; STD. 208; STD. 209; STD. 210)

TEXT: On September 23, 1992, I talked to Mr. Jim Gilkey in the engineering department of National Highway Safety Admn. about moving seats and seat belts in a new Van. He informed me that he did not know the complete law on this. He advised me to write to you about this and explain my problem. He said that maybe each handicap case could be reviewed and some change could be made.

I am a disabled veteran confined to a wheelchair, wanting to buy a new Ford Van converted to my use with a wheelchair lift. I now have a 83 Ford Van with a lift. The two passenger captains chairs are moved back to make room for my wheelchair to enter. The bench seat is moved to the rear as for as it will go when lying down or up right. This makes it possible to keep all the seats in the Van for my family & I to take trips. This was all done before the law was passed that the seats & belts could not be moved. The chairs in my Van have floor seat belts, so it was no problem to move them.

With the new Vans, the three point hitch safety belts can not be moved according to law. Van Conversion Companies will not move the seat belt hook up, nor will the ford dealer.

If I have the two seats out, all I would have left is a bench seat for three people in the rear. It would be a shame to spend all this money for a Van and loose two seats.

If the two passenger captain chairs could be moved back about 30 inches and the seat belt hook up moved to match the chairs, this could all be done at the Van conversion plant. This way the seat and belts would be okay and safe.

My question is this, can these three point seat belts and chairs be moved back? If this could be moved may I have a letter to confirm that this can be done so that when I purchase a new Van I can take the letter and they can follow your instructions.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 812-867-2857.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-3.36

DATE: 09/30/92

FROM: EDNA SUTLIEF -- PROJECT CONCERN (ATCHISON, KANSAS)

TO: CHARLES GAUTHIER

TITLE: REQUEST FOR WRITTEN RESPONSE REGARDING USE OF SEATBELTS AND TIEDOWNS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO EDNA SUTLIEF (A40; STD. 208; STD. 209)

TEXT: Mrs. Edna Sutlief at Project Concern in Atchison, Kansas has requested written response regarding the use of seatbelts and or the use of tiedowns in vans used for transporting disabled and senior citizens at Project Concern.

I spoke with Art Neill who confirmed for me that there are no Federal mandates which cover seatbelt use for handicapped Passengers in lift-equipped vans. Mrs. Sutlief would like something in writing stating this, because she has a driver who is refusing to drive a van unless all passengers are using seatbelts.

Since The state of Kansas mandates the use of seatbelts only in front seats, Mrs. Sutlief is concerned that she or the Project Concern staff will be in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if they insist on seatbelts or tiedowns for disabled passengers riding in the rear of vans. I suggested posting something in each van encouraging the use of belts for everyone, and agreed to speak with someone about her request for something in writing.

Because of ADA and increasing awareness of the need to treat all equally in facilities such as Project concern, calls of this nature will probably increase. The hotline staff should have more information on how to answer these

ID: nht92-3.37

DATE: September 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark V. Schwartz -- Account Executive, Entran Devices, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Mark V. Schwartz to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7514)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies. Specifically, you were interested in the provisions for the Hybrid III test dummy set forth in Subpart E of Part 572. You noted that S572.36(g) provides that the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers "shall have the dimensions and characteristics of Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent." You provided a sheet setting forth dimensional and electrical response information for an accelerometer model produced by your company, the Entran EGE-72C-750. You then asked if the Entran EGE-72C-750 was "equivalent" to the Endevco Model 7231c, within the meaning of S572.36(g). I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulation for you.

Part 572 sets forth specifications with which all test dummies must comply if those dummies are to be used in this agency's compliance testing. In NHTSA's compliance testing to date, we have used only the Endevco Model 7231c for the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers. This should not be misinterpreted as suggesting that this agency believes that only this particular make and model of accelerometer will perform acceptably in compliance testing. Instead, it means that the agency has found that the Endevco Model 7231c performs acceptably in the intended shock environment, in terms of frequency response characteristics, damping, linearity, transverse sensitivity, reliability, repeatability, durability, etc.

The dictionary defines "equivalent" as "equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc." As noted above, NHTSA has used only the Endevco Model 7231c for the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers in the compliance testing to date. Thus, the agency has not made any determination of which accelerometers are equivalent to the Endevco Model 7231c. Until such time as the agency makes a determination about equivalent accelerometers, the issue of equivalency of your EGE-72C-750 model and the specified accelerometer model is a matter to be worked out between your company and prospective users of your company's accelerometers. As long as you can satisfy prospective users about the equivalence of your company's accelerometers, NHTSA will not review the use of any particular accelerometers in certification testing, unless the test results indicate a problem or problems caused by those accelerometers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions; or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.38

DATE: 09/29/92

FROM: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, LITIGATION DIVISION, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DONALD G. MCGUIGAN (A40; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests NHTSA's concurrence in our interpretation of how compliance with the newly-effective amendment to Section 4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 appropriately may be demonstrated. Our associated company, Mazda Motor Corporation, informs us that in designing the key-locking and shift control mechanisms for the Ford-built 1993 Escort and Tracer vehicles, as well as for certain Mazda vehicles, it understood that compliance with the "key-locking system" requirement of the recently-amended FMVSS 114 was to be demonstrated by attempting to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents. When so tested, the key-locking systems of 1993 Escort and Tracers "prevent removal of the key" except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "Park" detent.

We have become aware of speculation that it would be appropriate to test compliance with S4.2's "key-locking system" requirements by deliberately placing the transmission shift lever at various points between the "Reverse" and "Park" position gear selector detents while attempting to remove the ignition key. When so tested, the shift control system on at least a large proportion of 1993 Escorts and Tracers can be manipulated to one or another spot -- varying from vehicle to vehicle -- at which the key can be removed while the selector lever is held short of engaging the "Park" positioning detent. (Because the parking pawl will be engaged in or abutted on the park gear, the vehicles will not be free to roll more than a matter of inches). We are informed and believe that it may be possible to induce key removal while the selector lever is mispositioned between gears in vehicles produced by other manufacturers, too.

Ford respectfully submits that a compliance test involving mispositioning of the shift control lever between gear positions would be inappropriate in light of the revised standard's purpose and history. Such a test would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the recent amendment to FMVSS 114 is to prevent shifting errors (i.e., to ensure that drivers attempting to shift into "Park" fully engage the park mechanism on the vehicle). Of course, the rulemaking record regarding the FMVSS 114 amendment to S4.2 repeatedly indicates that the primary purpose of the FMVSS 114 amendments is to ensure that children or other occupants of a vehicle parked on a slanted surface with the ignition off and the key removed will not be able to move the transmission shift lever out of the "Park" detent, thereby placing the transmission in a neutral mode and creating the potential for a rollaway accident.

There is no indication in the rulemaking history that the revisions of FMVSS 114 are intended to address shifting errors. Indeed, shortly after issuance of the amendment to FMVSS 114 in question, the agency appropriately concluded in another context that the potential for "inadvertent vehicle movement" incidents because of shift control mispositioning is "relatively small" and did not justify beginning a rulemaking proceeding. See, W. A. Barr, 55 Fed. Reg. 25340 (June 21, 1990).

A test based upon mispositioning the shift control lever also seems inappropriate for the additional reason that no peculiar hazard arises because the transmission shift lever may have been left in-between the "Reverse" and "Park" detents. In assessing any safety implications related to an unattended child in a parked vehicle, it must be remebered that NHTSA had permitted manufacturers to have until September 1, 1993 to install covers that would "childproof" the key-lock system override button. Thus, at least in vehicles produced before September 1, 1993, a child who pushed the override button could move the transmission shift lever in a parked vehicle with the key removed, regardless of whether or not the transmission shift lever had been properly positioned in the "Park" detent.

More importantly, since the key-locking system requirement of FMVSS 114 only covers the situation where the ignition has been turned off by removal of the key, the possibility of vehicle movement addressed by the standard involves only unpowered rollaway, and arises only if the vehicle has been parked on a slanted surface without the parking brake having been set. Thus, the scenario envisioned by the revised standard involves even smaller potential for injuries due to inadvertent vehicle movement than the scenarios assessed by NHTSA when it evaluated the Barr petition which included, among other things, powered movement of unattended vehicles.

We hope that you are in agreement with our view of the appropriate approach to FMVSS 114 compliance testing. Assuming this to be the case, we would appreciate your confirming this by return correspondence. We are available to discuss this matter with you at your convenience.

ID: nht92-3.39

DATE: September 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert N. Moore -- No. 203048, Iowa State Penitentiary

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/92 from Robert N. Moore to Mr. Curry (OCC-7681)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 16, 1992 to former Administrator Curry. Specifically, your letter asks whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) a right which is enforceable under the authority of 42 U.S.C. S1983. You have raised this issue in a law suit concerning injuries you received while being transported in a passenger van that had been converted into a "paddy wagon." The vehicle was not equipped with safety belts for the passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain for you the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to the civil rights provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

The Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in most vehicles. However, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208.

Thus, I cannot offer an opinion about whether there may have been a violation of the Safety Act without knowing if the passenger van was modified into a "paddy wagon" before or after its first purchase for purposes other than resale and who performed the modifications. If the State purchased the vehicle and made the modifications itself, there would have been no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle did not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Such modifications may, however, violate the laws of the State of Iowa. You may wish to contact the State of Iowa to learn if it has adopted any laws or regulations pertaining to owners' modifications to their vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.4

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: MARK V. SCHWARTZ -- ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: 49CFR PART 572, ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES, YOUR LETTER OF 9/29/92

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK V. SCHWARTZ (A40; PART 572)

TEXT: We have received subject letter and read it with great interest. We are extremely disappointed with the contents of this letter. By taking no position on the equivalency issue, you are dictating that the market be sole sourced with the 7231C from Endevco.

Though your letter states that the users of the accelerometers are free to define equivalence, the reality is that they will take no unnecessary course of action that varies from your compliance testing. I have talked with technical decision makers from GM, Ford, and Chrysler and have received the same feedback from all three. They will not use an accelerometer to do development and certification work, when they know that you have legislated that a different accelerometer be used for compliance testing.

I am no lawyer, but it is my understanding that the U.S. Government is not allowed to legislate that a specific supplier be used. By refusing to address the definition of equivalency in paragraph 572.36 (g), that is exactly what you are doing.

This action is not only unfair to Entran Devices and other accelerometer manufacturers, but it adds to the cost of the test. The published one piece price for the 7231C is $ 750, while the published one piece price for Entran's EGE-72C-750 is $ 545. How is a 27% price premium justified?

Entran's position is unchanged from my original letter of July 9, 1992. We feel that Entran's EGE-72C-750 is "equivalent" to Endevco's 7231C. I am again requesting a clarification of the regulation that will either confirm that we are equivalent or define specific reasons why we are not.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this matter. If there should be any questions or requirements for additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 800-635-0650.

Very truly yours

ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

ID: nht92-3.40

DATE: September 25, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Tom Mario to Steve Wood (OCC-7579)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your follow-up inquiry about a recent amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems that deletes the requirement for a trailer to have a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. The final rule allows air from the tractor supply lines to be used to release the parking brakes instead of air from such a reservoir. (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed)

In our earlier response to you dated May 21, 1992, we stated that a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment became effective. That letter explained that while the amendment deleted a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

You now ask what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system if an original equipment manufacturer decides to use a system with a protected reservoir. You explained that you are aware of a system that has a 60 psi pressure amplification valve that results in having 90 p.s.i. holding off the spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our requirements to you.

In deleting the provision requiring a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake, the agency adopted requirements in S5.8 addressing supply line pressure retention. That provision states that under certain test conditions

"any single leakage type failure in the service brake system (except for a failure of the supply line, a valve directly connected to the supply line or a component of a brake chamber housing) shall not result in the pressure in the supply line falling below 70 p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. . ." (S5.8.2)

Based on the above provision, the pressure in the supply line is not permitted to fall below 70 p.s.i when measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. Accordingly, a system with 60 p.s.i. in the supply line measured at the forward trailer supply coupling would not comply with the express requirements set forth in S5.8.2. Please be aware that after October 8, 1992, the provision in S5.8.2 applies to all new trailers, including those manufactured with a protected separate reservoir.

Your letter appears to imply that there would be no safety problem in having the pressure in the supply line falling to 60 p.s.i. if a pressure amplification valve served to hold off the spring brakes. I note, however,

that problems could occur if only one trailer in a mixed train, multiple trailer combination used such an amplification valve. For example, if a single leakage-type failure in the service brake system of such a trailer resulted in the supply line pressure falling to 60 p.s.i., this could cause the supply line pressure in following trailers to also fall to 60 p.s.i. If the following trailers were not equipped with an amplification valve, they could experience brake drag.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.41

DATE: September 24, 1992

FROM: C. Morris Adams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Paula Hanna -- Exec. Sec., NAPT; Charles Gauthier -- MVSS Compliance Section, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/92 Est. from Paul Jackson Rice to C. Morris Adams (A40; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I retired from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. in December 1990, after 45 years of service to the school transportation industry in North America. Although I retired, I remain totally committed to and interested in school transportation safety for our children.

During the last seven years of my career, I spent a very large percentage of my efforts in behalf of our children by educating our people and regulatory agencies on the pros and cons of lap belts vs. compartmentalization in school buses. The overwhelming evidence is in support of compartmentalization as mandated by NHTSA.

New York state and New Jersey along with some local districts are mandating lap belts in addition to NHTSA mandated compartmentalization. Therefore, the purpose of this letter of request for a legal ruling from your office as to the legality of lap belts on school buses that are required by federal regulation to utilize the passive restraint system - compartmentalization.

FMVSS 222 has as its intent the prevention of passengers colliding with dangerous objects inside the bus.

Compartmentalization relies upon specially designed energy absorbing passenger seat systems (structure, padding, flexibility spacing) to provide the spreading of energy forces over a large percentage of the child's body upon impact with the seat and/or barrier immediately in front of the passenger.

School bus manufacturers build and certify in compliance with FMVSS 222. If lap belts are required by the purchaser, they are installed.

At this point in the process there seems to be no problem for anyone involved. However -

The beneficial purpose of FMVSS 222 has now been removed. Once the lap belt is applied to the child, the child's body pivots around the belt and the head will come into contact with the seat back or barrier in front of the child. In addition to violent head injuries, possible pelvic and abdominal injuries or fatalities may result. The impact energy forces no longer are spread over the upper torso and upper thighs. Therefore, the intent of FMVSS 222 is no longer attainable even though the bus was built and certified to comply with the "technical" requirements of FMVSS 222.

The addition of the lap belt or a lap bar restraint rendered

compartmentalization null and void.

If the seats are allowed to be spaced so that when the child pivots around the lap restraint the head will not contact the forward seat back or barrier, the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 is still violated. In addition, wider spacing would reduce passenger capacity.

Wider spacing of seats would destroy compartmentalization and should the child passenger not have the belt fastened, then the child could become a flying missile with no designed compartment to restrain it.

Based upon the above data I strongly believe lap belts or restraining bars violate the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 and should be ruled illegal in use on school buses required to meet FMVSS 222.

In the interest of the 23 million pupils transported daily in safe school buses, I respectfully request a prompt ruling in their behalf.

ID: nht92-3.42

DATE: September 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary L. Hopkins -- VP & G.M. Control Systems Products, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/92 from Gary L. Hopkins to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7633)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR S571.124). More specifically, your letter sought "confirmation of (y)our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems ... which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124." As explained in detail below, your understanding is incorrect. Standard No. 124 applies to all listed vehicle types, regardless of whether their engine control systems use electronic or mechanical means to control the engine.

The purpose of Standard No. 124 is to reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicles that continue to supply fuel to the engine when there is a malfunction in the accelerator control system. To ensure that drivers could bring vehicles that experience a problem with the accelerator control system to a controlled stop, instead of having the vehicle continue to speed forward, Standard No. 124 requires that the vehicle's throttle return to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control and that the throttle return to idle whenever there is a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. The safety need for these requirements is the same for all vehicles, regardless of whether their accelerator control system is electronic, mechanical, or some other type of technology.

S4.1 sets forth the following definitions:

Throttle means the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed.

Fuel metering device means the carburetor, or in the case of certain engines, the fuel injector, fuel distributor, or fuel injection pump.

Driver-operated accelerator control system means all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.

You said in your letter that the electronic treadle assembly in your company's accelerator control system "modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to

control engine power."

You asserted that the electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. Based on the information provided in your letter, we agree. Standard No. 124 expressly provides that the throttle must be part of the fuel metering device. In the example you have given, the electronically controlled fuel injectors, together with any pumps or other metering systems connected to those injectors, appear to be the "fuel metering device." Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the electronic treadle assembly would be considered to be part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system," because it is a vehicle component that regulates engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control.

You went on to assert that no component of an electronically controlled diesel engine would be considered a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. We disagree. Standard No. 124 defines a throttle as "the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver- operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver- operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed." Every engine design of which we are aware, including electric, diesel, conventional gasoline, and Wankel rotary gasoline, has a component that controls the engine speed in response to inputs from the driver. That component is the throttle. Indeed, an engine design without a throttle would not allow the driver to control the engine speed.

NHTSA has already addressed the applicability of Standard No. 124 to electronic accelerator control systems. In an August 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Koji Tokunaga of Isuzu (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 would apply to a proposed electronic accelerator control system. In a November 9, 1988 letter to Mr. J.E. Carr of Caterpillar (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 applies to an electronically controlled diesel engine. Hence, the issue of how Standard No. 124 applies to electronic accelerator control systems has been settled at least since 1988. Given the broad language used in the standard, the agency's previous interpretations of the standard, and the compelling safety need to prevent runaway vehicles if malfunctions should occur in the accelerator control system, we must reject your suggestion that Standard No. 124 should be interpreted in such a way that it does not apply to electronically controlled diesel engines.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or would like some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.43

DATE: 09/23/92

FROM: THOMAS D. PRICE -- PRESIDENT, STRAIT-STOP MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO THOMAS PRICE (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: Strait-Stop Manufacturing Company, Inc. has developed, tested and is marketing a product line of noncomputerized antilock braking assist systems for air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake and vacuum/hydraulic brake installations on trucks and trailers. We responded to the agency's questionaire on rulemaking for ABS, Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1, in August this year.

As we have proceeded on our marketing program, we have encountered some confusion and misunderstanding regarding the role of the DOT and the NHTSA with respect to the ABS products available today. The most common question we have encountered is, "Are you certified or approved by DOT or NHTSA?". We have responded that the federal regulators neither approve nor disapprove any specific ABS product. Often our response is considered in error and self-serving.

In the development of our product line we have been highly cognizant of our responsibility to avoid any adverse effect which might jeopardize any vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 121, FMVSS 106 or any other safety standards with which we are familiar.

Would you please respond to the above by specifying the NHTSA policy regarding approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular ABS product? Secondly, in view of the scope of our product line, indicated in the first paragraph, would you please provide us with a listing of the various standards and regulations with which we should be conversant? And lastly, would you please delineate the obligation of an OEM, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used or in use motor vehicle as regards its satisfaction of requirements of all applicable safety standards?

Due to the ease of installation of our products on after market vehicles, our primary market is the retrofit category. As currently indicated, the new regulations, which are yet to be formulated and proposed, will address only new vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the standards. However, it is our desire and intent that our product line will meet or exceed the prescribed performance standards. At the present time our test and performance statistics indicate that vehicles equipped with our products not only meet all performance standards, but also significantly reduce vehicle operating costs.

Please let me know how we may secure or have access to a copy of the complete Docket Number 92-29; Notice 1, including the responses submitted and made a part thereof?