ID: 12600.drn

Mr. Vladimir Rabkin
Express Marketing Systems
1414 30th Avenue #5
San Francisco, CA 94122

Dear Mr. Rabkin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your product, a warning device without a self-contained energy source, may be sold for use with motor vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. As explained below, although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" your product, the answer is yes.

In your FAX transmission, you asked for NHTSA's "review and approval" to market your product the "EMERSIGN" to the public and to car manufacturers. You stated, the "EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have GVWR under 10,000 pounds." A drawing enclosed with your transmission depicts a triangular object placed on one triangular point on a car roof. The words "Call 911" with a cross underneath the words are depicted on the triangle. Your product is described as having five basic signals for requesting "ambulance, police, fire engine, tow truck, and 'STOP'."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the triangles are flat and made of reflective material. A magnet is placed at one triangular point to facilitate placing the triangle on the vehicle. You stated that telescoping posts (which you described as "antennae") are also provided so that the triangle may be placed on the vehicle side, roof, trunk top or other places.

By way of background information, our agency NHTSA, is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

As you know, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 125 Warning devices. The application section (S3.) of Standard No. 125 states that: "the standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds."

Your FAX stated that the EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. Thus, if the EMERSIGN is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, Standard No. 125 would not apply, the EMERSIGN would not have to meet Standard No. 125's specifications, and you, the manufacturer, would not certify that the EMERSIGN meets Standard No. 125.

Even when sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds and no safety standard applies, other NHTSA laws may apply to the EMERSIGN. As an accessory to a motor vehicle, the EMERSIGN is an item of motor vehicle equipment. If either you or this agency should determine that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the EMERSIGN, you, the manufacturer, will be required to notify consumers and dealers, and remedy the safety related defect at no cost to the consumers and dealers.

The EMERSIGN may also be subject to the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but you can get information by contacting the Department of Motor Vehicles of each State in which you wish to market your product.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a NHTSA publication that provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:125
d:10/30/96

ID: aiam3875

Dear Mr. Freeland: This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking divisio of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child restraint systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.; A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify tha each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results, NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.; As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Sectio S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.; Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be abl to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, *Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders* (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments (sic) a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.; If you have some further questions or need further information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.42

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Show Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1979, asking two questions about a 1977 Ford van of Canadian manufacture that you "take to the U.S. for various shows."

Your first question is:

"1. Our query: - with the new C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulation, what effect will this have on our crossing the border."

I assume you are referring to the amendment of certain U.S. importation regulations effective January 3, 1979, governing motor vehicles and equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80). The most significant change is the requirement that each importer must file a declaration concerning compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards, at the time of importation. This requirement may be waived for vehicles of Canadian registry at the border if they conform to U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bear the certification label required under U.S. law. This is the "sticker" referenced in your letter.

"2. Is there an inspection certificate we can pick up at the border point to affix to our van to state we comply with the standards."

No. The certificate is that which is affixed by the original manufacturer at the time of manufacture.

It is the agency's policy to require compliance of Canadian-registered vehicles to U.S. requirements if a substantial portion of their operation is on U.S. roads, one example being trucks that haul goods over the border on a day-to-day basis. You do not state the frequency with which you enter the United States and it is possible that Customs officials may consider you in this category.

Several other provisions might apply to you. A non-resident of the U.S. may import a non-conforming vehicle for a period of up to 1 year, for his personal use (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v)), and the requirement for a declaration may be waived at the border. Obviously this provision contemplates an extended visit and not frequent border crossings. Under another provision, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a non-conforming vehicle may be imported for "show" provided that it is not licensed for use on the public roads. Thus, use on private property such as show grounds would be consistent with this form of entry. However, a declaration must be filed.

I am enclosing a copy of the regulations for your information.

SINCERELY, February 20, 1979

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dear Sir:

With reference to C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we have a query which I hope you can answer.

We have a fully customized '77 Ford Van that we take to the U.S. for various shows. Although the van exterior-wise has been drastically changed, the mechanical has not been altered. All emission controls and so forth are still intact.

Our last couple of times across the border (Windsor/Detroit) customs officers were looking for a particular sticker.

The van was completely repainted and all stickers removed save for the identification plate and serial number.

The van is of Canadian manufacture. 1. Our query: - with the new C & S Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulation, what effect will this have on our crossing the border.

2. Is there an inspection certificate we can pick up at the border point to affix to our van to state we comply with the standards.

3. The van is always trailered and driven only during July and August.

Thanking you for your co-operation in this matter.

SHOW ASSOCIATES

Bruce L. Robertson

ID: aiam4162

Dear Mr. Reilly: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dennis D Furr of Lansing, Michigan.; As we understand his letter, Mr. Furr contacted you to express hi concern about a Michigan state law which permits loading school buses up to 110 percent of the number of persons for which the bus has a rated seating capacity. He believes that installation of safety belts in school buses would reduce the likelihood that excessive numbers of children would be carried on each school bus seat.; You asked for information on Mr. Furr's suggestion for school bu safety belts. I am pleased to explain the two sets of regulations we have for school buses, both of which are relevant to school bus seating accommodations. Before I begin, I would like to note that in July 1985, we responded to an inquiry on Mr. Furr's behalf from U.S. Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., asking about requirements limiting school bus passenger capacities. In our response, we explained how manufacturers currently determine the passenger capacities of their school buses and that we know of no safety problem related to their calculations. A copy of our letter is enclosed for your information.; As explained in our letter to Senator Riegle, the first set o regulations we have for school buses, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Some of Mr. Furr's concerns involve one of those safety standards, Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which specifies requirements for safety belts in small school buses. Standard No. 222 currently does not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds) because large school buses are already required to provide high levels of protection to passengers through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.; In his letter to you, Mr. Furr appears to be primarily concerned wit overloaded school buses and believes that safety belts would prevent schools from overcrowding school bus bench seats. We believe that this rationale for safety belts does not warrant a Federal requirement for belts on large school buses, since large school buses offer substantial protection to passengers and safety belts per se will not prevent users from overcrowding their buses. Thus, requiring safety belts in large school buses under Federal law would not assuredly lessen overcrowding of buses, and any possible improvement in seating accommodations would not be achieved.; On the other hand, we do not prevent States and local school district from ordering safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so. Thus, States may order school buses with safety belts if they believe this would reduce the likelihood that school buses would be overloaded. Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in NHTSA's publication entitled, 'Safety Belts on School buses,' June 1985. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; Our second set of regulations for school buses, issued under th highway Safety Act, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed, which Mr. Furr refers to as 'Federal Standard 17.' This 'standard,' or guideline, recommends that States provide seating accommodations of minimum specified dimensions for each school bus occupant and that States coordinate seating plans to eliminate standees. To reiterate, however, Program Standard No. 17 is a guideline for the States and its adoption is determined by the States. We have no reason to believe that Michigan has not evaluated thoroughly its pupil transportation needs in determining whether to implement the standard's recommendations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be o further assistance.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed

ID: 11644WKM

Mr. Dennis L. O'Connor
Manager, Government & Customer Compliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, OH 44316-0001

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you requested this agency's interpretation of what constitutes a "new" tire for purposes of applying the provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New pneumatic tires and No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

Your question relates to section 30112 of Title 49, United States Code, which provides, in paragraph (a), that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import for sale any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment on or after the effective date of any FMVSS that does not comply with that standard and is so certified. Section 30112(b) provides that this requirement does not apply, however, to a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of that product in good faith other than for resale. Section 30112(a) applies, therefore, to the sale of Anew@ motor vehicles and Anew@ items of motor vehicle equipment, as opposed to used vehicles and equipment items.

FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 specify performance and labeling requirements applicable to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars and motor vehicles other than passenger cars, respectively. Standard Nos. 110 and 120 require that new motor vehicles be equipped with tires that meet either FMVSS No. 109 or FMVSS No. 119.

Turning now to the question of what is meant by a "new" tire as opposed to a "used" tire, a vehicle or item of equipment is new from the time of its manufacture until its first retail sale. The agency considers the point at which the vehicle or item of equipment is delivered to the customer to be a critical factor in determining whether and when an item has been purchased. Thus, it is at the point of delivery of the item to the retail purchaser that a vehicle or item of equipment ceases to be "new" and therefore subject to Federal law and the FMVSSs, and becomes "used" and subject to state law and regulations.

The agency considers a motor vehicle to be the sum of its parts, including the tires mounted on the vehicle and its spare tire, if any. Accordingly, after a vehicle is delivered to its first retail purchaser, every component on and in that vehicle, including all its tires, becomes "used" for the purposes of the FMVSSs.

I hope this information is helpful to you. 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.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:109#119 d:4/18/96

ID: nht93-4.45

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Linda Roberson -- President, Body Safety Kids Club, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-93 EST from Linda Roberson to NHTSA (OCC 8490); Also attached to letter dated 2-25-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 9-6-84 from Frank Berndt to Phillip Ables.

TEXT: This responds to your letters about the "vest harness" you have designed for the Body Safety Kid's Club, and follows up on a June 4, 1993 telephone call to you from Deirdre Fujita of my staff. The question posed by your inquiry is whether the manufacture of the vest harness is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The answer is no.

Your letter indicated that the vest harness is made to help parents restrain their children in public areas, and especially in crowds. The vest harness has a strap-like "tether" that a parent would hold to prevent the child from wandering off on his or her own, possibly getting lost. Your letter also indicated that the vest harness could possibly be used as a seat belt accessory" and that you wanted NHTSA to crash test your product with child dummies to see how it would perform in the vehicle. (You did not know that NHTSA does not test manufacturers' products before the sale of the product.) However, after discussing NHTSA's requirements for motor vehicle vest harnesses with Ms. Fujita, you advised that you will not recommend its use as a safety belt accessory or as a motor vehicle harness. You expect that the vest harness would be worn in the vehicle only insofar as it need not be removed to restrain the child; the vehicle's lap/shoulder belt could be threaded between the vest and the child.

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, 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 the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. 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. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used outside of motor vehicles. While the vest harness occasionally may be worn in a motor vehicle, use in the vehicle is incidental to the vest's use as a means to better supervise the child in public areas. Further, you informed Ms. Fujita that you will ensure that the product literature for the vest harness will not claim that the vest harness could improve crash protection in the vehicle, such as by better positioning the vehicle's belts on the child or by preventing the child from circumventing the vehicle belt system. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness do not appear related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is not considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by NHTSA.

We would like to note the following, however. Products that are sold to alter the fit of vehicle belts to better accommodate children are considered "motor vehicle equipment" by NHTSA. I have enclosed a copy of a February 25, 1992 letter to Mr. Phil Gray as an example of one such letter. Although we have concluded that your product is not motor vehicle equipment, we emphasize that this conclusion is based on the information you provided about the very limited use of the vest harness in motor vehicles. In the event that the expected use of the vest harness changes to include motor vehicle use (e.g., as a seat belt accessory), the vest harness might well be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Further, as an equipment item, the vest harness could be subject to our motor vehicle safety standard for child harnesses, FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." A copy of our September 6, 1984 letter to Mr. Phillip Ables generally discussing requirements of that standard is enclosed. If the expected use of the vest harness changes, please contact us for information about Standard No. 213 and other NHTSA requirements.

In addition, you may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to your product. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht79-3.14

DATE: 08/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. D. J. Arneson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1979, which inquired whether there are any regulations governing the installation of a propane-fueled engine, or the conversion of a gasoline-fueled engine to a propane-fueled engine, in vehicles registered for use on Federal, State, and local highways.

To date, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not exercised its authority pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (the Act), to issue a safety standard applicable to propane-powered vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, applies only to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F., and propane has a boiling point well below this temperature. Despite the absence of safety standards specifically applicable to propane-powered engines, however, an installer of these systems may be subject to other Federal requirements.

Under NHTSA safety regulations, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This requirement would apply to a person who alters a new vehicle to install a propane fuel system. (See the enclosed pamphlet listing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and an information sheet explaining where to obtain copies of the standards.) Additionally, should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer could be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108 (b)(2)) Defects in the propane-fueled engines or in components used for converting a gasoline-fueled engine would be the responsibility of their manufacturers, regardless of whether they were installed in new or used vehicles. Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by either the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator or the manufacturer himself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

A person who installs a propane-fueled engine or converts the gasoline-fueled engine in a used vehicle is not required to affix an alterer's label. However, if that person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, he must not in the course of installing the propane components knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design originally installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act)

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

SINCERELY,

Information Officer U.S. Dept. of Transportation

June 27, 1979

Dear Sir,

Please send me a complete set of regulations governing the installation or conversion of a gasoline fueled engine to a propane fueled engine for use in registered vehicles on federal, state and local highways, if any.

If there are no regulations governing such a conversion, please inform me.

D. J. Arneson

ID: aiam5493

"Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your follow up request for a interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. I apologize for the delay in our response. We reiterate our position in a July 1, 1994 letter to you, that Volkswagen is required to continue marking replacement parts of the Corrado line, in model year 1995 and thereafter. The reason for this position follows. In your earlier request for an interpretation, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years (MYs) 1990 through 1994. For MY 1995, NHTSA granted a part 543 exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995. In a July 1, 1994 interpretation letter to you, we determined that since Volkswagen will not sell the exempted MY 1995 Corrado line with the antitheft device, in the United States, the part 543 exemption would not apply, and Volkswagen must continue to mark the replacement parts for the Corrado line. In your follow up letter, you wrote that the MY 1994 Corrado line has, as standard equipment, the antitheft device that was the subject of the part 543 exemption for MY 1995. You state that since the Corrado line with the approved antitheft device was sold in the United States, replacement parts for the Corrado line should not be subject to marking in MY 1995 and thereafter. We do not agree with your position. 49 CFR 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that: (1) are the subject of the grant, and (2) are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. The MY 1994 Corrado line does not meet the first condition, i.e., it is not the subject of a grant of an exemption from parts marking. The part 543 exemption for the Corrado line begins with MY 1995. (See 58 FR 28434). You have earlier written that no MY 1995 Corrado line with the exempted device, will be sold in the U.S. As stated in our July 1, 1994 letter, since no exempted line, equipped with the antitheft device will be sold in the U.S., Volkswagen must continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, as long as the replacement parts are offered for sale in the U.S. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5048

"Dear Mr. Hopkins: This responds to your letter of August 3, 1992 seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). 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. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam2169

Dear Mr. May: This responds to American Safety's December 5, 1975, question whether state or local government agency such as a municipal policy department may modify Type II seat belt assemblies to permit detachment of the upper torso restraint, and whether a seat belt manufacturer may 'participate in the modifications of the vehicle and seat belt assemblies.'; Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(2) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'knowingly render[ing] inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard [except during a repair].' This prohibition applies to changing a non-detachable upper torso restraint to a detachable upper torso restraint.; Under this language of the Act, the police department would not b prohibited from modification of the seat belts. A manufacturer could not actively participate in the modification of the vehicles. Sale of a seat belt assembly to the police department would not of itself, however, constitute a violation of the Act.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel