ID: 1985-01.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, PA 16912

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a school bus contractor is automatically exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards if that contractor is a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) certificate carrier. The answer is no.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. A new "bus" (i.e., a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 persons or more) which is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or school-related events is a "school bus" under our regulatory definition. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus who knows that the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus must ensure that the vehicle complies with the Federal school bus safety standards.

You stated in your letter that a school bus contractor has notified your school district that "under his PUC rights he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations." For the reasons discussed below, such a statement is inaccurate. Buses purchased by a PUC certificate carrier are not per se exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards.

It is correct that the regulatory definition of "school bus" issued by this agency under the Vehicle Safety Act excludes a bus "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." (49 CFR 571.3) However, the exclusion does not give persons who sell new buses to common carrier operators the license to disregard the school bus safety standards when they sell the buses. This is because the applicability of the standards to a bus is determined by its intended use, not by the fact that the purchaser has common carrier operations or holds a PUC certificate. Whether a particular bus must comply with the school bus safety standards depends on the intended use of that bus, as determined at the point of the vehicle's sale. If the seller of the school bus knows that the vehicle will be significantly used by the PUC carrier as a school bus, he must sell a bus that complies with the Federal school bus standards or be subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Sept. 5, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I talked with Mr. David Soul today in connection with a particular problem concerning van transportation in my school district. Mr. Soul asked that I place this particular question in writing and direct it to you for opinion.

August 1, 1984, my school district advertised to the local school bus contractors for price per mile bids for extra-curricular activity transportation, which includes the sports program. I submitted a bid for van transportation, at my local high school specifying ten passenger capacity maximum, and was awarded the bid.

Now, another contractor, in the school district whom is also a PUC certificate carrier, has notified school officials that I am running illegal because I don't have PUC rights for vans and he will supply the vans for school use under his charter PUC rights and that they can use his 15 passenger vans because under PUC he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations. Consequently, now the school is using one 15 passenger van 6 days a week for football practice and their Sat. games. This is a school sport, funded by the school district, general fund account, billing approved and paid on a monthly basis by the district board of directors.

Specific question is:

Would a PUC carrier be exempt Federal Safety Regulations for this sport program and be allowed to use 15 passenger vans for transportation on a everyday basis for the duration of the particular sport season? Van is a paratransit vehicle, BA bus plate, and does not conform to type A or B school bus standard.

Note: 1st day- 13 passengers & driver, 2nd day- 18 passengers & driver, 3rd day, 10 passengers & driver.

Your opinion in this question will be greatly appreciated. Also, could you supply me with any updates on rulings concerning van transportation.

Sincerely,

Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, Pa. 16912

ID: aiam0246

Dear Mr. Zimmer: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol 'DOT' into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a 'second' would not negate the certification.; The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many bran /size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.; The test results does not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard, similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.; Copies of individual test reports con be obtained, for a fee of $3.0 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification you may wish to avail yourself of this service.; There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the nam of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is: America Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated. 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.; I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate thi opportunity to be of assistance.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Compliance, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0616

Dear Mr. Johnson, This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1972, in which yo asked for my 'comments reconciling' the position of the NHTSA concerning the rulemaking on Warning Devices (Docket 4-2) with the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety proposal regarding the carrying of the triangular devices by regulated carriers. You suggested that there was an inconsistency between the statements in a letter that I sent to several Congressmen that we 'anticipate that fusees will continue to be in wide use after the adoption of the rule,' and the BMCS proposal that motor carriers be required to carry the triangular devices.; I do not agree that there is an inconsistency. Fusees are in wide us by groups that would be unaffected by the proposed BMCS rule, State and local police come immediately to mind. Furthermore, ever motor carriers would be free to carry fuses in addition to the required triangular devices if they wished.; I did not state or imply that the NHTSA and BMCS regulations, if an when issued, would have no effect whatsoever on the market for fusees. Obviously, a market that is created or augmented by a government regulation may well be affected when the regulation is changed.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2113

Dear Mr. Lee: This is in response to your inquiry concerning the addition of th symbol 'DOT' to tires imported into this country, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of this office.; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tir manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto the sidewall of tires an identification number and the symbol DOT. The position of the identification number and DOT symbol is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of the Regulation. The symbol DOT, as stated in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic tires, 49 CFR 571.109, constitutes a certification that the tire conforms to all applicable safety standards.; Neither Standard No. 109 nor Part 574 prohibit the branding of th symbol DOT onto the tire after manufacture, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material. By branding the symbol DOT onto the tire you are certifying that the tires meet all the requirements of the motor vehicle safety standards based on information which, in the exercise of due care, you know to be accurate.; If you have further questions concerning this matter, please do no hesitate to contact me.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-6.18

DATE: 03/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

COPYEE: J. G. WOMACK; MR. TOMS; MR. HARTMAN; MR. CARTER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1973, concerning the safety standard applicable to the sling for the upper torso belt used in Ford's 1974 model restraint system.

The schematic drawing attached to your letter shows that the sling attaches to the roof rail and serves the function of an upper torso belt anchorage. We agree with you that the sling is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 210 and not to the requirements of Standard No. 209. Although the sling is made of fabric webbing, its function is that of an anchorage and it is therefore subject to the anchorage standard.

Yours truly,

Ford Motor Company

February 16, 1973

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

An inquiry has been raised by certain of our suppliers with regard to one feature of Ford's 1974 model year restraint system. Ford believes an interpretative statement by the Administration would be desirable to resolve questions that now exist, or may in the future arise, with regard to this type of item.

The attached schematic shows a typical 1974 Ford restraint system. The non-detachable upper torso portion of the restraint system is looped through a "sling" attached to the roof rail of the vehicle. The "sling" is depicted in more detail in View-A of the attached drawing.

This sling is an an anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210 for several reasons. First, Standard No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. The sling clearly serves this function. Second, as the sling location determines the angle at which the upper torso restraint crosses the occupant's chest, the sling would fall within the acceptable range for upper torso anchorage locations specified in Standard No. 210.

As we have chosen to use webbing in the sling (as opposed to a cable or some such material), the concern expressed involves the question as to whether a potential conflict could arise in interpreting what requirements this sling must meet. If the sling were to be considered by an independent testing laboratory to be part of the seat belt assembly as defined in Standard No. 209, it would apply the

webbing requirements set forth in Section S4.2 of Standard No. 209 to the sling webbing. We would urge that it should not be necessary to meet these webbing requirements as the sling is part of the anchorage and meets the strength requirements of Standard No. 210.

We request, therefore, that the Administration concur in Ford's interpretation that the sling as depicted in the attached schematic is a part of the anchorage and not a part of the seat belt assembly.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. ECKHOLD

Director

Automotive Safety Office

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FORD-MERCUPY MODEL 65 SHOWN

TORINO-MONTEGO-COUGAR

T-BIRD-MARK IV-LINCOLN

MODELS 65 TYPICAL

ID: nht92-2.38

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-12-92 FROM DENNIS T. JOHNSTON TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: This responds to your document dated August 12, 1992, which was characterized as either a petition for reconsideration or a request for interpretation, depending on our response. The document concerned a final rule published in the Federal Register (57 FR 30917) on July 13, 1992, which responded to petitions for reconsideration concerning the extension of Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (collectively referred to as LTV's). As discussed below, we are treating your document as a comment on a related January 1992 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and not a petition, because your concerns relate to a possible future final rule based on that NPRM.

By way of background information, NHTSA extended Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to LTV's in a final rule published on June 14, 1991. In the preamble to the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to propose amendments to the standard in the near future to clarify the test procedure for two types of doors, double-opening doors and doors without windows. NHTSA's NPRM was subsequently published in the Federal Register (57 FR 1716) on January 15, 1992.

As discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the agency determined that clarification of the test procedure was needed for certain contoured doors, as well as for double-opening doors and doors without windows. Standard No. 214's test procedure works well when a door's lower edge is essentially horizontal along its entire length, or only a small portion of the door's lower edge deviates from that description by being contoured upward. Almost all passenger cars have doors of these types. However, as discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the standard's test procedure is not appropriate when only a small portion of a door's lower edge is horizontal and the edge is contoured significantly upwards for a large part of the door. Some LTV's have such doors.

The NPRM therefore proposed amendments to clarify the test procedure for contoured doors.

The comments closing date for the January 1992 NPRM was March 16, 1992. The agency has not yet reached a decision concerning a possible final rule. On July 13, 1992, however, NHTSA published its response to a petition for reconsideration of the initial final rule extending Standard No. 214's side door strength requirements to LTV's. The petition requested that the agency phase-in the new requirements instead of applying them to all of the newly covered vehicles simultaneously. As part of its response to that petition, NHTSA delayed by one year the effective date for double opening cargo doors, doors with no windows, and certain contoured doors on those vehicles.

In your August 12, 1992 letter, you noted that the July 1992 final rule delayed the effective date of the side door strength requirements for doors for which the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point is not greater than 0.5. You expressed concern that, in a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM, the agency might use a discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio for determining which contoured doors must conform to particular tests. You stated that this could have significant cost impacts on your company.

While you characterize your document as a possible petition for reconsideration of the July 1992 final rule, the only concerns you raise relate to a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM. Therefore, we do not consider your document to be a petition for reconsideration.

I note that the use of the 0.5 ratio in the July 1992 final rule was not intended as a signal concerning the final action the agency may take on the January 1992 NPRM. As indicated above, the current Standard No. 214 test procedure only creates problems for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour. In order to delay the effective date for those doors and not ones that have only a small degree of contour, it was necessary to specify a definition. The agency selected the 0.5 ratio to ensure that the effective date was delayed for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour.

We will consider your August 1992 submission as a comment on the January 1992 NPRM. A copy of this correspondence is being placed in the public docket.

ID: aiam2205

Dear Mr. Smith:#This in (sic) in response to a request by Mr. Willia Hall, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator for Region X, for a review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems* with special consideration of the comments of Mr. Robertson in his memorandum of November 24, 1975.#It is the opinion of this agency that Standard No. 104 is appropriate for the State of Alaska. The essential feature of a wiping system, as far as safety is concerned, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are washed and wiped. These areas are established in the standard and are determined by the angles from the driver's eye position over which the windshield must be kept clear to provide a proper field of view. While targets of driver attention and environmental conditions may differ from state to state, if the critical areas are clear, the field of view provided to the driver is sufficient. The 1976 Scirocco (sic) appears to provide the required field of view.#The question therefore becomes whether the Federal standard on windshield wipers is intended to cover all aspects of wiping systems. If so, the situation is analogous to that presented to the court in *Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV S74-126(E.D.Cal. 1974) which resulted in a holding that Standard No. 108 did preempt an inconsistent state regulation in the field of lighting requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the standard on windshield wiping systems, No. 104, is intended to leave the number of wipers to the discretion of the manufacturers. Under *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and *Chrysler v. Tofany*, 419 F2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir, 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.' Thus, a state regulation differing from the standard would impair the Federal superintendence of the field within the meaning of the doctrine set forth in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142(1963) and be preempted under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, U.S.C. 1392(d).#Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: 1983-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/83

FROM: Frank Berndt, NHTSA

TO: Koji Tokunaga -- Manager of Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1983, asking whether a continuous loop seat belt system you are considering would comply with the requirments of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No. 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts "by means of an emergency locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems if the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1.

To conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupant's pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt.

We note your statement that the one-way frictional bar included in your contemplated belt design "permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves." This is certainly permissible, provided the ELR does tighten the belt sufficiently for the lap belt to be considered automatically adjustable. You will have to make this determination, however. Please note that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determination of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.

I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Subject: New Seat Belt System - Compliance with FMVSS 208. S7.1.1

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to request your confirmation on the interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of our new seat belt system which we plan to use as soon as possible for the front outboard seating postions on our passenger cars.

This belt system is of a continous webbing loop type with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) installed on the lower part of the B-pillar. The belt webbing goes up from the ELR through a metal ring mounted on the upper part of the B-pillar, then downward diagonally across the occupant's upper torso, through a latch plate which couples the belt to the inboard buckle. Then sideways across the occupant's lap, and to the outboard anchor.

The new feature of this design is a one-way frictional bar incorporated in the latch plate which in effect is the junction between lap and shoulder portions of the webbing. This device permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves, while preventing the lap belt from loosening out as long as the belt is worn. When the belt is worn by the occupant, any slack in the lap belt is removed by his action to pull out the shoulder belt from the retractor. Even when he did not tighten the lap belt snugly, tensions on the shoulder belt caused by his normal motions during vehicle operation work to cause the slack in the lap belt to be taken up by the retractor.

A webbing tension-relieving device is not incorporated in this belt system.

We believe this design meets the intent of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 because the one-way feature of the latch plates does no interfere with the function of the single retractor to automatically adjust the tension of the lap belt portion ot prevent excessive slack as mentioned in the interpretation letters issued by NHTSA to Renault (dated Sept. 25, 1972) General Motors (dated March 27, 1975) and to Chrysler (dated June 13, 1975).

We request your letter of confirmation regarding this interpretation of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of the belt system design described above. Since our final tooling commitments to produce this system must be made very shortly, we would appreciate your prompt review and response.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering

ID: aiam0511

Dear Mr. Grey: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1971, concerning th application of GVWR and GAWR (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) to semitrailers.; Your position is that the term 'gross vehicle weight rating' is no meaningful when applied to semitrailers because the amount of cargo a semitrailer can carry depends upon the tractor that pulls it. You request that a different expression, 'rating based on load-carrying capability' be used 'for purposes of certification' (assumedly on the certification label). If that alternative is found unsatisfactory you request our concurrence with the following: 'For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length.' You also mention that gross vehicle weight rating has particular industry meaning and note that confusion' will certainly arise when state and Federal governmental authorities are using the same term to mean two different things.'; As we indicated in our meeting with you of November 4, 1971, we do no agree that the concept of GVWR is meaningless when applied to a semitrailer. The definition of GVWR, 'the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle' (49 CFR S 568.3), can be applied to a semitrailer without considering the load-carrying ability of a tractor. The fact that certain tractors should not be attached to a particular semitrailer loaded to its GVWR does not mean that the trailer cannot be so rated.; With regard to your first question, 'rating based on load-carryin capability,' while we do not grant your request that this language be substituted on the label, we believe that a GVWR based on operational load- carrying capability, as long as the weight of the vehicle is included, would be within the definition of GVWR in 49 CFR 568.3. Similarly, your other statement, 'For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length' is likewise consistent with the definition of GVWR. With reference to your claim concerning confusion of State and Federal regulation, we believe that if problems in this regard are properly presented to State government, any ambiguities can be satisfactorily resolved.; You also ask, with reference to Gross Axle Weight Rating, whether spee limitations can be included on the certification label. The regulation does not allow such weight limitations to be included within the listing of the required information, although it may be placed on the vehicle in any other location.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 7633

Mr. Gary L. Hopkins
VP & G.M. Control Systems Products
Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems
901 Cleveland Street
Elyria, OH 44036

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

ref:124 d:9/23/92