ID: nht93-3.12

DATE: April 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kirk Brown -- Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-15-93 from Kirk Brown to John Womack (OCC 8442)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993, inquiring "whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (FMVSS's).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR S567.7.)

If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that

NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the "render inoperative" prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle in question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling.

You should be aware that the "render inoperative" prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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

ID: 8442

Mr. Kirk Brown
Secretary
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 South Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62764

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993, inquiring "whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (FMVSS's).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.)

If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the "render inoperative" prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle is question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling.

You should be aware that the "render inoperative" prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:124#VSA d:4/22/93

ID: nht71-5.21

DATE: 12/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 5, 1971 regarding the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574). The questions raised in your letter are repeated below with our answers immediately following each question.

1. Section 574.9 of the above states that anyone who leases a vehicle equipped with new tires for more than 60 days is classified as a tire dealer, and shall meet the requirements specified in Section 574.8. Under the above, what would be the "tire dealer's" responsibility if the customer exchanged these tires, without the knowledge of the leasor, and what should the leasor do re: compliance if the vehicle is returned and he notices that a substitution had been made?

Under these circumstances the leasor would only be responsible for the new tires that were on the vehicle when leased to his customer. It would be the responsibility of the tire dealer selling the replacement tires to the leasee of your vehicle to record the pertinent tire information and forward it to the manufacturer of the tires.

2. A company buys a truck as a "demonstrator" for its own use, but prior to the actual "use" of the vehicle, it is sold under a new title. If the seller of the demonstrator advises the local truck dealer of this sale (to include the customer data), has he satisfied all of his responsibilities under Part 574?

Under these circumstances the person who buys a truck and does not use it, but instead sells it, is considered a vehicle dealer selling a new truck. It would be your responsibility to assure that the dealer who originally sold you the truck notifies the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle changed hands.

3. A leasor takes a vehicle back after a 12-month lease. After reconditioning it, he leases it to a different customer. The tires were still in good condition and were not removed. Under these circumstances, does the leasor have any responsibility to notify the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle is now in different hands?

Under these conditions the leasor would be in the same position as a vehicle dealer selling a used vehicle with used tires and the reporting requirements would not apply.

4. It is our interpretation that under the provision of Part 574, the only time that a final stage manufacturer would be required to maintain tire records would be if he becomes the vehicle manufacturer and places new tires onto a vehicle for the first time. (This would be in the case of adding a tandem axle requiring additional tires, or the actual manufacture of a trailer to which he installed the tires.) Is this correct?

Your understanding is not correct. The final stage manufacturer is required to maintain or have maintained for him a record of tires on or in each vehicle he ships to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and maintain or have maintained for him a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.

For your information, attached is a letter sent to major chassis manufacturers dealing with this subject for cases where the final stage manufacturer does not deal with the purchaser of the completed vehicle. The replies received from the chassis manufacturers have been, for the most part, cooperative.

a. In the case of a manufactured vehicle, we interpret Section 574.9 to mean that the records kept for three years need not conform with any special format, so long as the customer name and address is evident, and the customer can be contacted by the manufacturer in the event that the tire manufacturer initiated a recall campaign which included the group of tires placed on that vehicle. Is this a correct assumption?

Your understanding is correct, however the requirements for vehicle manufacturers are found in 574.10, not 574.9.

Enclosure

ID: nht70-2.20

DATE: 08/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bruce Duncan Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1970, in which you request a ruling as to whether the Honda ATV is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations promulgated as a result of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

The descriptive literature furnished with your letter states that, "the machine looks to be street legal," and shows that the vehicle has lighting equipment. Therefore, the Honds ATV, as described, appears to be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act, and specifically a "motorcycle" as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you. We will be pleased to answer any additional questions that you might have.

ID: nht78-1.9

DATE: 12/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Marque Motors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 26 1978

Mr. Sheldon C. Brooks Marque Motors 8711 Lyndale Ave., So. Bloomington, Minnesota 55420

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1978, requesting an exemption from the requirements of Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), for ten Lamborghini Countach vehicles currently under construction. You state that the Lamborghini Company's small size and difficult economic situation preclude immediate redesign of the Countach model to bring it into compliance with the bumper regulation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 215, Exterior Protection (49 CFR 571.215), from which Lamborghini had been granted an exemption, was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act). Section 123 of the Safety Act permits the exemption of motor vehicles from safety standards when compliance would cause a manufacturer substantial economic hardship and the manufacturer has attempted in good faith to comply (15 U.S.C. 1410). Standard No. 215 was revoked effective September 1, 1978.

The present bumper regulation, Part 581, effective September 1, 1978, was issued under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1901), which permits exemptions only for passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. In view of the narrowness of this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to grant an exemption from Part 581 on the basis of economic hardship or limited production.

Part 581 applies to passenger motor vehicles, other than multipurpose vehicles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1978 (49 CFR 581.5(a)). Therefore, vehicles manufactured by Lamborghini which are completed after August 31, 1978, must meet the requirements of the regulation, if they are imported into or sold in the United States.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 4, 1978

Richard Hipolit NASSIS Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

With regard to our telephone conversation of December 1st regarding the Lamborghini Company, I would like to state that I am an associate of the company and I have been asked by them to work with the proper authorities here in the United States in order to extend the bumper exemption on the Lamborghini Countach.

In speaking with Joe Levin he suggested that I take the matter up with you, and that if you were in a position to interpret the law that something could be done if it fell within the interpretation of that law. Speaking with you, you stated that you could call me back today, Monday, regarding the possibility of accepting approximately 10 cars that are under construction to be exported to the United States. As the Lamborghini factory is undergoing extensive reorganization it would take us approximately 18 months to design the automobile in a fashion that would meet the present bumper requirements. As you know, the company is very small and its production is extremely limited. Especially limited are those cars that find their way to the United States. I would estimate that a maximum of 25 cars enter the United States, cars of the Countach variety, in any given year.

I would appreciate hearing from you as to whether it is possible to extend the bumper exemption for 18 months or so on these 10 cars. This would relieve the company of a great deal of pressure and might make the difference between its existence and nonexistence. As this company is one that produces one of the hallmark type of automobiles of the Italian people, it would be a good bit of public relations for all to extend the exemption. I'm at your disposal at any time to be in Washington to explain the case personally or to help in any way that I possibly can. I appreciate your interest and cooperation and do hope that we can get affirmative results.

Kind regards,

Sheldon C. Brooks President

SCB:dlw

ID: nht94-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: Ilmars Ozols

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/6/94 From John Womack To Ilmars Ozols (A42; VSA 5104(4)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

As a result of my telephone conversation with one of your associates on February 1, 1994, I am communicating with you and would like to request your assistance to determine if SERV-O-TRAY is in compliance with existing National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration relevant codes and regulations with regards to after market product installation in a motor vehicle.

SERV-O-TRAY is a patented folding/adjustable table for vehicles intended to provide comfort for drivers and front seat passengers whether the vehicle is stationary or movement mode.

For your information I am enclosing a photograph of SERV-O-TRAY prototype installation in a motor vehicle and SERV-O-TRAY's technical description which hopefully will assist you in your task.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address, or telephone (619) 327-8290.

Sincerely,

ID: 8268

Mr. Jeff Gerner
Product Engineering Manager
Banner Welder, Inc.
N117 W18200 Fulton Drive
Germantown, WI 53022

Dear Mr. Gerner:

This responds to your inquiry about whether the mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved "daily or weekly" on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than "incidental."

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/26/93

ID: nht93-3.17

DATE: April 26, 1993

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

TO: Jeff Gerner -- Product Engineering Manager, Banner Welder, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-93 from Jeff Gerner to NHTSA, Office of the Chief Council (OCC 8268)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about whether the mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured.

Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved "daily or weekly" on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than "incidental."

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: nht92-5.27

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Jim Sasser -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/92 from Jim Sasser to Jerry R. Curry (OCC 7409); Also attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry R. Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr.

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to former Administrator Jerry Ralph Curry, regarding a Federal law governing the use of vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons.

You stated in your letter that you have been contacted by several Tennesseans expressing their concern over such a law, and enclosed a letter from Mr. Robert High, Athletic Director, Brainerd High School, Chattanooga, TN as a sample. That letter cited memos from the Tennessee Department of Education, which referred to a 1970s law concerning the use of vehicles with a capacity of 11 or more persons. Mr. High stated that schools throughout the state have used 12 and 15-passenger vans to transport athletic teams to and from events but that several systems have been required to stop using those vehicles because of the law in question.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify for you the Federal law and our implementing regulations regarding the safety requirements for school buses. Under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 to 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974 the Congress enacted the Schoolbus Safety Amendments to the Safety Act, which directed the agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. NHTSA issued those standards, effective April 1, 1977, which may be found at 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more persons is classified as a bus. A bus is further classified as a school bus if it is used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities. The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus, and the seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus if the vehicle is not properly certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their subsequent use. Therefore, schools are not prohibited by Federal law from using vans of any size to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet Federal school bus safety standards. Individual states, however, are free to impose their own standards on the USE of motor vehicles, including school

buses. Accordingly, the State of Tennessee may regulate the use of vehicles by schools for pupil transportation to the extent that it deems appropriate.

Although not specifically required by Federal law, it is this agency's strongly held position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. We should also note that the use of vehicles other than school buses to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on that issue.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: 13562.drn

Mr. William J. Gordon
3718 Livingston Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20015

Dear Mr. Gordon:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA's) laws apply to a device you wish to manufacture. In a March 12, 1997 letter from Heidi Coleman, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, your letter to NHTSA was granted confidential treatment of all information, except for the device's description as a "speed limiting device for passenger automobiles and light trucks." A discussion of our standards follows below.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your device would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the device installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your device, I would like to bring two standards to your attention.

Among the safety standards your device may affect are those for accelerator control systems (Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems), and braking (Standard No. 135, Passenger car brake systems), (The safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) Standard No. 124 establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control, or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for service brake and associated parking brake systems. While these standards do not preclude the installation of your device on a new vehicle, any vehicle with your device must meet the requirements of these and all other applicable safety standards.

No standard would apply to your device to the extent that it is sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Therefore, your device could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual states have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on state laws. You may wish to seek an opinion from the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the device will be sold or used.

Finally, your device is considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that the manufacturer of the device would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your device is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.)

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. If you have any more questions about these issues, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:vsa

d:3/26/97