Interpretation ID: aiam3523
Esq.
Messrs. Paul
Hastings
Janofsky & Walker
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street
N.W.
Washington
DC 20007;
Dear Mr. Lamia: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1981, submitting petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have asked for rulemaking to allow the installation of a spee control device on motorcycles which you believe is presently prohibited by the requirement that the manual twist-grip throttle be self-closing after its release. You have pointed out to us that such devices are 'permitted' in motor vehicles covered by Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, but that no justification has been given for their 'prohibition' by Standard No. 123.; Our review of both standards indicates silence on the question of spee control devices, they are neither permitted nor prohibited by either standard. Standard No. 123's requirement that the manual throttle be self-closing after release is conceptually identical to Standard No. 124's requirement that the throttle return to idle 'whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force' (paragraphs S5.1, S5.2). We interpret this specification in Standard No. 124 as a requirement to be met under the implied condition that the speed control device is disengaged. To remove any inconsistency between the two Federal accelerator control standards, we will extend this same interpretation to Standard No. 123, speed control devices are allowable and the throttle must return to idle after manual release when the device is not engaged.; This means that your petition is denied on the basis of mootness. Suc a denial will allow us to prepare a *Federal Register* notice recording this fact and giving this interpretation a wide circulation.; Sincerely, Courtney M. Price, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking