Interpretation ID: aiam3102
Messrs. Cannady & Whitehorn
2150 Franklin Street
Suite 571
Oakland
CA 94612;
Dear Mr. Whitehorn: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1979, following you discussion with Mr. Vinson of this office.; Your client, ZEMCO Inc., has developed a fuel saving device for th automobile aftermarket the operation of which you have described as follows:; >>>'...if a vehicle approached a red light requiring the driver t stop...several seconds after the accelerator was released and the automobile stopped the device would automatically shut off the engine. To restart, the driver would press the accelerator pedal and the device would automatically trigger the ignition to start the engine.'<<<; In your opinion two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards appear t conflict with the ZEMCO device, Standards Nos. 102 and 124. Paragraph S3.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.102, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 imposes a starter interlock requirement under which 'the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.' You point out that ZEMCO's device 'has been designed to automatically restart the engine with the transmission in either forward or reverse.' Paragraph S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.124, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position within a specified time period 'whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.' The ZEMCO device shuts off the engine several seconds after driver's foot is removed from the accelerator.; You have cited Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture of any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Section 108(a)(2)(A) which forbids manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from 'knowingly rendering inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard'.; You have asked whether the ZEMCO device is in conflict with the act. The ZEMCO device does not violate Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act Although it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined by Section 102(a) of the Act, there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a device of this nature, so that its manufacture and sale would not be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A).; With respect to Section 108(a)(2)(A) we do not see that the devic conflicts with Standard No. 124 as long as the device does not prevent the accelerator from returning to idle in the standard's specified time period before the engine is shut off. The ZEMCO device appears to come into play after the accelerator has return (sic) to idle, a period of time outside the coverage of the standard.; You are correct, however, in your concern with Standard No. 102 as th activation of the starter in forward or reverse gear is diametrically opposed to the standard's requirement. Its installation would appear to 'render inoperative' the starter interlock that is required by Standard No. 102. Although ZEMCO's manufacture of the device would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A), its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would appear to.; You are also correct that this agency has not issued the regulatio authorized by Section 108(a)(2)(B) under which any person may be exempted from Section 108(a)(2)(A) upon a determination that the exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act.; If you wish to petition the agency to issue such a regulation or t amend Standard No. 102 in an appropriate manner you have, of course, the right to do so, and I enclose a copy of our petition procedures, 49 CFR Part 552, for your information.; I return your patent materials herewith. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel