ID: nht91-3.12

DATE: April 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stanley L. Dembecki

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-1-91 from Stanley L. Dembecki to Paul Jackson Rice -- National Highway Safety Administration Office (OCC 5774)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991, asking for an "evaluation" of your "Flashing" center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: "complete" one and two bulb units "for 1984 and older vehicles", and one and two "electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991." In your opinion, "since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed."

We understand that your "complete" unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the "electronic module" intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer.

Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 (effectively the 1986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, 1986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on 1986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module

that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on 1986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard.

With respect to 1985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps.

Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht91-3.13

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Binichi Doi -- NSK Representative, NSK Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-5-91 from Binichi Doi to Mr. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked for an interpretation of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). You explained in your letter and telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke that your company is providing safety belts for the right front outboard position in certain vehicles. A few of those safety belts have a switch in the attachment hardware to indicate when the belt is not fastened, but the vast majority of those safety belts do not include such a switch. Your company would like to label all of those belts with a single label showing two model numbers. One of the model numbers would be assigned to the safety belts with that switch, and the other model number would be assigned to the safety belts without the switch. You asked whether Standard No. 209 permits this type of labeling. The answer is no.

The labeling requirements are set forth in S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209, which reads as follows:

Each seat belt assembly shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with year of manufacture, model, and name or trademark of manufacturer or distributor, or of importer if manufactured outside the United States. A model shall consist of a single combination of webbing having a specific type of fiber weave and construction, and hardware having a specific design. Webbings of different colors may be included under the same model, but webbing of each color shall comply with the requirements for webbing in S4.2.

The use of the singular "model," instead of the plural "model or models," in this requirement suggests that the Standard was intended to require each label to list only one model number. A closer examination of the other provisions of the labeling requirement and its underlying purpose confirm this.

The second sentence of the labeling requirement specifies that a model consist of a SINGLE combination of webbing and hardware. This definition of "model" obliges your company to assign a different model number to those right front outboard safety belts that have a switch than is assigned to the same safety belts without a switch, even though the belts are otherwise identical. This requirement that each different combination of webbing and hardware be assigned a different model number is necessary to effectuate the underlying purpose of the labeling requirement. The purpose of the labeling requirement for safety belts is to ensure that one can quickly and accurately determine important safety information about the safety belt merely by consulting the permanently attached label on the belt.

If, as you suggested, your company's belts were labeled with two model numbers, the only way to determine the model number for this particular belt would be to inspect the hardware on the belt, i.e., look to see if a switch is present on the belt. Requiring persons to conduct this additional inspection would be directly contrary to the purpose of the labeling requirements, since it would decrease the ease and potentially decrease the accuracy of identifying the model number of the safety belt. Accordingly, we conclude that S4.1(j) of Standard No, 209 requires the label on safety belts to show a single model number.

ID: nht91-3.14

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary P. Toth -- General Motors Corporation Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Gary P. Toth to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5757)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209) would affect some dual-spring retractor designs GM is considering. Your letter said that these dual-spring retractors are designed so that a spring with a lower retraction force is or can be engaged when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant. When the safety belt is removed, a spring with a higher retraction force is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Your letter also said that the retractor for the shoulder belt portion of the lap/shoulder belts on which these designs would be used is an emergency locking retractor (ELR).

The minimum and maximum retractor force requirements for ELRs are set forth in S4.3(j)(5) and (6) of Standard No. 209. Those sections specify minimum and maximum retractor force requirements when the retractors "are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)." S5.2(j) specifies that, for the purposes of measuring the retractor forces, the webbing shall be fully extended from the retractor and then retracting the webbing to 75 percent extension plus or minus 2 inches.

Your letter stated that your dual-spring retractor designs will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). This is because the higher retraction force will always be engaged under those conditions. It appears that, when the higher retraction force is engaged in these dual-spring retractor designs, the retractors will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements. However, when the lower retraction force is engaged, the retractor force is less than the minimum retractor force requirement. Because these dual-spring retractors comply with the retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209, your company is ready to certify these designs as complying with Standard No. 209.

You are, however, concerned with the implications of a February 16, 1984 NHTSA interpretation addressed to Mr. Frank Pepe. In that instance, Mr. Pepe stated that the ELR had two tension modes that were activated by the vehicle door. The subject retractor operated in a high tension mode when the vehicle door was open, and in a lower tension mode when the vehicle door was closed. The agency concluded that, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, the subject retractors would have to comply with all the requirements of the standard, including the minimum and maximum retraction force requirements, in both tension modes. Your letter asked us to reevaluate the conclusions reached in our February 16, 1984 letter to Mr. Pepe.

We believe that the facts presented in your letter are significantly different than those that were presented in the Pepe letter, so the conclusions reached in the Pepe letter are not the same we would reach for your company's dual-spring retractors. In the case of the Pepe letter, the starting point for our analysis of whether the retractors would comply with the minimum and maximum retractor force requirements was the language of S4.3(j) in Standard No. 209, which directed us to the test conditions set forth in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209. However, the test conditions in S5.2(j) (complete extension of the webbing, followed by subsequent retraction to 75 percent extension) did NOT adjust the Pepe retractors to either the high or low tension mode. Some additional action beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) had to be taken to select either the high or low tension mode. Since the selection of the high or low tension mode was not specified in S5.2(j) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209, NHTSA concluded that the retractor would have to be certified as complying with the retractor force requirements when adjusted to either the high or low tension mode.

The GM retractors present a significantly different situation. According to your letter, the conditions set forth in S5.2(j) will adjust the GM retractors in a way so that the higher retraction force will always be engaged. Assuming this to be the case, no adjustments beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) would be necessary to select a tension mode for the retractors. In these circumstances, compliance with the minimum retractor force requirements would be determined only under the conditions specified in S5.2(j).

ID: nht91-3.15

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Vicki Haudler

TO: Mr. Kratzke

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Vicki Haudler (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am currently a second year law student from Mpls., MN. As part of my law school education requirements, I am writing a paper for an evidence Seminar class. My topic is the treatment of seat belt non use evidence in civil litigation. In support of my argument that seat belt evidence is relevant to questions of proximate cause, comparative fault and damages, and therefore should be admissible; I've obtained a copy of the rule promulgated by NHTSA, regarding Fed. Motor Vehicle Standards (49 CFR 57 Subordinate section S4.1.5 of 571.208 entitled "Mandatory seat belt use laws". It states that IF the Sec. of Transp. determines no later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory seat belt laws have been enacted by two-thirds of the 50 states, then each passenger car manufactured after the date of the Secretary's determination must comply with certain federal requirements.

My question is, has the Secretary made that determination and if so, where can I find a copy of this determination? The only amendment to 571.208 occurred in Feb. of 1991 and concerns only "Hybrid II testing" on test dummies. (Fed. Register Vol. 56, No. 40, 8282).

I know this would be a perfect research assignment but I'm running out of time and our law librarians have been of little help. So that's why I've decided to write directly.

I'm giving an oral presentation on my paper on May 2nd and I'm sure I'll be asked about this so I'd like to be prepared.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation - it will be much appreciated!

P.S. I've enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.

ID: nht91-3.16

DATE: April 10, 1991

FROM: Julia D. Darlow -- Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Julia D. Darlow (A37; VSA Sec. 108(b); Sec. 1397(a)(1)(A))

TEXT:

This letter requests your advice concerning a course of action that a client of this firm proposes with respect to Section 1397 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1397.

Recently, we discussed our client's proposed course of action on a hypothetical basis with Mr. Taylor Vincent of NHTSA and were encouraged by Mr. Vincent's preliminary analysis of the propriety of this course of conduct. Mr. Vincent advised that formal confirmation of NHTSA's position could be sought from the Chief Counsel. Accordingly, we ask that you provide us with a ruling on the propriety of the following course of conduct under Section 1397.

Our client (the "Importer") imports certain automotive after-market equipment ("Products") that does not meet certain applicable United States federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Importer currently exports these products directly to Canada. The products are warehoused in the United States prior to delivery to Canada but are not resold in the United States.

A potential customer of the Importer located in the United States wishes to purchase Products from the Importer and itself export those Products to Canada. The customer is willing to enter into a written contract with Importer pursuant to which it promises not to sell the Products in the United States but only to export them to Canada. The Products and the outside of the containers in which they are shipped to the customer will be labeled as intended solely for export, as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1397(b)(5). Pursuant to the written agreement, the customer will provide confirmation of export of the Products to Importer.

To the best knowledge of Importer, the proposed course of action involves no ruse or subterfuge to avoid any requirement imposed by the Act. To the contrary, our client intends that the Products be imported and sold solely for export and has no reason to doubt its customer's intentions.

As you know, Section 1397(a)(1)(A) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce or importing into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in conformity with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, except as provided in subsection (b). Section 1397(b)(5) provides that the prohibition shall not apply to an item of motor vehicle equipment that is intended solely for export and so labeled or tagged on the item itself and on the outside of the container in which it is exported.

Based on the facts as outlined above, we believe that the Importer's proposed sale of the Products to its customer would not be a violation of Section 1397(a)(1)(A) of the Act, because it would conform to the exception set forth in Section 1397(b)(5).

We respectfully request that you issue your written opinion that the Importer's proposed importation and sale of motor vehicles to its customer as outlined in this letter will not violate Section 1397(a)(1)(A).

If you require further information in connection with this request, please let us know as soon as possible. Because our client hopes to implement its proposed arrangements as soon as possible, your early response would be particularly appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.17

DATE: April 10, 1991

FROM: Chris Lawrence -- Chang & Lawrence

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chris Lawrence (A37; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2))

TEXT:

Thanks for your response to my letter of January 5 to Dr. Burgett of NHTSA. You responded that rear mounting of the electric sign board would not be permissible--does this mean that you would not object to mounting the board in a side window?

Also, what other regulatory bodies need to be consulted before product marketing for a side-mounted sign board can begin?

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.18

DATE: April 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerald L. Mikesell -- Assistant Superintendent, Sierra Vista Public Schools, District Administration Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Jerald L. Mikesell, to Erika Z. Jones(OCC 5874)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1991 requesting "a copy of the federal regulations regarding school vans being used for transporting students." Your letter notes that you "are especially interested in the number of students which can be transported before a van is considered a school bus."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. The capacity of a van used to transport students will determine whether the van is considered a "school bus" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Given the wording of your letter, I emphasize that it is the capacity of vehicle, not the number of students actually transported, which determines whether a vehicle is a school bus. NHTSA defines "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 10 persons or less constructed on a truck chassis.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacturer or sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

To determine whether your school district may USE a vehicle other than a school bus to transport school children, you must look to state law. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of motor vehicles. In addition, use of vehicles other than school buses could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

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

ID: nht91-3.19

DATE: April 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-19-91 from Howard "Mac" Dashney to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5739)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR S571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210;

Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR S571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR S571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation" (49 CFR S571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR S571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

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

ID: nht91-3.2

DATE: March 28, 1991

FROM: Takeo Wakamatsu -- Executive Vice President, General Manager, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TO: Scott Shadle -- Supervisor, Vehicle Certification, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Derating of Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (A37; Part 567)

TEXT:

Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc. (MFTA), is the importer and distributor of trucks as incomplete vehicles manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC Japan has asked Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. (MMA), the liaison between MFTA and MMC Japan, to make the following request on their behalf.

MMC is considering derating the GVW of the trucks imported for the purpose of marketing strategy.

In this case, the brake system will not be modified and the vehicle should be in compliance with FMVSS 105 requirements. MMC would supply the new VIN plates with the derated GVW and have MFTA replace the old ones with the new ones.

We expect this kind of modification is such an implementation that has to meet with official approval. At this time, we are asking you for your approval of this modification.

If there are any additional questions you have regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609)467-4664.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.20

DATE: April 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard F. Land -- Bureau of Manpower and Facilities, Tennessee Department of Health and Environment

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-12-91 from Richard F. Land to Deidre Fujita (OCC 5745)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 12, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning the ambulance fleet you recently inspected. Each ambulance had a wooden block mounted under the accelerator pedal to limit the driver's ability to accelerate the vehicle. You state that Tennessee law does not prohibit installation of these "makeshift speed governors." However, you would like to know whether NHTSA's requirements would prohibit installation of the blocks.

The answer to your question is no. In a March 26 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you said that the blocks were installed by the ambulance owner. Our standards do not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle.

If the blocks were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, certain requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any person in the aforementioned categories from knowingly "render(ing) inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with an FMVSS. However, there would be no rendering inoperative of compliance with the FMVSS for accelerator control systems (FMVSS 124) in the situation you described, because that FMVSS does not establish requirements for accelerator pedal actuation. Of course, the installation of the block must not have rendered inoperative compliant equipment or designs on the vehicle that were installed pursuant to other safety standards. For example, the block must not interfere with the vehicle's braking ability.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Attachment

NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 titled, WHERE TO OBTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. (Text omitted)