ID: 19771.drn

The Honorable William E. Barrett
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Barrett:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from Ms. Gina Dunning, former Director of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Regulation and Licensure. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal school bus safety program.

Ms. Dunning wrote to you with concerns about a NHTSA regulation affecting child care centers and Head Start programs. In essence, Ms. Dunning was concerned that we have interpreted our statute to disallow dealers' sales of certain new buses to after school care programs that will significantly use the bus to transport school children "to or from school or an event related to school." The buses are those that are not certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus standards.

Ms. Dunning has written a separate letter to me, expressing her concern about our interpretation and how it would affect child care transportation providers in Nebraska. Her letter to me is substantially similar to the letter she addressed to you. While we understand that Ms. Dunning is no longer the Director of the state agency, we responded to her successor, Mr. Richard Nelson, on March 25, 1999. I am enclosing a copy of my response for your information, with all referenced enclosures.

I hope that the enclosed items are helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3

ID: 1977y

Mr. George A. Van Straten
President
Van Straten Heated Tail Light Co. Inc.
Route l, Box 224
Baraga, MI 49908

Dear Mr. Van Straten:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, l989, to this Office, requesting a copy of any agency correspondence with Thomas Gravengood, as well as an interpretation of Federal requirements as they apply to heated motor vehicle lamps produced by your company. Your company manufactures "heated lights" which are intended to melt snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3, l989, to us he stated:

"All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing."

We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer "approves" each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. l08. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level.

There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. l08, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. l08 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment.

If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. l08 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the "certification" they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. l08 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance).

If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. l08 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3, formerly paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps "splice into" the wiring for the taillamps and "marker lamps", according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. l08. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. l08. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 (formerly S4.4) forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment.

Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. l08 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. l08, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. As you requested, we are enclosing a copy of Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:8/ll/89

ID: 19782.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the modification of a 1997 Ford E-150 full size van for a driver with quadriplegia as a result of a spinal chord injury. You explain that the driver was evaluated and trained by a driver rehabilitation specialist who prescribed a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. Specifically, you request permission to remove the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering column and steering wheel so that you may install the high tech steering system to accommodate the driver's restricted strength and range of motion.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Replacing the vehicle's original steering column and steering wheel and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. For example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. However, as noted above, in situations such as this one where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, steering wheel, and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard No. 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and are in the process of reviewing public comments.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.6/23/99

ID: 1978y

Mr. Larry P. Egley
109 Travelers Trail
St. Charles, MO 63303

Dear Mr. Egley:

This is in reply to your letters with respect to the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a "Request for Evaluation/Interpretation" of your invention; your second is "An Appeal for Variant Interpretation." I regret the delay in responding.

You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues to flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpretation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and "the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system." Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are not willing to undertake it "unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model."

You are correct that Standard No. l08 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness.

Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only.

We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of following drivers. As you noted, "whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration." In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 taxicabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either l.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 4l million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125, 198l).

The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:8/8/89

ID: 19795.rbm

Ms. Kristin M. Werth
Weinberger & Kanan
Mile High Center, Suite 1910
1700 Broadway
Denver, CO 80290

Dear Ms. Werth:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you asked for a description of how the date of manufacture is defined under the standard. You expressed particular concern about the parts of the standard that mandate the installation of air bags and warning labels.

For purposes of Standard No. 208, as well as the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" of a vehicle would typically be the production date at the vehicle manufacturer's factory.

The exception is a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages for which special provisions apply. "Incomplete vehicles" may be completed to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. ⁽¹⁾

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact

Ms. Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.4/17/2000

1. See 49 CFR sections 567 and 568. Note that section 568.6 specifies that this provision shall be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. FMVSS No. 208 has no such provision.

ID: 19796-2

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Vehicle Safety Regulation
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This responds to your letter asking how Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect (49 CFR 571.102) would apply to the hybrid electric vehicle Toyota produces. I regret the delay in responding. According to your letter, this hybrid vehicle uses both an electric motor and gasoline engine to provide motive power and the engine starts and stops as needed, instead of idling constantly as most engines do.

You were concerned about S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102, which provides that "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." Your hybrid electric vehicle would not comply with a literal reading of this provision because the gasoline engine starts automatically with the transmission in any position except Neutral to supplement the electric motor's power and/or to recharge the batteries.

While the starter for the gasoline engine is not inoperative when it starts automatically as needed, we do not interpret S3.1.3 as prohibiting your design. In construing our standards, we bear in mind the purpose underlying the provision that we have been asked to interpret. In this case, you have correctly stated that the purpose of the inoperative starter provision is to ensure that the vehicle will not lurch forward or backward unexpectedly from a parked position when the starter is first engaged to start the vehicle. Your design does not allow the vehicle to turn on unless the transmission is in Park. We agree with you that this feature precludes any sudden unexpected movement of the vehicle, the precise problem the "inoperative starter" provision addresses.

After considering your letter, the agency intends to begin rulemaking to update the language of Standard No. 102 to address the technological advances in this area since the current language was adopted in 1968. Until that action is completed, we will interpret S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102 as requiring that driver activation of the engine starter must be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. This meaning effectively addresses the purpose of the requirement, while allowing flexibility for advanced designs. Consistent with this reading of the existing language, the design on your hybrid electric vehicle would not be prohibited by S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992: OCC# 19796:6/22/99:Dfujita9/29/99
cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron; NCC-20 (PA), NPS-01, NSA-01
Interp. std. 102; Redbook (2)

ID: 19797-1.pja

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Vehicle Safety Regulation
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, would apply to the Prius, a hybrid electric vehicle Toyota produces. I apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter, the vehicle utilizes both an electric motor and gasoline engine to provide motive power. The wheels and the powertrain cannot be mechanically disconnected. For this reason, the engine cannot be "raced" when the transmission shift lever is in the "neutral" position, as it can with most vehicles.

Your concern is with S4.3(b)(2)(i) of Standard No. 103, which states that "The engine speed shall not exceed 1,500 r.p.m. in neutral gear." You believe that the purpose of this provision is to allow testing to be conducted on a stationary vehicle with the engine racing up to 1,500 r.p.m. You state that, since conventional engines can be raced while stationary in either "park" or "neutral," that we should interpret the term "in neutral gear" as meaning any shift position in which motive power is not transmitted to the wheels, including "park."

We agree that the purpose of the provision at issue is to allow testing of a vehicle's defrosting/defogging system to be conducted with the vehicle stationary but with its engine at a speed up to 1,500 r.p.m. This, in essence, gets and keeps the engine up to its ordinary operating temperature during the test. Since, because of the new technology used in your vehicle, the engine speed cannot be maintained at 1,500 r.p.m. when the shift position is in "neutral" but can be when the shift position is in "park," we would interpret the standard to permit the shift position to be in "park" for purposes of S4.3(b)(2)(i) of Standard No. 103. Please note that this interpretation reflects consideration of the purposes underlying Standard No. 103 generally and S4.3(b)(2)(i) in particular and should not be considered to have any broader application. We also note that S4.3(b)(2)(ii) provides another option which allows for testing in a forward drive position.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:103
d.3/10/2000

ID: 1979y

To: DOERNBERG, David G.
From: ROBERTSON, Marcia
Subject: aia Date: 09/15/89
Reply by: 00/00/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Mr. William G. Kinstler American Flatlight Company 414 Richard Road Rockledge, FL 32955

Dear Mr. Kinstler:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a portable illuminated device, called the "Flatlight." You have asked for our review of the advertising brochure that you enclosed, and for copies of any regulations regarding this product. I regret the delay in responding.

Your brochure indicates that Flatlight is intended for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle, and connects to the battery by a wire. As shown, it contains a corporate logo, which "emits a pleasant glow." The purpose is to readily identify the presence of "Real Estate Companies and other Sales Agents who need to meet clients at night."

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It also establishes regulations pertaining to safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. As Flatlight is advertised almost exclusively for motor vehicle applications (we note a single remark that it can be used for store and window fronts), it is "motor vehicle equipment" subject to the jurisdiction of this agency.

The only Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to portable lighting equipment applies only to warning triangles without self-contained energy sources, and thus does not cover the rectangular Flatlight. The Federal lighting standard on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, permits Flatlight to be installed as original equipment (e.g., installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its delivery to its first purchaser), if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. It seems unlikely that the "glow" of a door mounted Flatlight would impair the effectiveness of the required side marker lamps and reflectors; indeed the device might serve more readily to identify the vehicle at night.

We surmise, however, that Flatlight is intended for the aftermarket and for installation on vehicles in use. It appears easily transferable from one vehicle to another. Installation of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is generally permissible under Federal law. However, the installation is prohibited if it is installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business and if such installation renders inoperative, either wholly or partially, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Installation of Flatlight does not appear to present this possibility.

Even though Flatlight is not prohibited under Federal law, you must still determine whether it is permissible under the laws of any State in which it may be installed. We are unable to advise you on State law, but recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Finally, because Flatlight is "motor vehicle equipment" you, as its manufacturer, must notify purchasers and provide a remedy upon any determination by you or this agency that it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/ll/89

ID: 19809-1.bk!

Mr. Stuart Leopold
President
DGS Enterprises, Ltd.
2800 Covered Bridge Road
Merrick, NY 11566

Dear Mr. Leopold:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1999, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you sought clarification of my letter to you of March 30, 1999. You stated that the people to whom you would like to show my March 30 letter might not understand some of the legal discussions. You asked, therefore, that we rephrase the March 30 letter to state that the use of "Tire Mend" is neither endorsed nor prohibited by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

I am sorry you found that our earlier letter might be difficult for some people to understand. However, there is a limit to the extent to which we can simplify our discussion of how various requirements in 49 U. S. Code, Chapter 301 (Safety Act) might affect your product.

We are charged with enforcing the Safety Act in its entirety and not just the FMVSSs. In considering how a product may be affected by the statutes and regulations we administer, we consider application of the many different parts of the Safety Act. We also consider the various persons who may ultimately read our opinion letters.

I stated in my March 30 letter that because of the self-certification system established by the Safety Act, we neither "approve, disapprove, test, endorse, or certify" motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, or related products. I also said in my letter that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not issued any FMVSSs specifically applicable to substances such as 'Tire Mend'".

We cannot make the categorical statement, however, that the use of "Tire Mend" is not prohibited under the Safety Act. I explained the "make inoperative" provision of the Safety Act in my letter. As applied to your product, the issue is not whether the product is expressly addressed in the FMVSSs, but whether a provision of the Safety Act would prohibit the installation of "Tire Mend" if the product adversely affected the compliance of a tire with the FMVSSs. I also explained that the "make inoperative" provision applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses, but does not apply to vehicle owners. Nevertheless, this agency encourages vehicle owners to maintain the safety of their vehicles and equipment and not make changes that would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard.

I hope this explanation of my March 30 letter is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:119
d.6/23/99

ID: 1980y

Alan S. Eldahr, President
Optimum Building Technologies
P.O. Box 881105
San Diego, CA 92108

Dear Mr. Eldahr:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a "small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles." This device can be incorporated with the center highmounted stoplamp, or installed as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. In the latter configuration, messages can be displayed continuously, or stop when the service brakes are applied. You have concluded that the device will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked for our comments. I regret the delay in responding.

Our first comment is that the device cannot be combined with an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp, or with an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp used to replace original equipment center lamps, installed on vehicles manufactured on and after September l, l985. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 forbids combining the center stop lamp with any other lamp. We view the LED reader board as a type of signal lamp within the meaning of the prohibition.

The legality of a combined LED-center stop lamp for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, is not determinable under Standard No. l08, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its installation by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses would be permissible under Federal law if the installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any element of design, or device, installed in accordance with a safety standard. However, it would still remain subject to regulation by any State in which it would be sold or operated. We cannot advise you on State laws. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203).

As for the device's legality as a separate unit in the rear window area, when installed as an item of original equipment, it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. If it creates a noncompliance with the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, an outside rear view mirror must be provided on the passenger's side. As an aftermarket item, it is subject to the render inoperative provisions of the Act. We believe that an additional original equipment light in the rear window, whether red or amber, and whether or not operating simultaneously with the center lamp but sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp. For the same reason, we believe that as an aftermarket item installed on passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l985, your device could render the original equipment center lamp on those cars partially inoperative by distracting attention from its function. As for installation on vehicles that were manufactured before that date and thus lack center lamps, this again is a question to be answered under State laws. At all times, the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll must be maintained, regardless of whether the car was manufactured before or after September 1, l985.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/

VSA#108 d:8/l7/89