Interpretation ID: nht94-4.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Frank Lautenberg -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/26/94 FROM FRANK LAUTENBERG TO SUSAN SLYE

TEXT: We are responding to your further correspondence on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Mark L. Bauman of Marlton, which was addressed to the Federal Highway Administration. On July 28, 1994, the Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) wrote you about Dr. Bauman's courtesy light. I believe that letter fairly states NHTSA's views on the process the government generally follows for mandating items of safety equipment. This letter will explain what Dr. Bauman may n ow do if he wishes to sell his invention as an item of optional motor vehicle lighting equipment, without the necessity of Federal involvement.

Dr. Bauman's light would be mounted in the front of a vehicle so that its driver, stopped at an intersection, can advise pedestrians or other drivers to proceed with caution. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and As sociated Equipment governs the installation of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles. Since Standard No. 108 does not require a front courtesy light, the light is considered supplementary lighting equipment, one for which no standards have been estab lished. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require, in this instance, the other lighting equipment on the vehicle's front, specifically park ing lamps, turn signal lamps, and headlamps (paragraph S5.1.3, Standard No. 108). The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify upon the vehicle's completion that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to certification of a vehicle on which the courtesy light has been installed, a manufacturer would be certifying under S5.1.3 that the light does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. NHTSA will not question the certification un less it appears to be clearly erroneous. Thus, any tests that Dr. Bauman may conduct with the courtesy light should address the basic issue of impairment. A dealer in motor vehicles must not negatively affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification. Thus, if a dealership installs the courtesy light, it should ensure that there is no impairment within the meaning of S5.1.3 before offering the vehicle for sale and selling it. Our regulations make a distinction between modifications to new vehicles an d those that have been sold, but similar considerations apply. If a dealership installs the courtesy light on a used car, it must ensure that it does not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment (49 U.S.C. 30122). We have interpreted t his, where possible, to be the equivalent of the "impairment" prohibition applicable to new vehicles. This prohibition applies to manufacturers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses as well.

However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. If Dr. Bauman intends his courtesy light solely for the aftermarket and the device is such that it would ordinarily be installed by the vehicle owner, the legality of its use is determined b y the laws of the States in which it is operated. We are unable to advise Dr. Bauman on whether the laws of the individual States would permit use of his invention, and recommend that he write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle A dministrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope that this responds to Dr. Bauman's concerns.