ID: nht93-5.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray M. Miyamoto

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/19/93 from Ray M. Miyamoto to Public Community Strategy, NHTSA (OCC 8840)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on June 19, 1993, requesting permission to retrofit older cars with air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used.) A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all new cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This "render inoperative" provision would prohibit you, as a commercial repair business, from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision does not require you to ensure that the vehicle would have complied with Standard No. 208 if the air bag had been installed in the vehicle as original equipment, it only requires you to ensure that the installation does not "render inoperative" any of the devices or design elements which were installed as original equipment. You do not need to receive permission from NHTSA prior to opening your business, however, any violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition would subject you to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, you may wish to consult state law concerning liability if you retrofit vehicles with air bags.

Given the safety benefits that air bags are now providing, we understand that many persons desire that air bags be made available to be retrofitted in vehicles which were not originally equipped with this life-saving device. However, this concept poses enormous engineering challenges. New car manufacturers design air bag systems for the car in which it is installed. In designing the air bag system, air bag size, shape, venting and inflator gas generation characteristics are predicated on the specific car interior, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering-column crush stroke force resistance, gage array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes.

It is highly unlikely that a retrofit system for older cars can be devised that could provide the safety and functional characteristics of current new car systems which are integrated into car design from inception. Moreover, unless an air bag system was designed in light of the specific characteristics of the vehicle for which it was intended, it is possible that the air bag might not provide any safety benefits in a crash, or even create a safety problem (e.g., if it activated under inappropriate circumstances). I am enclosing a copy of an article from the April 29, 1993, Washington Post which also discusses the difficulties in installing air bags in used cars.

NHTSA is aware, however, that at least one major air bag manufacturer, Breed Automotive, is attempting to develop retrofit air bag systems for certain popular cars, trucks, and vans which were produced without driver air bags in the last few years. If you desire further information about this program at that company, Mr. William Textores (201) 299-6500 may be willing to provide you with such information. I must emphasize, however, that NHTSA does not endorse any commercial products.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

ID: nht93-5.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dave Beidleman -- Arizona Department of Transportation, Equipment Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/2/93 from Dave Beidleman to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8834)

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of July 2, 1993, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of rear identification lamps.

The rear configuration of 10 dump trucks that are being constructed for the Arizona DOT is such that you would like to raise the center lamp of the three-lamp identification lamp cluster approximately 1 1/2 inches; the two outer lamps of the array cannot be raised due to the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that the identification lamps be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline." In our opinion, the lamps in an identification lamp cluster must be equally spaced laterally and mounted at the same height in order for the identification lamp system to perform its intended purpose. Therefore, I am afraid the agency cannot accept a lamp display that differs. Although the lamps could be mounted on the rear of the cab, we understand that in that position they could be obscured by the top lip of the dump body.

We realize that the contractor has pre-punched holes for the lamps, which would be flush-mounted in the rear cross sill of the truck body. If a way were found to cover the holes, there are surface-mounted lamps available which could be mounted at the same height (your desired height for the center lamp) in a manner than should not affect the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism.

ID: nht93-5.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles D. Shipley -- Director, Ohio Department of Public Safety

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allan Schwartz (Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7/6/93 from Charles D. Shipley to John Womack (OCC 8866)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1993, informing us of the views of your Department with respect to the legality under Ohio law of underbody-mounted neon lighting on motor vehicles.

You have asked for information and guidance in addressing the possible hazards and confusion presented by this aftermarket equipment. I am afraid that there is little we can do to help you. The agency has not made a study of possible safety hazards from this relatively new item of motor vehicle equipment, and yours is, perhaps, only the third letter this Office has received on the subject. I enclose a copy of our letter of April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz who inquired about such a system.

You have also asked for information on applicable Federal regulations. There is no Federal prohibition on the manufacture and sale of underbody neon lights. This appears to be an aftermarket system which is purchased and installed on vehicles in use. We have advised that, under these circumstances and under Federal law, there is no prohibition against owner-installation of underbody neon lights, and that use of such equipment is determinable under the laws of any State where a vehicle so equipped is operated. As we do not interpret State laws, we have referred our correspondents to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further information.

Installation of aftermarket underbody neon lighting by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not prohibited under Federal law as long as it does not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). If it could be demonstrated that use of the neon lighting impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 then arguably the lighting equipment has been rendered partially inoperative and a violation of the prohibition may have occurred.

Your letter is the first expression we have had of possible conflict of underbody neon lighting with State laws and of potential safety issues related to this equipment. As such, it will assist us in replying to future inquiries on this subject.

ID: nht93-5.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Zaher A. Obeid -- President & CEO, Petrobeid of Syria

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7/14/93 from Zaher A. Obeid to NHTSA (OCC 8864)

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of July 14, 1993, asking for comments on the "Zatalite" which you would like to sell in the United States in the near future.

The Zatalite is a message board intended to be installed in the rear window of motor vehicles. We have been asked before about this kind of device, and I enclose a copy of our letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr explaining the circumstances under which installation of an electronic message board is and is not permissible under U.S. Federal law.

Your Figure 3(c) shows the Zatalite controls built into a steering wheel. We believe that you should review this method of installation to ensure that it does not affect compliance of vehicles equipped with airbags (installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208), or, if the vehicle has no airbag, with Standard No. 203 (requirements intended to protect the driver in an impact with the steering control system).

I hope that this information is useful.

ID: nht93-5.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ben F. Barrett -- Associate Director, The Legislative Research Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/7/93 from Ben F. Barrett to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-8164)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993, in which you stated that a Kansas school district wants to use 15-passenger buses to transport school children, but does not want to cause those buses to meet the additional safety requirements applicable to school buses. You also stated that although the state definition of a school bus is the same as the Federal definition, it has been suggested that the state amend that definition to exclude 15-passenger vehicles. You asked our comments on the consequences of such legislation, including any sanctions, liability, or other issues that could result.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), defines a school bus as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." This agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying more than 10 persons," and a school bus is further defined as a bus that is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, the 15-passenger buses to which you referred would clearly fall within the Federal definition of "school bus.

The Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In the case of school buses, it is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell a new school bus that is not certified as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the new vehicle, and the seller is subject to substantial penalties for knowingly selling a noncomplying school bus, including civil fines and injunctive sanctions.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1392(d) provides that no state shall maintain in effect any standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the state standard is identical to the Federal standard. If it is not, the Federal standard preempts the state standard unless the state standard imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles acquired solely for the state's own use. Therefore, even if the State of Kansas redefines a school bus to exempt 15-passenger buses, Federal law remains applicable and any new school bus sold in Kansas must comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, state law notwithstanding.

The purchaser or user of the vehicle is not under the same legal constraints as the seller. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students, whether or not the vehicle meets Federal safety standards. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the state or school district retrofit a vehicle to bring it into compliance with Federal standards. That is because once that vehicle has been sold new to the first customer, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law.

Although not required by Federal law, this agency strongly recommends that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards be used to transport school children. In that connection, please find enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. S401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommen- dations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Specifically, the Guideline recommends, among other things, that any vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is used as a school bus comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

Finally, we would note that the use of vehicles that do not comply with Federal school bus safety standards to transport school children could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. Therefore, school districts should consult their attorneys and/or insurance carriers for advice on that issue.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ferguson -- Research Manager, Transportation Research Council, Department of Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/23/93 from Wayne S. Ferguson to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 8602)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1993, enclosing a copy of a joint resolution of the Virginia General Assembly, to study the use of deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, with the goal of allowing use of these lamps. The Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate potential legal problems regarding state regulation of deceleration lights, especially as they may relate to Federal preemption in the area of vehicle safety equipment.

You would like to know whether "the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth?" If the answer is affirmative, you request advice on "the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights." The answer to these questions is dependent upon the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the characteristics of any specific warning system.

The Act does not permit a State to impose a safety requirement upon a motor vehicle that differs from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in any area of performance that is covered by the Federal standard (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The applicable Federal standard in this instance is 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. We understand that a deceleration warning system is intended to inform a following driver that the vehicle ahead is slowing. Such a system can consist of one or more lamps, red or amber in color, and either flashing or steady-burning in use. Further, such a system can be original motor vehicle equipment or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to original equipment in all instances. Two provisions are important with respect to supplementary lighting equipment such as a deceleration warning system. Under S5.5.10(d), unless otherwise provided by S5.5.10, all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use. It is for this reason that we informed The Flxible Corporation on December 8, 1986, that we had interpreted Standard No. 108 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles and not just the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, the amber-lamp deceleration warning system that Flxible had been asked to install on transit buses was acceptable to NHTSA in a steady-burning mode but not a flashing one.

Similarly, we advised Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990, that if a deceleration warning system is one that does not consist of additional lamps but one that operates through the tail or stop lamp system, it must also be steady burning.

The second relevant provision is that of S5.1.3; original lighting equipment of a supplementary nature must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We also informed Flxible that simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3. On the other hand, the simultaneous use of the Flxible amber and red rear lamps in a steady burning mode would not be precluded by this section.

In summary, we conclude that Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones.

A system that is not permissible as original equipment would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system. Although the preemption provisions and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, the Act also provides, for both new and used vehicles, that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with Standard No. 108 or any other Federal safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). An action which created an adverse effect upon lamp performance would partially render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108. In our view, flashing deceleration lamps would "render inoperative" the compliant lamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer by potentially confusing following drivers. For this reason, it is our opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a deceleration warning system on a truck in Virginia would be in violation of section 1397(a)(2)(A) if that system consisted of flashing lights, or operated in a flashing mode through lamps that are normally steady burning in use. Since a State may not legitimize conduct that is illegal under Federal law, Virginia could not permit such businesses to install deceleration lamps on vehicles. However, the Act does not prohibit installation of a flashing light system by a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

For this reason, section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate for Virginia to encourage such modifications, in view of the potential adverse safety consequences of unexpected flashing lamps. Moreover, because it appears that the many of the vehicles will be operated in interstate commerce, we suggest that you also obtain the views of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to determine whether that agency's regulations affect trucks with deceleration lights. You should direct your inquiry to James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3404, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

You also asked about the proper course of action to obtain Federal approval of the use of deceleration lights. The agency does not "approve" or "disapprove" safety systems but will advise, as we do here, whether such systems are permitted or prohibited under Federal law. There appear to be certain types of deceleration warning systems that would not be prohibited under existing Federal law. With respect to systems that would not be allowable under Standard No. 108, these systems could only be permitted if NHTSA were to amend Standard No. 108 through rulemaking. Any person who believes that the standard should be amended may submit a petition for rulemaking. The agency's procedures for petitions for rulemaking are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552.

If we can be of further help, our Office of Research and Development may be able to assist you, and I suggest you contact Michael Perel for copies of pertinent research contracts on deceleration warning systems. Mr. Perel may be reached at 202-366-5675.

ID: nht93-5.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 30, 1993

FROM: C.N. (Norm) Littler -- Coordinator - Regulatory Affairs, Motor Coach Industries/TMC

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 10, 1994 from John Womack to C.N. Littler (A42; Part 571.7)

TEXT:

Pursuant to our telecon, I have attached to following materials for your review.

- AMF's paid advertisement - National Bus Trader Article - Copy of Cert. of Origin - Copy of Cert. of Title

Your comments and opinions relating to MCI's legal recourse with respect to AMF's claims and practices would be greatly appreciated. As stated, we do not feel that a remanufactured MCI Coach should be claimed as new. Thank you.

(Attachments omitted)

ID: nht93-5.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale Moore -- CIC, Hagan Hamilton Insurance and Financial Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/6/93 from Dale Moore to Walter Myers (OCC 8546)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office in which you asked whether 15-passenger vans used by Linfield College to transport high school-age students to the college must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. You explained in your letter and its enclosure that Linfield College sponsors an "Upward Bound" program, in which selected high school-age students from disadvantaged families are transported to the college campus for academic tutoring and other activities, including field trips, counseling, etc. You have been advised that the college's 15-passenger vans "may have to meet federal requirements in order to be leased or purchased from an automobile dealer."

Let me begin by stating that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for new school buses regulate the manufacture and sale or lease of new vehicles used for transporting students. The Federal requirements do NOT, however, regulate what bus may be used for particular student transportation purposes. The requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles are set by the State. Thus, if there are regulations about what buses an Oregon college must use to transport Oregon high school students, such regulations are administered by the State of Oregon, not the Federal government.

Some background information on our requirements might be helpful to your inquiry. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381 to 1431, as amended (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The Safety Act defines a school bus as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools."

It is a violation of the Safety Act for any person to sell or lease any new motor vehicle as a school bus that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards. It is not a violation of Federal law, however, to sell any noncomplying USED vehicle as a school bus, even if the seller knows the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus. Similarly, it is not a violation of Federal law to USE a noncomplying vehicle to transport school children. As noted above, that is because individual states, not the Federal government, regulate the use of motor vehicles.

In the situation described in your letter, several issues must be addressed to determine whether the vans are subject to our school bus safety standards. The first issue is whether the vans are "buses." Since the vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, the answer to that question is yes. The second issue is whether Upward Bound activities are considered "school related

events." Although Oregon may have a specific definition of "school related event" for the purpose of determining whether Linfield College must USE certified school buses, with regard to Federal law, we conclude the answer is yes. That is, if a new bus were sold or leased to the college, we would consider the new vehicle as being sold or leased for a school related event. The goal of Upward Bound is to prepare the participating students for post-secondary education. That is also, of course, one of the goals of the secondary schools in the program. Your enclosure states that Upward Bound staff "visit each high school on a weekly basis doing counseling and follow-up work with each student." These regular ongoing visits could not happen without the cooperation of the secondary schools in the program. Accordingly, it appears to us that the Upward Bound program is an "event related to" the secondary schools concerned, within the meaning of the Safety Act.

The final issue is whether transporting Upward Bound students constitutes a significant use for the vans. Linfield College need not purchase certified new school buses for its general purpose vehicles, even though such vehicles may be used occasionally to transport Upward Bound students. On the other hand, if Linfield College purchases or leases the vans knowing that they will be significantly used to transport upward Bound students, the seller who knows of such anticipated use must sell only properly certified school buses.

For information regarding state requirements on the use of school buses, you may contact Mr. Donald Forbes, 135 Transportation Building, Salem, OR 97310, telephone (503) 378-6388.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: nht93-5.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Jennings

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/93 from Charles Jennings to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter received in this Office on July 2, asking for an opinion of your invention, the Alternating Wavelength Low-Beam (AWL).

The AWL "connects to the already existing low beam headlights, by just plugging it between the electrical sockets and the lights." The effect of the device is to create "light modulations of less than 17 per second, alternating from one of the two existing low-beam headlights to the other, and at the same time, changing wavelengths slightly, from one to the other (not flashing on and off)."

We have no opinion on the safety merits of your invention but can provide you with an interpretation of its relationship to Federal law. The AWL appears intended as an aftermarket device. There are no Federal restrictions on the sale of this device. Nor is there any Federal restriction upon installation of the AWL when it is installed on a vehicle by its owner. Such an installation appears a distinct possibility from your brief description of it. At this point, the question of the legality of its use is determined under the laws of the States where the AWL is operated. You represent that its operation in Texas is acceptable to the Department of Public Safety. However, this opinion would not be binding on other States. We are unable to advise you on the legality of using the AWL in the various States and suggest that you ask for an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) prohibits most persons other than the owner (specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses) from acts that may "knowingly render inoperative", in whole or in part, safety equipment that the vehicle manufacturer has added pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The lower-beam headlamps are original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, though means may be provided to flash them on and off automatically for signalling purposes. Because the modulation created by the AWL results in a headlamp beam that is neither steady burning nor an on-off signal flash, the vehicle's headlamp system would no longer be in compliance with Standard No. 108. In our view, the headlamp system's performance would have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the Act's prohibition when the AWL is sold in the aftermarket and installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and motor vehicle repair business. The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the prohibition.

We hope that you find this information useful.

ID: nht93-5.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1993

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Charlie Hott -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from John Womack to Jane L. Dawson (A42; Std. 111)

TEXT:

As a follow-up to our recent phone conversation, please provide a written response to the following questions concerning FMVSS 111:

Are we required to certify that the mirror system HAS THE ABILITY to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system HAS BEEN adjusted?

Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area STRAIGHT DOWN from the mirrors and 200' rearward?

Thanks for your cooperation.