ID: nht95-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/6/95 letter from Jeffrey S. Bakst to Dorothy Nakama (occ 11412)

TEXT: This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below.

You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You fu rther informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours.

Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a ma nufacturer do for the purchaser?

The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(c):

A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer --

(1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . .

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, rep lacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination.

Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from th e accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124?

The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating fo rce.

Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver re moves the opposing actuating force.

NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an o pinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 29, 1995 EST

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark Heminway -- Director of Fleet Operations, The Hertz Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/95 letter from Mark Heminway to John Womack (OCC 11167)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you requested from the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) an opinion as to whether a process Hertz has developed for digitally scanning original written and hand-printed signatures and applying the scanned signatures to odometer disclosure statements using a laser printer meets the requirements of 49 CFR Section 580.

The process you describe raises the issue of whether use of digitally-scanned and laser-printed reproductions of the signature and hand-printed name on odometer disclosures complies with the requirement of 49 CFR @ 580.5(c) and (f) for the signature and printed name of the transferor and transferee. After careful review of the sample Hertz submitted of a title completed using its process and the description of the process in your letter in light of the Federal odometer disclosure statute and regulation s, the agency concludes that the process of digital scanning and laser printing of the signatures on vehicle titles as described in your letter and exemplified by the accompanying sample you submitted fulfills the requirements of the Federal odometer dis closure law. It would be advisable, however, for Hertz to ascertain whether its process also meets applicable requirements of state laws governing motor vehicle titles. States may have different or additional requirements which would affect their willing ness to accept titles printed using the Hertz system.

Section 580.5(c) of NHTSA's odometer disclosure regulation requires that the "written disclosure must be signed by the transferor, including the printed name." 49 CFR @ 580.5(c). Section 580.5(f) specifies the same requirement for the transferee signing the odometer disclosure. In the preamble to the final rule adopting these provisions, and in many interpretations of those requirements, the agency has stated that the signature and printed name requirement means that both the signatures and printed na mes of the transferor and transferee must be handwritten by the respective parties to the transaction. It has made it clear that entry of these items in typewriting, either manually or by means of a computer, does not satisfy the regulation.

Handwriting or handprinting, unlike typewriting, can be subjected to handwriting analysis which is an indispensable tool in identifying the actual individuals who complete fraudulent odometer disclosures. Thus, the agency views the handwriting and hand- printing requirements as essential to the successful identification and prosecution of perpetrators of odometer fraud.

It is our view that the Hertz system as described in your letter and evidenced by the sample you enclosed satisfies the need for an adequate handwriting sample, as well as protection against unauthorized use, and therefore NHTSA's regulations, permit its use. The digital scanning and laser printing of the signature and printed name provided by Hertz' system (as shown on the sample you provided to this office) produce a handwriting exemplar that is sufficiently clear for handwriting analysis. In additi on, the system you describe whereby access to use of the digitally-scanned signature is password-protected appears to provide adequate security against use of the signature and hand-printed name by anyone other than the person who wrote it.

We wish to caution that this opinion should not be construed as a blanket approval of the use of signature and hand-printed names that have been digitally scanned. It is based to a large extent on the quality of the example that you provided with your l etter. Both scanners and computerized printers vary considerably in the degree of resolution and clarity of the image, and scanners also vary in the accuracy with which they reproduce the image from the original.

Accordingly, we cannot assume that all combinations of scanners and printers would be capable of producing an image that will provide a handwriting and hand printing exemplar that is adequate for handwriting analysis. Therefore, if any changes are made in the process or the equipment used that make the signature and/or hand printed name less clear than they appear on its sample, Hertz should submit an example of the product of that change for review by NHTSA before using it on actual odometer disclosur es.

I hope this information is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions regarding this interpretation, or any other legal questions concerning the Federal odometer disclosure statute and regulations, please write to this office at the a bove address, or call Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Michael A. Nappo

TO: Chief counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO: 9/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MICHAEL A. NAPPO (A43; STD. 108); 6/8/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SHAWN SHIEH; 5/10/91 AND 3/21/91 LETTERS FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO CHRIS LAWRENCE; 8/17/89 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (VSA 108 (A)(2)(A) TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; 7/8/85 LETTER FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO DON BENFIELD

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

Enclosed is some information on a new product that our company will be trying to market in the near future. Could you please send us any information on how this product might effect local and national laws?

Product Name: AUTO AD

Concept: To offer the consumer a better way to advertise with great exposure and less cost.

Operation: The AUTO AD is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexable screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. This screen has LED's (lights) which will be controlled by a processing unit that will be attached to the screen with a cable. The processing unit will then be controlled by a key pad that will be mounted close to the automobile driver. The whole unit will run off the power from the car battery through the cigaret lighter or hardwired in.

NOTE: An adaptor will be made so the AUTO AD can also be used in the home or business using a 120v outlet.

Uses: * selling the auto * advertising the business * as a safety device when the auto breaks down one can signal for help * general advertising

Need: With the high cost of advertising through radio, tv, signs, papers, etc., the consumer is looking for a cheaper way to advertise more effectively.

THANK YOU. (Diagrams omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

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

TO: Gupta, Rishi -- Autolite (India) Limited

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Rishi Gupta to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 10324)

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of August 29, 1994, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For future reference, requests for interpretations of U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety regulations should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You have asked whether the size and types of aiming pads you propose to place on headlamps manufactured by Autolite conform to DOT specifications. You describe these headlamps as "a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beam s [which] use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2)." You enclosed diagrams showing "aiming pad's position as per SAE J1383 - 1992" (Figures 1 and 3), and in the manner you wish to place them on the Autolite lamps (Figures 2 and 4). We understand that these replaceable bulb headlamps are intended to be sold as replacements for sealed beam headlamps of the same dimensions.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the DOT specification that applies to Autolite's headlamps. The aimability performance requirements for non-sealed beam headlamps are found in S7.8. of Standard No. 108. S7.8 allows any aiming pad pattern that will fit on the headlamp and that will allow any one of the available aiming adapters described in SAE J602 to be used on the headlamp.

Specifically, S7.8.1 in pertinent part allows non-sealed beam headlamps to be equipped with aiming pads to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR85 (not "1992" as you wrote) when being tested for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is installed on a motor vehicle. S7.8.5 allows an installed headlamp system to be aimable with an externally applied aiming device. Under S7.8.5.1, this aiming device shall be the equipment specified in SAE Standard J602 OCT80 Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units.

You write that the aiming pad sizes and types you wish to use are identical to those on headlamps sold by Hella, and that ETL Testing Laboratories has told you that the aiming pad positions and types meet DOT specifications. This indicates that Autolite 's headlamps would be mechanically aimable with SAE J602 equipment, and therefore permissible as meeting Standard No. 108. We recommend that Autolite verify mechanical aimability with SAE J602 equipment before certifying compliance with Standard No. 108 .

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and asks that we point out the following errors in Autolite's Figures Nos. 2 and 4. Under both Figures, there is a reference to "HB-2 (H4 P43t)." The HB2 light source is not the same as the H4 P43t light so urce. The HB2 is a light source permitted by Standard No. 108 while the H4 P43t is not permitted by the Standard for motor vehicles. Under the drawing, the dimension "68.5" should be "68.58 +/- 0.51" (see Figure 4-4 of Standard No. 108). The dimensions of "32" and "52.0" must be the sum of two dimension "A"s from Figure 4-4, thus the sum is 42.16 +/- 0.25 + 42.16 +/- 0.25 = 84.32 +/- 0.50, not 84 as nominally calculated. Finally, with respect to Figure 4 only, because this lamp is intended to replace a 200 x 142 mm sealed beam lamp, the position of the aiming pads are not, but should be identical to the 200 x 142 mm sealed beam to facilitate mechanical aim when only one headlamp is replaced.

ID: nht94-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

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

TO: Thomas L. Wright -- Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/15/94 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO ROBERT HELLMUTH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchas e, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other f eature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no proble m as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to Stat e law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

ID: nht94-4.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

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

TO: Bruce Monnie -- Senior Designer, Advanced Design Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/5/94 FROM BRUCE MONNIE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10253)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehic le's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requiremen ts for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to "any device except Type I or Type I I seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less" (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restr aint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. n1 In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be re sponsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its in stallation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the c onsumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, suc h as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

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

ID: nht94-4.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Lois Castillo -- President, Travel Tray, Inc.

TO: Joan Womack -- NHTSA; John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip Recht to Lois Castillo (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Joan Womack:

My name is Lois Castillo. I represent a new company called Travel Tray, Inc. based in Utah. Our tray fits across children's carseats and is easily attached and removed. I have enclosed one of our brochures that describes our tray.

I need your help in obtaining any information you might have regarding safety regulations pertaining to a tray such as this.

We are in preparation to start manufacturing and have been advised to seek information from your department first. I have spoken with Craig Allred, Director of the State of Utah Division of Highway Safety and showed him my tray. He felt the tray was okay, but suggested that I should apply a disclaimer clause and warning that the tray should not be used as part of the safety apparatus. That it is only to be used as a convenience item - like a toy - for the child. My patent attorney also suggested thi s.

Please let me know what you think and any information you might have regarding this.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Enclosure

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TO: Taylor Vinson, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JOHN E. GETZ (REDBOOK (2)); PART 571.7

TEXT: We are in the custom trailer manufacturing business. Most often we purchase new trailers and finish them, primarily inside, for specific applications such as medical trailers or trailers for specific electronic functions (see enclosed Brochure). In suc h cases our new trailer product is subject to all of the latest DOT regulations. However, in other cases we start with a used trailer and change its finishing and equipment for a new application. For example, we recently took an old (1985) vintage trai ler, stripped the inside, and refinished it for a major computer company to use as a mobile marketing facility. In this case the running gear did not change nor did the Vehicle Identification number. However, ownership did change which raised the questi on of "Newly Manufactured" as addressed in @ 571.7 "Applicability" (copy enclosed). Telephone discussions with Patrick Boyd and Ken Hardy in Vehicle Safety indicate preliminarily that this is not a newly manufactured trailer because the basic trailer st ructure did not change. However in some cases we may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application.

What we are requesting is an interpretation as to whether we would fall in the category of a newly manufactured trailer if the running gear. VIN, and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does. In the example above we did add conspicuity treatment, not because it was thought to be legally required (although we did want to protect the company prior your interpretation), but mainly from a liability and safety standpoint in the event of an accident and subsequent litigation. If you have any questions regarding this request please call me at (513) 752-9000 ext. 208. Thanking you in advance. I am

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

RICHARD P. BOWLING

PRESIDENT

FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET

Date: October 18, 1994

Number of pages including this sheet: 1

From: Don Vierimaa

To: John Getz, 1-513-943-3395 TITLE 49 - TRAILERS

@ 671.7 Applicability.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each standard set forth in Subpart B of this part applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirement s of this chapter, and the Act, unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

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.

ID: nht94-4.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Donald T. Hoy -- Senior Marketing Manager, Clean Air Partners

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO DONALD T. HOY (REDBOOK 2; PART 303)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to obtain written confirmation on the issue of converting a school bus to run on a blended fuel of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) and diesel. During my conversation this morning with Mr. John Wo mack, I outlined our intention to convert school busses to run on a blended fuel of natural gas and diesel in Seattle, Washington. We fully intend to market this product in other states as well.

Basically, the Clean Air Partners, Inc. (CAP) CARB certified conversion system is designed to bolt on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) diesel engine. The diesel fuel system remains intact and operates as designed during the duty cycle of the eng ine. Our conversion, during the dual fuel cycle, simply reduces the flow of diesel fuel to the engine and substitutes natural gas in its' place. Should your on board supply of natural gas be depleated, the system automatically reverts back to 100% diese l with no interruption in driveability.

With this brief description of our conversion system in mind, I would like to ask a few questions:

1. Are there any Federal Regulations preventing the conversation of a school bus from diesel to a "dual fuel" school bus?

2. With regard to vehicle certification, is there any significance as to when the conversion is installed on any school bus?