Interpretation ID: nht90-3.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from R. Erhardt to P.J. Rice (OCC 5113)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1990, received on the 21st. Although the ZIP code was correct, the address was not. For your future use, the agency's address is 400 7th Street SW.

You wish to road test engineering samples of a new type of headlamp system by equipping one to 10 private and/or company vehicles with them. The test would continue indefinitely for lifetime and reliability evaluation. You would like to be advised of th e laws concerning such an undertaking.

We assume that the experimental headlamp system is presently outside the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the Federal vehicle standard on lighting, and that the existing headlamp system that meets Standard No. 108 would be removed so th at the new one could be installed. Modifications to vehicles in use are directly addressed by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Under this section, "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" pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defi ned by that section as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation. The prohibition, you will note, does not extend to the vehicle owner.

With respect to your planned test procedure, removal of the vehicle's original headlamp system would render it inoperative within the meaning of the statutory language. However, if the vehicles concerned were owned by the company, and if the headlamp re moval were performed in a company garage by company personnel, the prohibition would not apply. In addition, if the vehicles were privately owned and either the owner or the company garage removed the headlamps, the prohibition also would not apply (ass uming that the company garage does not repair non-company vehicles for compensation).

The question of the legality of use of the experimental system after its installation is determinable under the laws of the States where the vehicles are registered and will be operated. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in Springfield for an interpretation under local law. If the modified vehicles will be operated in States other than Illinois, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Given your wish to begin the program as early as August 27, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) should you have any further questions.