Interpretation ID: 3234yy
Texas Department of Public Safety
Motor Vehicle Inspection Service
350 West IH-30
Garland, TX 75043
Dear Sgt. Wilkinson:
This responds to your letter of October 17, 1991, informing us that Texas has adopted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for State safety inspections. You report that motorists wish to repair rear lighting devices with patch kits, rather than replacing them with new equipment, and ask whether Standard No. 108 affords a basis for making use of repair kits illegal. You mention in particular the following sections of Standard No. 108: S5.1.3 ("additional equipment," with attention to impairment of effectiveness), S5.3.1.1 ("location of required and other equipment"), and S5.7 ("replacement equipment.")
I am afraid that Standard No. l08 does not contain a completely satisfactory answer to your question, primarily because the standard deals with the performance of new vehicle equipment, and not the maintenance of that performance after the vehicle is in use, which is the thrust of the Texas requirement. Under the regulatory scheme of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a motor vehicle is not required to remain in compliance with Standard No. l08 (or any Federal safety standard) after the vehicle is sold to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could suffer damage to its rear lighting assemblies before its first sale, requiring repair by the dealer. Assuming, for the sake of argument, the not-very likely scenario that the new car dealer selling the car chose to use a patch kit rather than to replace a damaged lens or lamp, the legal question is not whether the patch is additional lighting equipment that could impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3). The legal question is whether the repaired vehicle meets Standard No. l08: for example, would the repaired lamp meet the photometric requirements with the patch in place; would it meet the environmental tests (moisture, dust, corrosion) that the lamp and vehicle originally met in order to be certified as conforming to Standard No. l08? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, the patch would be acceptable under Federal law; if negative, then the patch would not be acceptable under Standard No. l08.
The Safety Act does not directly address repair of damage after a vehicle has been sold. Although paragraph S5.7 of Standard No. l08 requires replacement lighting equipment to meet the same standards as original equipment, neither it nor the Safety Act specify how a vehicle is to be repaired. The Safety Act does prohibit motor vehicle repair businesses (and dealers, distributors, and manufacturers) from creating a noncompliance after a vehicle has been sold, but if that noncompliance is already in existence, such as could occur with a broken lens, there is no statutory obligation to repair the vehicle so that it once again complies with Standard No. 108.
Under the Safety Act, a State is preempted from establishing or continuing in effect a motor vehicle safety standard that is not identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering the same aspect of performance. The purpose of this requirement is to remove the burden on interstate commerce that would be created if the standards to be met by a vehicle or equipment manufacturer varied from State to State. However, the preemption clause does not preclude a State from regulation of modifications to vehicles after sale. Thus, the State of Texas may prohibit the use of patch kits to repair any lighting devices without violating the Safety Act. Furthermore, if Texas laws for the operation of vehicles in use are identical to Standard No. l08, the State could prohibit any original equipment which impairs the effectiveness of the performance of any original equipment lamp or reflective device required by Standard No. l08, or replacement lighting equipment that is not certified to the same requirements as the original lighting equipment.
I hope that this information has been helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel
/ref:l08#VSA d:ll/20/9l