Interpretation ID: 3011yy
2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237
Phoenix, AZ 80058
Dear Mr. Dembecki:
This responds to your letter of April 24, 1991, commenting on my letter to you of April 8.
In response to your request to review and comment on your video tape of your device, I asked our research and development office to review it. They indicated that although the device has some intuitive appeal, there is no technical basis to show that it would reduce accidents. In fact, our agency sponsored a field test of a similar system that flashed the center highmounted stop lamp. We found no significant difference in accident rates compared to a steady-burning signal. Attached is the abstract page of this study for your information.
In closing, I note your comment that "My l99l Oldsmobile was retrofitted within l5 minutes" with the module causing the center high mounted stop lamp to flash. Since you did not say that you had performed the retrofit, we assume that it "was retrofitted" by another person. As I advised you on April 8, the center lamp must be steady-burning. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(a)(2)(A)) forbids a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard, i.e., that converts the steady-burning center lamp into a flashing one. However, the prohibition does not apply to individual owners of vehicles if they are not "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" capable of performing the modification themselves.
Sincerely
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel
Enclosure
/NCC-01:ZTVinson:amb:62992:5/2/91:OCC# 5898, WANG# 5427o NCC-20 Subj/Chron ZTV, NRD ref:l08 d:5/23/9l