ID: nht89-2.62

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1989

FROM: Luke Baer -- Vice President/General Counsel, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Emory L. Lariscy -- President, Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 8-28-90 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (gr aphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent submission to us of your Vehicle Safety Light Assembly.

We have forwarded this material to Mr. Juergen Herrmann of the Patent Department of Porsche AG for consideration and response.

Thank you for your interest in Porsche.

ID: nht89-2.63

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1989

FROM: Michael F. Trentacoste -- Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

TO: Karen Finkel -- Executive Director, National School Transportation Association

TITLE: Re HCS-3

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12 -3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste

TEXT:

This is in response to your telephone conversation with Ms. Susan Patty of my office regarding the emergency exit requirements for buses subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). You asked if buses purchased as school buses, that meet National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards for school bus emergency exits, must have additional emergency exit space when used in interstate commerce and if push-out type windows are required to meet these exit requirements. W e note that NHTSA wrote to you on April 29, 1989, in response to your request for an interpretation regarding the requirements for push-out windows under Standard 217.

Title 49 C.F.R. S 393.61 establishes the window and emergency exit requirements for buses subject to the FMCSRs. Under this part, buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, must meet the minimum emergency requirements established under Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard 217. Buses that were manufactured before this date may either meet these requirements of Standard 217 or the requirements listed in the FMCSRs under S 393.61(b). As you know, Standard 217 establishes minimum emergency exit r equirements for school buses and different minimum emergency exit requirements for non-school buses over 10,000 Gross Vehicle Weight Rating.

Section 393.61(b)(2) says that "a bus, including a school bus, manufactured on and after September 1, 1973" (emphasis added) must conform with NHTSA's S 571.217. At the time this provision was adopted, Standard 217 applied only to other buses and it was optional for schoolbuses. The FHWA inserted the language, "including school buses," in S 393.61(b)(2) to make clear that school buses used in interstate commerce and, therefore, subject to the FMCSRs, were required to comply with the bus exit standard in Standard 217. Therefore, when a school bus is used in operations that are subject to the FMCSRs, that bus must meet the same minimum emergency exit requirements for non-school buses under S 571.217.

This interpretation is consistent with FHWA's previous interpretations on school bus operations and school bus windows. In 1975, the FHWA published its interpretations of the FMCSRs, which stated, in part, that "neither the general provisions of the Saf ety Regulations, nor the specific

provision of any part of the section of Subpart D, Part 393, contain any language which would exempt school buses from the window construction requirements" (40 Fed. Reg. 50,671, 50,689 (1975). This interpretation goes on to explain that school buses su bject to the FMCSRs, just like other buses which are subject to the FMCSRs, are given an option under S 393.61(c) to use laminated safety glass in lieu of push-out windows if the glass size is sufficient to meet the exit requirements of S 393.61 (b).

Regarding push-out windows, S 393.61(b)(3) provides that older buses must conform with the requirements of SS 393.61(b) or 571.217. Buses which are subject to S 571.217 would follow NHTSA'S interpretation on push-out windows provided to you in its April 29, 1989, letter. Buses which are subject to S 393.61(b)(1) of the FMCSRs are required to have emergency windows that are either push-out windows or that have laminated safety glass that can be pushed out in a manner similar to a push-out window. These requirements were also discussed in the 1977 FMCSRs Interpretations, under Number 4b(4) "Windshield Construction--Section 393.61." Enclosed is an excerpt from those interpretations.

I hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht89-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/89

FROM: KARL HEINZFABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA INC

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KARLHEINZ FABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (MBNA) requests an interpretation of the word "headlamp" as used in Standard 108.

Paragraph S7.2 of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register of May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15, Notice 8), states that each headlamp or beam contributor must be marked with its voltage. The term headlamp is not defined separately under S4 definitio ns, however, a "replaceable bulb headlamp" is defined as a "headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources." Based on the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp", it is our understanding t hat marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

We would appreciate your response at your earliest opportunity as the effective date of this marking requirement is December 1, 1989.

Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Toivo Raabis at (201) 573-2624 in our Safety Engineering Department.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/89

FROM: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF NEW FMVSS NO. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-15-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]; ALSO ATTACHED TO FILE MEMO DATED 7-21-89 TO DOCKET SECTION FROM RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA; [85-15-N08-011]

TEXT: Please give us your advice on our Interpretation of New FMVSS No. 108.

Q1) We think the configuration of each indicator which prescribe in New FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2 a).(1) iii) are as follows.

A. Direct reading analog indicator

B. Remote reading indicator

(Graphics omitted)

We would like to know whether our interpretation is correct or not. If it is not correct, what typical configuration will be for each type?

Q2) Is protective cover described in S7.7.2 in FMVSS No. 108 equal to the cover to protect spirit level which is one of the component of VHAD?

Your prompt reply will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht89-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1989

FROM: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, NHTSA

TO: Madeline Flanagan -- Assistant Counsel, First Pennsylvania Bank N.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Paul Danner (Part 580); Also attached to 8/31/95 letter from Paul Danner to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This is in response to your letter of June 22, 1989, regarding the application of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements to various scenarios.

In the first scenario you describe, a leasee reports a theft of the leased vehicle to the lessor, who then sells the vehicle to an insurance company in accordance with a theft policy. Your first question under this scenario involves how the lessee shoul d complete the odometer disclosure statement required before the lessor sells the vehicle to the insurer. The lessee should certify to what the lessee knows; that is, the lessee should give the odometer reading as of that date (rather than the day the l essee completes the statement). Ideally, the lessee should complete the statement as soon after the vehicle has been stolen as is practical.

Your second questions concerned the lessor's disclosure requirements. Specifically, you asked for guidelines in completing the statement. The completion of an odometer disclosure statement involves the exercise of judgment on the part of the person maki ng the disclosure. The lessor may rely on the lessee's mileage statement in completing its disclosure statement, unless the lessor has good reason to doubt the lessee's statement. Whether or not to rely on the lessee's statement, and what to fill in, i f the lessee's information is not relied upon is a matter for the lessor, in the exercise of the lessor's best judgment, to determine. More specific guidance, in our opinion, is neither possible, nor appropriate.

Your second scenario envisions a leasing company that wants to transfer a vehicle that it repossessed. In this case, the leasing company should report the odometer reading as of the date of the transfer, regardless of the date on which the vehicle is lo cated. Thus, for example, if a

P2

vehicle is slated for repossession on August 1, 1989, located on April 1, 1990, and sold on April 6, 1990, the disclosure statement should be filled out in connection with the transfer and should be dated whenever in that period that the vehicle is inspe cted. If the leasing company looks at the odometer on April 1, the reading could be taken then, and the statement filled out accordingly. Alternatively, the leasing company could read the odometer when the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser (i.e., Ap ril 6), and complete the disclosure as of that date. Where the date of discovery of the vehicle is considerably earlier than the date of the sale, the odometer reading should accompany the sale and should be taken around the time of sale. For example, if the vehicle was located on February 1, 1990, but not sold until May 1, 1990, the leasing company should take an odometer reading around the time of sale. To the extent that the leasing company is unaware of whether the odometer reading reflects the a ctual mileage of the vehicle, the company should in this situation, as elsewhere, use its best judgment in filling out the certification and should not routinely certify that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage.

Your third scenario involves the use of powers of attorney in situations in which the lessee purchases the leased vehicles at the termination of the lease period. Specifically, you asked whether Lease it may continue to use a power of attorney to proces s title work to a vehicle where the lessee completes the separate odometer disclosure statement. The short answer is "yes," however some greater detail will be useful. Where a lessee purchases a vehicle from a lessor, two separate disclosures must be m ade, first, the lessee must complete a lessee's disclosure statement to the lessor, and second, the lessor must complete a transferor's disclosure statement to the lessee (transferee). The lessee's statement will always be on a separate form because the lessee is not part of the chain of ownership of the vehicle. The transferor's (leasing company) disclosure statement will either be separate, if the vehicle's title is "non-conforming," or on the title. In either case, use of powers of attorney for pu rposes other than mileage disclosure is not affected by the odometer disclosure requirements. Thus, the leasing company could use the lessee's power of attorney to complete other transfership paperwork. Conversely, whether or not the title conforms, th e leasing company cannot use a power of attorney to acknowledge its mileage disclosure for the lessee. If the title does not conform, no power of attorney is necessary, as there is no reason why each party cannot sign the separate statement on his or he r own behalf. Even where the title conforms, the leasing company cannot use a power of attorney to sign the disclosure statement for the buyer. The State-issued secure power of attorney is to be used in situations in which the transferor does not have his or her title because it is being held by a lienholder and the buyer, usually a dealer, is going to pay off the lien for the seller, usually a consumer. In this situation, the power of attorney obviates the need for the consumer to make a return trip to the dealership to make the disclosure on the title when the title arrives from the bank. This does not apply in the leasing company-as-transferor situation, and, thus, the power of attorney should not be used for purposes of mileage disclosure.

P3

Finally, you asked several questions relating to verification of the information on the odometer disclosure statement. First, you wanted to know what happens when a dealership which is selling a leased car to a bank makes a false certification regarding the mileage. In such a case, the dealership would be in violation of the Federal law, independent of the fact that the bank had acknowledged receipt of the statement and the dealer would be subject to fines and/or imprisonment, in addition to possible private civil liability. As for how the bank might discover the fraud, the bank could send someone to check the vehicle (or check with the lessee). If the disclosure is made directly on the title, the discrepancy could be apparent by comparing the disc losed mileage with the previously reported mileage. Lastly, when the lessee files a disclosure statement with the bank (at the end of the elapse, or before then if the bank is selling the vehicle and lease), the bank would become aware of any discrepanc y between the statement the dealer made and the statement the lessee has made.

You also inquired about the lessee should complete the lessee's disclosure form absent having received a copy of the dealer's disclosure. The lessee does not need the dealers disclosure; the lessee has possession of the vehicle. The lessee would report the odometer reading and would make the certification regarding the mileage relying on his or her best knowledge. If, as you posed, the odometer had been repaired or replaced and reset to zero prior to the sale of the vehicle to the bank, the lessee wo uld still be able to determine this independently because when an odometer has been repaired or replaced and reset to zero, a sticker indicating the date of repair or replacement, and the odometer reading as of that date must be placed in the front left door of the vehicle. Thus, the lessee would know to check the "not the Actual Mileage" box in completing the odometer statement.

Finally, you asked whether the lessee could sign the odometer statement for the bank. Presuming you mean the dealer's (transferor's statement, yes, if the bank agrees to appoin the lessee its agent for the purpose of acknowledging the mileage disclosure . If a bank gives a lessee a power of attorney to sign a disclosure from a dealer for the bank, the lessee should sign the form in such a way as to indicate this (i.e., Joan Smith for National Bank, pao). Further, any such appointment should, naturally , be in writing.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Mattie Cohan of my staff at (202) 366-1834.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 10, 1989

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation FMVSS 213 - Child Restraint Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing of child booster cushion (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to W. Shapiro (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Volvo has designed and developed a "built-in" child booster cushion for use in a future model vehicle. It will be integrated into the center rear seat arm rest such that the arm rest will split in half to form the booster cushion. The child using this "built-in" booster cushion will utilize the center rear 3-point seat belt for their restraint.

Because the agency has stated in the preamble to the final rule, that sets forth the requirements for "built-in" child seats, that "...S5.4.3.3 allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness...", Volvo believes that a "built-in" booster cush ion that utilizes the adult 3-point center rear seat belt and is designed with due care to meet all the requirements of FMVSS 213, as they apply to "built-in" child seats, is in compliance with FMVSS 213. Volvo believes that by meeting all the labeling, instruction and performance requirements set forth by FMVSS 213 - Child Restraint Systems, this "built-in" booster cushion can be marketed in the U.S. We ask that the agency confirm this as soon as possible.

Some illustrative sketches are attached. If you need any additional information, or would like to see the seat, please feel free to contact me.

Drawings of child booster cushion are attached (graphics omitted).

ID: nht89-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE A. VAN STRATEN -- PRESIDENT VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO. INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/12/89 FROM GEORGE A. VANSTRATEN -- VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT; OCC 3732; LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPE PLASTICS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Straten:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1989, to this Office, requesting a copy of any agency correspondence with Thomas Gravengood, well as an interpretation of Federal requirements as they apply to heated motor vehicle lamps produced by your compan y. Your company manufactures "heated lights" which are intended to melt snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3, 1989, to us he stated:

"All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no moto r vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing."

We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer "approves" each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationshi p of your product to Standard No. 108. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level.

There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the or iginal equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this

letter discusses how Standard No. 108 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment.

If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. 108 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufact urers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the "certification" they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that appli es is the one imposed by Standard No. 108 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance).

If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. 108 imposes is th at it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3, formerly paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps "splice into" the wiring for the taillamps and "marker lamps", according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumb ent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment ex ists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. 108. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for t he clearance lamps required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.4) forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as ne w vehicle equipment.

Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting eq uipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligati on to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter

questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and t o remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. As you requested, we are enclosing a copy of Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/89

FROM: PATRICK J. HIGGINS -- ANDREINI AND COMPANY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED FEB. 14, 1990 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA TO PATRICK J. HIGGINS, ANDREINI AND COMPANY; A35; STD 302

TEXT: I am writing you on behalf of my insured, Skill-Craft Enterprises.

Skill-Craft is in the process of the design and manufacture of a fiberglass seat that would be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. The seat would be molded and seat belts would be provided for in the design.

Mr. Wood, my question to you is - what standards should my client comply with in order to make this the safest possible product of this type? In my research of this problem I have found that Standards 207, 209, 210 and possibly 302 would apply. Could y ou please advise us on any other standards we should be in compliance with.

ID: nht89-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: M. IWASE, -- TECHNICAL INFORMATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM M. IWASE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to the location of the license plate lamp on motor vehicles.

You noted the language in Tables II and IV of Standard No. 108 specifying that the lamp is to be located "at rear license plate, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides," for, vehicles other than motorcycles. The requirement for motorcycles (Table IV) is simply that it be located "at rear license plate." You have asked for confirmation that, except on motorcycles, the license plate lamp shall not illuminate the plate from the bottom.

Your interpretation is correct. The rationale for the requirement is that in a location other than at the bottom, the license plate lamp is less likely to be obstructed by snow or mud.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1989

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William G. Kinstler, American Flatlight Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 2-20-89 to NHTSA Chief Counsel from William G. Kinstler; (OCC-3199) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a portable illuminated device, called the "Flatlight." You have asked for our review of the advertising brochure that you enclosed, and for copies of any regulations regarding this product. I regret the d elay in responding.

Your brochure indicates that Flatlight is intended for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle, and connects to the battery by a wire. As shown, it contains a corporate logo, which "emits a pleasant glow." The purpose is to readily identify the presenc e of "Real Estate Companies and other Sales Agents who need to meet clients at night."

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It also establishes regulations pertaining to safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. As Flat light is advertised almost exclusively for motor vehicle applications (we note a single remark that it can be used for store and window fronts), it is "motor vehicle equipment" subject to the jurisdiction of this agency.

The only Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to portable lighting equipment applies only to warning triangles without self-contained energy sources, and thus does not cover the rectangular Flatlight. The Federal lighting standard on lamps , reflective devices, and associated equipment, permits Flatlight to be installed as original equipment (e.g., installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its delivery to its first purchaser), if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equip ment required by the standard. It seems unlikely that the "glow" of a door mounted Flatlight would impair the effectiveness of the required side marker lamps and reflectors; indeed the device might serve more readily to identify the vehicle at night.

We surmise, however, that Flatlight is intended for the aftermarket and for installation on vehicles in use. It appears easily transferable from one vehicle to another. Installation of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is generally permissible under Federal law. However, the installation is prohibited if it is installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business and if such installation renders inoperative, either wholly or partially, equipment installed in accordance w ith a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Installation of Flatlight does not appear to present this possibility.

Even though Flatlight is not prohibited under Federal law, you must still determine whether it is permissible under the laws of any State in which it

may be installed. We are unable to advise you on State law, but recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Finally, because Flatlight is "motor vehicle equipment" you, as its manufacturer, must notify purchasers and provide a remedy upon any determination by you or this agency that it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.