ID: 20161.ztv

Mr. Ron Woodward, P.E.
Section Supervisor Optics & Adv. Eng.
Federal-Mogul Corporation
Lighting Products
2513 58^th Street
Hampton, VA 23661

Dear Mr. Woodward:

This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S7.8.2.1(c) of Standard No. 108 states that:

A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirement of paragraph S7.8.5.2 of this standard.

Paragraph S7.8.5.2 requires each headlamp system that is capable of being aimed by equipment installed on the vehicle to include a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) that conforms to the remainder of the paragraph. Paragraph S7.8.5.2(a)(2)(iv)requires that the horizontal indicator of a horizontal adjustment mechanism of a VHAD

shall be capable of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage.

You ask for

a ruling on the acceptability of a horizontal adjustment system which purposely does not meet the +/- 2.5 degrees horizontal adjustment requirement and does not incorporate the VHAD indicator, on the assertion that since they purposely do not meet the requirements for the permitted horizontal adjuster system that the system qualifies as not having a horizontal adjuster system.

You give as an example a lamp that has a +/- 1 degree of horizontal travel.

You are asking for an interpretation that a system that adjusts a headlamp horizontally but which differs from the specifications of S7.8.5.2 is not a "horizontal adjustment system" within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c). We cannot provide the interpretation you seek. You admit that the headlamp is not fixed but is adjustable horizontally up to +/- 1 degree. As you note, "[t]he standard

. . . states that the only acceptable type of horizontal adjuster is a horizontal adjuster which conforms to the horizontal VHAD requirements contained in the standard."

Standard No. 108 is quite clear on this point: a manufacturer need not provide a horizontal adjustment mechanism on a headlamp that is visually/optically aimable and has a lower beam. But if the manufacturer chooses to provide a mechanism that adjusts the headlamp, it must meet all requirements of S7.8.5.2 including the +/-2.5 degree specification, even if the headlamp itself is designed for only +/- 1 degree of horizontal travel.

Because we cannot concur with your desired interpretation, we are treating this matter as a petition for rulemaking in accordance with your request. We have forwarded your letter to the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards who will respond to your petition.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/20/99

ID: 20174.ztv

Mr. Bart W. Hill
JMH Trailers
233 Far View Road
Hamburg, PA 19526

Dear Mr. Hill:

This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1999, with respect to the operation of side turn signal lamps on dump bodies that your company manufactures. Thank you for including photos to help us advise you.

You install side turn signal lamps on your products. The wiring on trucks with dump bodies is such that "the side turn also lights when the brakes are applied" (we understand that the side turn signal is steady burning when activated by the brakes). A Pennsylvania state police officer has told your customer that this is illegal. However, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDot")has informed you that it is legal "if it does not violate the Federal standard." Therefore, you have asked whether this configuration does violate the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not require a vehicle to have side turn signal lamps. S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of supplemental lighting equipment if the lamps would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. As we see it, the question here is whether the operation of both amber-colored side turn signal lamps in a steady burning mode when the red stop lamps are activated in a steady burning mode can be said to impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps.

The activation of both side turn signal lamps in a steady burning mode is the functional equivalent of an amber supplementary stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle's side. In our opinion, auxiliary lighting equipment must perform in the same manner, and perform the same function, as the original equipment it is intended to supplement. Standardization of signals is important so that following drivers will not hesitate to respond when the brakes of a vehicle are applied and its stop lamps are activated. The combination of amber side lamps and red rear ones have the potential to create confusion in adjacent and following drivers. I am sorry, therefore, to tell you that we have concluded that your system of amber stop lamps would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps required by Standard No. 108, and, hence is impermissible under S5.1.3.

If you have any questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/27/99

ID: 20176.ztv

Ms. Debra Taylor
Vice President - Finance
Mercury GSE
135 Sheldon Street
El Segundo, CA 90245

Re: Classification of Airfield Bus as "Off Road" Vehicle

Dear Ms. Taylor:

We are replying to your letter of June 19, 1999. You have asked for confirmation that the Cobus 3000 is an "off road" vehicle, and "as such with which Federal and State specifications and regulations, if any we must comply with to legally sell our bus to Covington Airport in northern Kentucky."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to regulate "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined in pertinent part as a vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30103(a)(6)).

You have enclosed a brochure on the Cobus 3000 and tell us that it is "built specifically for airfield use, to transport passengers between a remotely parked aircraft and the terminal or from terminal to terminal." The brochure identifies the Cobus 3000 as "the airport star" and depicts it in various applications around airfields.

We do not consider airfields to be "public roads," nor such service roads as may lead from terminal to terminal or from parking lots to terminals. Therefore, we do not consider the Cobus 3000 to be "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads," and a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction (we have no definition of an "off road" vehicle as such).

This means that there are no regulations or specifications of this agency that apply to the Cobus 3000. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over vehicles that are not motor vehicles. We are unable to advise you whether the CPSChas issued regulations covering airport buses. I am sorry that we are also unable to advise you whether either Kentucky or the Covington airport authority has issued rules or regulations on airport buses.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.9/9/99

ID: 20178.ztv

ECIE
Via Comune Antico, 43
20125 Milano
Italy
Attn: Mara Migliazza

Dear Ms. Migliazza:

We are replying to your emails of June 18, 1999, to Kenneth Weinstein of this agency, and of July 8, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. We apologize for the delay in responding to you.

In your first email, you have told us that your company manufactures lighting equipment for motorcycles and that you "have the certificate of compliance and test report of our device with tests according to your FMVSS 108." You have asked whether the certificate of compliance is "always acceptable for you or have we to remake all the test to obtain another certificate after some year?" You reference a headlamp that meets the 1992 version of Standard No. 108 and is molded with a "92DOT" symbol, which is supported by "the test report and the certificate of compliance of 1992."

First, a clarification. We believe that you are using the term "certificate of compliance" to mean the statement by a test laboratory that the lighting device that it has tested meets the specifications of Standard No. 108, as indicated by the accompanying test report. However, under our laws, a "certificate of compliance" is the indication by a manufacturer that its lighting product meets Standard No. 108, such as the DOT symbol on a headlamp lens.

Each item of motorcycle lighting equipment covered by Standard No. 108 must comply with the standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to the standard. A test report based on proper testing can verify that the particular lamp tested conforms to Standard No. 108, and can afford a reasonable basis for the manufacturer to certify compliance, by concluding that identical lamps, if tested, would also conform to Standard No. 108. However, human and mechanical errors in production (such as failure to account for variations in tolerances) can result in the production of non-complying products. Therefore, we believe that a manufacturer of lighting equipment should test its product pursuant to a quality control program after the lighting item is produced to assure itself that the product as manufactured conforms to Standard No. 108.

In your email of July 8, 1999, you ask if we can write "what is the US right procedure for lighting device certification." We are pleased to provide you with this information. The lens of each headlamp (other than a motorcycle headlamp) must be certified by marking it with the DOT symbol (S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108), whether the headlamp is original or replacement equipment. Other items of replacement lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, may be certified either by marking with the DOT symbol (S5.8.10), or "by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered" (49 U.S.C. 30115). Other than headlamps, no certification is required for lighting items installed on a motor vehicle as original equipment; the manufacturer of the vehicle attaches a label to the vehicle certifying that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and this includes certification to the requirements of Standard No. 108. Of course, the vehicle manufacturer should obtain test reports and other quality-related assurances from the lighting equipment manufacturer that the equipment complies before it affixes its vehicle certification label.

There is no need to "register" a certificate of compliance with NHTSA or any other entity. However, a manufacturer located outside the United States is required to designate an agent in the United States who can receive official correspondence (49 CFR 551.45). Further, all manufacturers of equipment covered by Standard No. 108 are required to file an identification statement with us (49 CFR 566).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/28/99

ID: 20180.ztv

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1999, requesting our advice on "existing law regarding motor vehicle lighting and how that law affects a recent invention," which is described as an "enhanced motor vehicle warning system" ("the System").

Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these standards prescribes performance requirements for both original and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles to be manufactured in accordance with its requirements and prohibitions.

The System works as follows. When a vehicle's horn is sounded, the System also flashes the vehicle's headlamp upper beams and its backup lamp or lamps. As you point out, paragraph S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 allows the headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, as you also point out, S5.5.10(d) states that all other lamps shall be steady burning, and you conclude that the System would appear to violate this clause. You have asked for "an official interpretation of the rule to determine if the rear lamps, when connected to this device, would violate (d)."

Your interpretation is correct; S5.5.10(d) does not allow the backup lamp or lamps to flash when in use, and the System is not permissible because it flashes the backup lamps.

S5.5.10(a) specifies that hazard warning system lamps be wired to flash. One of your staff members discussed with us whether the System would be allowable were it modified to operate through the hazard warning system, which flashes in normal operation when activated by the driver, rather than through the backup lamps, which do not flash in use. The acceptability of such a

Standard No. 108. This paragraph prohibits the installation of additional equipment on a vehicle if it would "impair the effectiveness" of lighting equipment required by the standard. In recent years, we have come to the conclusion that use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose may compromise and reduce its safety effectiveness. As we said in 1996,

It is important that the integrity of the required signal lamps be maintained, and that auxiliary signal lamps not detract attention from the messages that the required signal lamps are sending. A vehicle signaling system must be as simple and as unambiguous as possible to others who share the roadway if traffic is to proceed in a safe and orderly fashion. (61 FR 65516)

We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of providing an optical warning when the horn is sounded, since such a warning bears no relationship to the original purpose of a hazard warning signal and thus could create confusion about the meaning of the hazard warning signal. For this reason, we conclude that S5.1.3 would prohibit the optical warning system you describe even if it were modified to operate through the hazard warning system lamps.

In the event that the System is precluded by Standard No. 108, you have asked about our procedure for petitioning for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108. These procedures are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4. The petition must contain the name and address of the petitioner and be addressed to the NHTSA Administrator. It must be in the English language, prefaced by the word "Petition," set forth facts in support of an amendment, and contain a brief description of the substance of the requested amendment. We are required to inform the petitioner within 120 days whether the petition is granted or denied. If the petition is granted, action on it may not be immediate as the petition must take its place among other rulemaking priorities.

Petitioners for changes in signaling lamp requirements should become familiar with the policy statement we issued in 1998 discussing how we evaluate rulemaking petitions to require or permit new or different signal lighting or signal lighting actuation (63 FR 59842). I enclose a copy for your information.

You also express your understanding that "NHTSA can issue a letter stating that Standard 108 does not preclude the use of this device in new vehicles, thereby allowing this invention to be installed on new cars." We do provide interpretive letters of this nature when a product does not conflict with the requirements and prohibitions of Standard No. 108. For the reasons indicated above, we cannot provide such a letter for this System.

Although a copy of the patent of the device and related application data did not accompany your letter, we did not need this information for purposes of this interpretation. If your staff has further questions, they may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), the attorney who has previously spoken with your office on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.8/5/99

ID: 20240.ztv

Mr. Peter Shaw
Job Co-Ordinator
Road Equipment Service Co., Ltd.
50 Hannant Court
Milton, Ont. L9T SC1
Canada

Dear Mr. Shaw:

This is in reply to your letter concerning the classification of certain portable asphalt storage tanks that you are manufacturing for a United States corporation. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The U.S. corporation will import these tanks and you have been advised by George Entwistle of our agency that they may be imported under Box 8 of Form HS-7 "Declaration" as off-road vehicles. You have asked that we confirm that the tanks may be so imported.

A "motor vehicle" may not be imported into the United States unless it conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the date of its manufacture and is so certified by its manufacturer (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). A "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30103(a)(6)).

You have informed us that:

This tank is designed as construction equipment use only, to be transported from job site to job site with no liquid asphalt in the container. The tanks have incidental use on the road as they are transported to job sites as required. This unit stays on site for a period of time until the job site moves, and then the tank is transported to the new job site empty.

From this description, it appears that the portable asphalt tank has not been manufactured "primarily for use on the public roads," within the meaning of the definition, and that its use of the public roads is infrequent and incidental to the primary purpose for which the tanks have been built. This purpose is the storage of asphalt for use on construction sites (which may or may not be on the public roads). Accordingly, we confirm that you need not manufacture them to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and that the U.S. corporation may import them pursuant to the declaration of Box 8 that they have not been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

We note that, as a matter of law, there is no such thing as "D.O.T. approved parts." We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or equipment items. If you use this term to mean that an equipment item such as a tire or lamp bears a DOT symbol, the symbol means only that the manufacturer is thereby certifying compliance of that product with the appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In no sense can you use the term in connection with parts of an air brake system since the manufacturer of the vehicle certifies to the overall performance of the vehicle's air brake system without reference to any individual part.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/5/00

ID: 20264.drn

Russell Roden, P.E.
President
Atlantic Design Inc.
3740 Federal Lane
Abingdon, MD 21009-2742

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your products are "motor vehicles" within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) definition. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company designs and manufactures "modular process systems" for the construction, industrial maintenance, and the quarry and mining industry. Your products include grit recycling and dust collection systems, and sand "dedusting units." In order to facilitate movement, your company's equipment is permanently attached to flat trailers which are manufactured by another company. You emphasize that the equipment your company designs and manufactures is a "process system where the trailer is used as a base skid with wheels for mobility and erection." As an example of your company's products, you included a photograph of an "air classification system" used in the bridge and industrial painting industry and in the quarry and mining industry.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time your company's equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a maintenance or construction site or at a quarry for years at a time. You stated that the equipment rarely stays at a job site for less than six to eight weeks.

NHTSA's statute defines "motor vehicle" at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your products to be motor vehicles depends on their use. The statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your company's vehicles are not motor vehicles within the meaning of our statute. This is because the vehicles stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months or years) and only use the highway to move from site to site. We may reassess this interpretation if we were to receive additional information indicating that your vehicles use the roads more than on an incidental basis.

Please note that since States may require products such as those which your company manufactures to be registered, you may wish to contact State motor vehicle administrators to determine whether there are State requirements you must meet.

You also pose several questions about the application of excise taxes to your product. We are unable to answer questions relating to taxes. For further information about Federal taxes, please contact the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS's web site is at www.irs.gov. You should contact the State of Maryland for information about Maryland tax law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.10/26/99

ID: 20271.ztv

Mr. Gary Starr
Zap Bikes
117 Morris Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Starr:

This is in reply to your email of July 7, 1999, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Webmaster asking two questions.

You first asked "What distinguishes electric powered toys such as ride on Perego and Power wheels from motor vehicles?"

We are not familiar with "electric powered toys such as ride on Perego and Power wheels." In brief, our principal safety statute defines a "motor vehicle" in pertinent part as a vehicle that is driven by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways (see 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Manufacturers of children's wheeled powered toys do not manufacture them for on-road use, nor do states license these toys for on-road use. In contrast, powered bicycles are intended by their manufacturers intend to be operated on the public roads and are licensed by states for on-road operation. These powered bicycles are "motor vehicles," as we have previously advised you. We would be pleased to advise you further if you wish to provide us with a fuller description of the vehicles about which you have asked.

Your second question is "What do electric powered mobility scooters that are used for the disabled come under? Are these toys? Or motor vehicles?"

We do not consider single-seat low-speed electric powered mobility vehicles to be manufactured primarily for use on the public roads within the meaning of the statutory definition of motor vehicle. Because they are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our jurisdiction. This means that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction over mobility vehicles.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.8/19/99

ID: 20288.ztv

Mr. Evan W. Johnson
Administrator
Division of Consumer Affairs
Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Montgomery County
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in reply to your letter of July 9, 1999, with respect to the "Safe-T-Stop" lighting device. We appreciate your enclosing some materials to help us in answering your question whether the device is permitted under Federal law and regulations.

According to a document by SafeLite of America, Inc., that you enclosed, its product Safe-T-Stop "will pulse [the center high mounted brake light] for approximately 6 seconds and reactivate if the brakes are reapplied." You read S5.5.10(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as requiring "that the third brake light must be wired to be steady-burning," and that you believe that Safe-T-Stop "contravenes this requirement of the standard by varying the brightness of the light."

We confirm your interpretation. S5.5.10(a), (b), and (c) list the motor vehicle lamps that may flash when they are operated. No stop lamp is among the lamps listed. S5.5.10(d) requires all other lamps to be wired to be steady burning, thus including all stop lamps. Standard No. 108 does not allow a stop lamp that pulses, and a vehicle with a stop lamp that pulses does not meet Federal requirements.

The installation of the circuitry that transforms a steady burning stop lamp into one that pulses may violate Federal law. You wrote that Safe-t-Stop is being marketed to consumers by new car dealers in their new car sales. For example, Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30112(a))prohibits a dealer from selling a new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus a dealer who sells a new car with Safe-T-Stop installed has sold a vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 108. Our statute provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,100 upon a dealer for each violation of Sec. 30112(a). A dealer who allows a test drive without sale is also in violation of Sec. 30112(a) which prohibits any person from offering for sale a nonconforming motor vehicle.

The letter of May 11, 1999, from Steven D. Kohn to Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administrator, Anne S. Ferro, which you enclosed, is incorrect in stating that Safe-T-Stop is permitted by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 as an "enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." This provision of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. However, when installation of equipment creates a noncompliance per se, as Safe-T-Stop does with S5.5.10(d), S5.1.3 is not applicable.

You state that Mr. Kohn has clarified that, instead of S5.1.3, he is relying on our interpretation of July 24, 1989, to Robert Knauff, and that you do not view this interpretation as supporting his claim that Safe-T-Stop is consistent with Standard No. 108. The 1989 interpretation dealt with a single pulse of light approximately 40 millionths of a second in length which acted through the center high mounted stop lamp as an advance warning of braking before the brakes were applied. We read Standard No. 108's prohibition against combining the center lamp with any other lamp as applying to the collision avoidance pulse, and stated that it could not be furnished as part of a center lamp system. We did say that if the device met the test of S5.1.3, it would be an acceptable addition to any motor vehicle not originally required by Standard No. 108 to be equipped with one (i.e., in 1989, passenger cars manufactured before

September 1, 1985, and all other motor vehicles). Since our 1989 interpretation, vans and light trucks have been required as of September 1, 1993, to be manufactured with the steady burning center stop lamp. Therefore, dealer installation of Safe-T-Stop on new vehicles of these types is subject to the same prohibition as on passenger cars, and to the same civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation.

We note Administrator Ferro's reply of June 8, 1999, to Mr. Kohn in which she states that Safe-T-Stop can be accepted in Maryland if "the device is installed as a supplement to, not a replacement of, any center high-mounted stop lamp already installed, consistent with" Standard No. 108 and our 1989 letter.

This letter to you makes clear that Safe-T-Stop cannot be installed in an existing center lamp. To the extent that Ms. Ferro's letter can be read as an approval of a second center lamp incorporating the pulse, this is inconsistent with S5.1.3, as we believe a flashing stop lamp could create confusion and thereby impair the effectiveness of the steady burning stop lamps. Under the U.S. Constitution and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Federal law would govern.

Please note that Federal law also prohibits a dealer from installation of Safe-T-Stop on a vehicle after it is sold. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business is forbidden from making inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Because installation of the Safe-T-Stop would create a noncompliance with S5.1.3 by creating confusion and impairing the effectiveness of the steady burning stop lamps, we regard this as a "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute.

We are furnishing copies of this letter to Administrator Ferro, SafeLite of America (the manufacturer of Safe-T-Stop), Mr. Kohn, and Paul Jackson Rice whom Mr. Kohn represents is his counsel. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Administrator Anne S. Ferro Safelite of America, Inc.
Steven Kohn
Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. Ref:108
d.8/27/99

ID: 20294.drn

Lance Tunick, Esq.
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. Specifically, you wish to know whether Standard No. 104 has incorporated by reference the durability requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, "Passenger Car Windshield Wiper Systems," May 1966. The answer is no.

In Standard No. 104, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has selectively incorporated by reference the following provisions of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966: The "glazing surface reference line" shown in Figure 1; the "plan view reference line" shown in Figure 2; conditions for the test procedures of the frequency and speed of the windshield wiping system (See S4.1.1.4 of Standard No. 104); wet test procedures in determining percentages of areas of the windshield that are wiped (S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104); and establishing areas A, B, and C of the windshield (See S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104). None of these incorporated provisions relate to any durability requirements specified in SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:104
d.10/26/99