ID: nht74-1.33

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Spartan Design Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1974 asking for our comments on your defect notification letter.

In describing the defect (your third paragraph) as required by Section 577.4(c), you should state specifically that the placement of the lamps fails to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, and indicate, in general terms, what is the appropriate location. In addition, section 577.4(c) requires the inclusion of precautions the purchaser can take. We believe one precaution that should be included where a lighting problem is concerned is to recommend that night driving be limited as much as possible.

When we have received a corrected copy, we will close our files in this matter.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 21, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Ref: #N40-30, (ZTV) CIR618

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Enclosed is a copy of the rewritter letter as you requested. (Illegible Word) read the letter and see if it meets with your approval and let us know so that we may then mail it to all our Converta-Trailer owners.

We are sorry to have caused you any inconvenience and if there is any further information you need please let us know.

Sincerely, SPARTAN DESIGN INC.;

Robert W. Borgert -- Vice President

enclosure

Spartan Design Inc.

Dear Converta-Trailer Owner:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Spartan Design Inc. has determined that a defect which relates to Motor Vehicle Safety exists in Converta-Trailers manufactured between January 1, 1969 and December 8, 1971. According to our records, you are the owner of a 1971 Converta-Trailer bearing the vehicle serial number on the enclosed reply form which has this defect.

(Illegible Word) defect involves the combination rear lamps which are improperly located. Due to the poor visibility of these lamps, a rear end crash can occur.

To prevent the possibility of a rear end crash to your trailer, please contact Spartan Design Inc., who will remove the lights from back of fenders and reinstall them to the far rear of trailer frame, at no charge to you.

The actual time necessary to perform the labor required to install the rear lamps is approximately 2 hours. It is suggested that you make an appointment in advance so work can be scheduled in an orderly manner.

In the event you no longer own your trailer, or these modifications have been performed already, please complete and mail the enclosed form post-paid, in addressed reply envelope so that we may update our records.

We are sorry to cause you this inconvenience; however, we have taken this action in the interest of your safety and continued satisfaction with our product. Your prompt cooperation will be (Illegible Word).

Your truly, SPARTAN DESIGN INC.

ID: 17495.drn

Ms. Leigh Morrison
Project Engineer
Irvin Automotive
2500 Takata Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Ms. Morrison:

This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vanity mirrors in motor vehicle sun visors. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that Irvin Automotive places vanity mirrors into sun visors, and sells the assemblage to motor vehicle manufacturers that then install the visors into motor vehicles.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, applies to "passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or less." In an interpretation letter of July 3, 1997 to Daewoo Motor Company (copy enclosed), the agency stated that Daewoo's vanity mirror must be installed in a fashion that assures that the sun visor meets Standard No. 201. The letter to Daewoo referred to a provision, S3.4.2, that applied to sun visors. Effective May 8, 1997, that provision is S5.4.2, and states:

Each sun visor mounting shall present no rigid material edge radius of less than 3.2 mm that is statically contactable by a spherical 165 mm diameter head form.

The letter to Daewoo also stated that Daewoo's vanity mirror would not have to meet Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

You ask whether Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to vanity mirrors. The answer is no. Effective May 6, 1996, NHTSA rescinded Standard No. 107. Even when it was in effect, Standard No. 107 did not apply to vanity mirrors.

NHTSA has established Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. In an interpretation letter dated October 21, 1971 to Mr. James V. Blethen (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that Standard No. 111 "does not apply to mirrors per se but specifies requirements that must be met by rearview mirrors mounted in new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles." Since your vanity mirrors in sun visors are presumably not meant to be used as rearview mirrors, Standard No. 111 would not apply to your product.

NHTSA's statute also addresses defects that are related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your sun visors are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide timely notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:107#111#201#205
d.4/29/98

ID: nht94-1.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop, ABAS Marketing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/8/93 from Thomas D. Price to Marvin Shaw (OCC 9197)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). You noted that the proposed definition for "antilock brake system" incorporates the terminology "rate of angular wheel rotation," and requested a definition of this terminology. You also suggested that there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the word "performance," apparently with respec t to the way that word is used in the preamble. Accordingly, you requested a definition of that word as well.

By way of background information, the purpose of publishing NPRM's is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. If any interested person believes that the proposed regulatory text and/or t he agency's explanation in a preamble concerning a proposed regulation are unclear, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. If a person believes that a portion of the proposed regulation should be clarified in a particul ar manner, that recommendation also should be included in a comment. Similarly, if a person believes the agency's explanation for the proposed rule is unclear, the person can identify in comments the portion of the explanation at issue and explain the i mplications his or her concern has on the agency's decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since the questions and views in your letter are in the nature of comments on the pending NPRM, we are placing a copy of your letter in the public docket for that NPRM. I want to assure you that your comments will be considered at the same time all the other public comments are considered. Only after considering the comments will NHTSA reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule.

NHTSA does not issue separate letters or documents responding to individual public comments in a rulemaking. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA provides its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

While we cannot provide specific responses to your questions, we note that pages 50742 and 50743 of the NPRM provide an extensive discussion about how the agency derived its definition for antilock braking system. This discussion explains that the defin itions were derived in large part from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J656, "Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature" (1988), and the Economic Commission for Europe's Regulation 13 (1988). We have enclosed for your information a copy of that SAE Recommended Practice, which uses the terminology "rate of angular rotation of the wheel(s)."

With respect to your question about the meaning of "performance," we note generally that each of this agency's safety standards specifies those requirements that are deemed necessary to obtain the desired safety performance from a particular vehicle syst em or item of equipment. Any design that will satisfy the requirements may be used for the system or item of equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 9197-3

Thomas D. Price, President
Strait-Stop
ABAS Marketing, Inc.
P.O. Box 5644
Norman, OK 73070

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). You noted that the proposed definition for "antilock brake system" incorporates the terminology "rate of angular wheel rotation," and requested a definition of this terminology. You also suggested that there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the word "performance," apparently with respect to the way that word is used in the preamble. Accordingly, you requested a definition of that word as well.

By way of background information, the purpose of publishing NPRM's is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. If an interested person believes that the proposed regulatory text and/or the agency's explanation in a preamble concerning a proposed regulation are unclear, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. If a person believes that a portion of the proposed regulation should be clarified in a particular manner, that recommendation also should be included in a comment. Similarly, if a person believes the agency's explanation for the proposed rule is unclear, the person can identify in comments the portion of the explanation at issue and explain the implications his or her concern has on the agency's decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since the questions and views in your letter are in the nature of comments on the pending NPRM, we are placing a copy of your letter in the public docket for that NPRM. I want to assure you that your comments will be considered at the same time all the other public comments are considered. Only after considering the comments will NHTSA reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule.

NHTSA does not issue separate letters or documents responding to individual public comments in a rulemaking. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA provides its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

While we cannot provide specific responses to your questions, we note that pages 50742 and 50743 of the NPRM provide an extensive discussion about how the agency derived its definition for antilock braking system. This discussion explains that the definitions were derived in large part from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J656, "Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature" (1988), and the Economic Commission for Europe's Regulation 13 (1988). We have enclosed for your information a copy of that SAE Recommended Practice, which uses the terminology "rate of angular rotation of the wheel(s)."

With respect to your question about the meaning of "performance," we note generally that each of this agency's safety standards specifies those requirements that are deemed necessary to obtain the desired safety performance from a particular vehicle system or item of equipment. Any design that will satisfy the requirements may be used for the system or item of equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:121 d:1/3/94

ID: 1764y

AIR MAIL

Mr. M.J. Yoon Director In-One Development Corp. 2nd Floor, Gukdong Building 3-Ga Chungmoo-Ro Jung-Gu Seoul, Korea

Dear Mr. Yoon:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke, asking whether a vehicle you are developing for a client would be classified as a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you. I regret the delay in responding.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you describe the vehicle as having 4-wheel drive. Additionally, the approach and departure angles and the running clearance dimensions for this vehicle show that it has high ground clearance. The combination of 4-wheel drive and high ground clearance would be considered "special features for occasional off-road operation." Hence, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

You also asked for a copy of the criteria for classifying vehicles for purposes of the safety standards. All of our classification definitions are set forth in 49 CFR /571.3. The information sheet I have enclosed explains how to obtain a copy of this and all of our other regulations, and provides other information relevant to new motor vehicle manufacturers. I have also enclosed a copy of our proposal for a new vehicle classification system for the safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:571 d:3/3l/89

ID: 1983-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries Ltd. -- F. Takata, Manager, Technical Research and Homologation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. F. Takata

This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1983, to Marx Elliot of this agency, In that letter, you requested our view as to whether a mirror label printed by a "screen printing process" would comply with section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111. The screen printing process involves painting the required warning label on the reverse surface of the mirror in such a way that the warning can be read from the front of the mirror.

Section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111 provides that certain convex mirrors must have "indelibly etched" on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface the warning "Objects in Mirror Are Closer than They Appear." Your screen printing process uses a painting process to place the required lettering on a mirror. Since the process does not involve etching, mirrors having a warning placed on them by that process would not now comply with FMVSS 111.

You should be aware, however, that Toyota Motor Corporation has petitioned this agency to permit processes other than etching to be used to place the FMVSS 111 warning on mirrors. We expect to respond to the Toyota petition in the very near future. Should the agency grant the Toyota petition, it could result in an amendment to the Standard permitting the process described in your letter.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. W. Mark Elliot Rulemaking Program Manager Lighting & Visibility. NHTSA

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 111

Dear Mr. Mark Elliot,

First of all, we thank you very much for your kindly reply on headlamp regulation addressed to our Mr. Aihara. Your informations are very useful for us, thank you again.

We also produce the rear view mirrors for motor vehicle. We would like to ask you the interpretation of FMVSS no. 111, Section 5.4.2.. Section 5.4.2. is defined as follows:

S5.4.2 Each convex mirror shall have indelibly etched on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface in letters not less than 3/16 inch or no more than 1/4 inch high, the words "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear".

The words "OBJECTS IN MIRROR CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR" on the sample mirror enclosed this letter was printed by screen printing process as shown in the attached sheets.

Questions: May we understand that marking method of enclosed sample complies with requirements of FMVSS No. 111, Section 5.4.2?

And if your have any comments on enclosed sample, please inform us. We await your early reply.

Very Truly yours.

F. Takata, Manager Technical Research & Homologation Enclosures

ID: 1984-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass Suite 1410 Number Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

This responds to your April 4, 1984 letter to the Secretary of Transportation. In that letter, you requested information on Federal requirements applicable to a commercial operation involving the placement of gasoline engines in used diesel automobiles.

The Department of Transportation is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy standards programs. No fuel ecomony requirements would apply to the operation you describe since those requirements apply to new vehicles only. In the safety area, the only requirement which might apply to such an operation would be 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That provision prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or private repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. Whether the commercial venture you describe in your letter violates the statutory provision would depend upon whether the venture could be characterized as a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or private repair business and whether the engine substitution process would result in a noncompliance with one of our standards. Based on the information provided in your letter, we cannot definitively answer either question.

There may be issues involving automotive emissions standards which apply to an operation of the sort you describe. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to that aspect of your question.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Secretary of Transportation U.S. Government Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

This letter will advise you that I represent several individuals in the State of Pennsylvania who have undertaken an enterprise involving used automobiles.

They are contemplating the purchase of large numbers of vehicles that were designed to operate with diesel fuel. Their intention is to remove the diesel engine from each vehicle and to substitute an engine which used regular fuel exclusively. Subsequent to this operation they intend to advertise these vehicles for sale.

We are aware of the fact that each of the vehicles originally bears the serial number as a diesel engine.

Our question is "Are there any Federal statutes or regulations making such an operation unlawful in any way, and is it fitting and proper to substitute the regular engines in the bodies of these vehicles which were formerly diesel operated?"

I would appreciate it very much if you would reply to this inquiry promptly since we wish to conform properly to the rules and regulations.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Very truly yours, HERBERT JEROME BASS

ID: nht89-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SAMSON HELFGOTT -- HELFGOTT & KARAS, P.C.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKIN G RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATON OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST ; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TEXT: Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1989, asking whether Federal regulations permit the use of an amberlamp either as original or aftermarket equipment. The lamp would be placed adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, but in a separate housing and wholly independent of it. It would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and deactivated whenever the stop lamps are illuminated. The purpose of the amber lamp is to improve conspicuity of the vehicle in order to lessen the braking r esponse time of drivers in vehicles following.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment allows a supplementary lighting device such as the amber lamp if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipmen t required by Standard No. 108. The decision regarding impairment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the supplementary device is installed, and which the manufacturer certifies as complying with all applicable Federal safety s tandards. In this instance you have indicated that the wiring of the amber lamp is independent of the center lamp, and that the amber lamp is inoperative when the stop lamps are on. While your lamp does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the cen ter lamp, you should consider whether your lamp, since it would be a steady-burning amber lamp, might confuse following drivers unused to seeing a steady burning amber lamp on the rear of a vehicle, or because of its brightness. Should the amber lamp cr eate confusion, it may impair the effectiveness of the other rear lamps required by Standard No. 108, each of which (other than the stop lamps) would when in use operate contemporaneously with it, such as an amber turn signal lamp, or a back up lamp. As part of the vehicle manufacturer's certification to Standard No. 108, it must certify that this situation would not occur, if the lamp is to be permissible as an item of original equipment.

As an aftermarket device, the amber lamp is not regulated by Standard No. 108, but is subject to the general prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) against rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a safety standa rd. The same considerations as discussed above should be taken into consideration when making this determination.

In addition, the use of this lamp is subject to local laws. We are not able to advise you as to these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1989

FROM: M. IWASE -- GENERAL MANAGER, TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: VEHICLE HEADLAMP AIMING DEVICE (DOCKET NO. 85-15; NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 1990 TO M. IWASE FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES AND LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE. TEXT:

We would like to again ask your interpretation of FMVSS 108 concerning Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD).

In responding to our question dated April 8, 1988, you kindly gave us the interpretation dated September 12, 1988, for which thank you very much.

At that stage the provision of VHAD were just a proposal (Notice 5). On May 9, 1989, a final rule (Notice 8) of the VHAD has been issued.

Therefore, at this stage when the final rule has been issued, we would again ask and confirm your interpretation, as shown in the attached sheets.

Upon your kind review to the above matters, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Encl. Our previous letter of inquiry dated April 8, 1988 Your responding letter dated September 12, 1988.

ATTACHMENTS

BACKGROUND

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, we asked about a detachable spirit level which is installed in the socket by removing a bulb. In responding to our inquiry the agency stated in a letter dated September 12, 1988, as follows;

"----- Although the proposal does not specifically prohibit this feature, the test procedures do not anticipate a VHAD design where the light source would be removed and replaced with the VHAD."

On account of your advice we recently made some design modification on our detachable spirit level, as shown below: Detachable Spirit Level (Koito's New Design) [GRAPHICS OMITTED] 1) Detachable spirit level is mounted onto a headlamp housing. (Headlamp shall be aimed with bulb remaining in the socket.)

2) Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be remove to another (the other side) headlamp for aiming it. We are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle, which results in a significant cost saving.

QUESTION:

Could the above detachable spirit level be accepted to the requirements of S7.7.5.2 "On-vehicle aiming" in FMVSS No. 108 ?

KOITO'S VIEW:

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 "Aimability Performance", and found that the following provision is specified in S7.7.5.2(c)(1) - "Testing the VHAD";

"The headlamp assembly (the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism) shall be mounted on a level goniometer,

The above provision in the final rule (Notice 8) allows a detachable spirit level, we think.

Structure-2: Detachable Spirit Level [GRAPHICS OMITTED]

1) Spirit level is not permanently fixed onto headlamps.

2) Spirit level is built into bulb gauge.

3) When aiming adjusted, bulb is moved out and Bulb gauge is mounted into reflector socket.

4) Bulb gauge is provided for each vehicle as a standard part.

ID: 11342-2PJA

Mr. Ken Towsley
President
All-Rite
1500 Shelton Drive
Hollister, CA 95023

Dear Mr. Towsley:

This responds to your letter requesting information on whether you must have a "DOT stamp" (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) stamped on each recreational vehicle aftermarket replacement window you produce. I apologize for the delay in responding. As I understand it, you are merely cutting larger, marked, sheets of glass into smaller sheets that no longer show the code mark. The short answer to your question is that you do not have to have a code mark if you are merely cutting larger sheets of glass into smaller sheets. I will explain your marking responsibilities more fully below.

Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR '571.205, copy enclosed) has different marking requirements depending on whether a manufacturer is producing glass or cutting glass produced by someone else. First I will explain the marking responsibilities of a manufacturer that produces aftermarket replacement glass. When I say Aproducing,@ I am referring only to a Aprime glazing manufacturer,@ defined as one who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

Marking requirements for prime glazing manufacturers are in S6.1 and S6.2 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires the manufacturer to mark the glass in accordance with the marking requirements (section 6) of American National Standard (ANS) Z26, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 (these marking requirements are described in detail later). In addition, S6.2 requires the manufacturer to affix the letters DOT, followed by a manufacturer=s code mark assigned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The requirement to affix a manufacturer's code mark applies only to prime glazing manufacturers.

Requirements for manufacturers cutting glass produced by someone else are in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. S6.4 requires the manufacturer cutting the glass to mark the glass in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. I have enclosed a copy of those marking requirements, but basically the following information is required: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS" [we note that the sample label you enclosed does not comply with this requirement],(2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the [prime glazing] manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the [prime glazing] manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. In addition, S6.5 requires each manufacturer or distributor that cuts a section of glazing material to certify the glazing as meeting the performance requirements of the standard. However, the certification of equipment such as glazing may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered--it need not be printed on each piece of equipment. In conclusion, you have to transfer all of the information, except for the prime glazing manufacturer=s DOT certification and code mark, to the window sections that you cut.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ANS Z26 49 CFR 205

ref:205 d:4/23/96