ID: nht94-7.1

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John A. Boehner -- Congress of the United States, House of Representatives

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Director, Congressional Affairs, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/94 Est from John Womack to John A. Boehner (A42; Std. 108; VSA S102(a)(2)(A)) and letter dated 3/25/94 from James Ackley, Carol Baumhauer and Krista D. Subler to John A. Boehner

TEXT:

The enclosed correspondence requesting permission to use two unassigned colors was sent to me by Mr. John Cail and Mr. James Ackley.

I would greatly appreciate you providing my Hamilton office with the appropriate information so that I may reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If I may provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Attachment

C & L Safety Products Unlimited Eaton, Ohio

The Honorable John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) 1020 Longworth House Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Boehner,

We are writing to request the assistance of your office, or your personal assistance, in obtaining Department of Transportation approval and color code designation on our, LIFE LITES system. Our firm has secured a patent, foreign trade license and completed testing with the Ohio State University, and is ready to begin producing the device.

C & L Safety Products currently has a plastics firm and lighting manufacturer within your district to begin production, as well as, several organizations who have committed to purchase the final product. We feel normal, or abnormal delays, in securing approval for the device could adversely impact the economic development of your voting area. Rapid approval would permit you to utilize our firm as an example, particularly in an election environment, of the assistance you can provide to those considering southwest Ohio as a site for future business. Additionally, we are prepared to utilize our public relations firm in contacting other organizations with the details of any assistance provided by you in this matter.

Sue Clark, of your Hamilton office, has been working with us, and has all the details of efforts made to date in securing approval, and has been greatly supportive in moving through the Department of Transportation process.

We have taken the liberty of enclosing a local and national press article explaining the purpose of the device, as well as, copies of the patent and foreign trade permit. Should there be any questions, please call us, to reduce the delays associated with mailed correspondence. Best wishes for continued success.

Sincerely,

John Cail Sr. James Lipps

3/29/94

ID: nht95-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/14/94 letter from Randal Busick to Mary Versailles

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1994, concerning whether a belt design would comply with S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994 and effective on September 1, 1997 (59 FR 3 9472). As described in your letter, for this belt design, "the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance be tween the two extreme adjustment positions of the system is more than 5 cm."

The August 3 final rule amended Standard No. 208 to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. After the effective date, S7.1.2 will, in pertinent part, read as follows:

. . . for each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a movable component which has a min imum of two adjustment positions. The distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

As illustrated in the drawing provided with your letter, the inboard anchorage on your seat design is the "the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt."

It would appear that, under the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, the seat would be considered part of the anchorage for your design. Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as any component, other t han the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure cau ses separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the seat is part of the anchorage, and if the seat can be adjusted more than 5 cm, measured linearly, it appears that your design will meet the requirement of S7.1.2.

While not directly relevant to your question, agency technical staff raised concerns about a device in the drawing enclosed with your letter. The drawing of the system shows a device labeled "Slider Bar" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt anchorage is attached. While no detail is provided on this device, agency staff are concerned that the device (which appears to function as the lower outboard anchorage) allows the seat belt webbing attachment to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally . If our interpretation of the drawing is correct, this device may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 o f Standard No. 210. Finally, the device may introduce slack in the belt system, preventing the belt from adequately securing a child safety restraint in the seat or providing complete protection to an adult.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ms. Robin R. Miller -- DaRosa and Miller

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/22/94 letter from Robin R. Miller to Mary Versailles (OCC 10327)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Miller:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1994, requesting information on what type of occupant protection systems (seat belts and/or air bags) were required in four passenger cars. The passenger cars were manufactured by Excalibur Automobile Corpora tion (Excalibur) between January 10, 1994, and May 6, 1994.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor ve hicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in co nformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation req uirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture.

For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by mea ns that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test d ummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts a re not used).

In addition, for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints." Type 1 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for p elvic restraint."

You should be aware that Excalibur has applied for temporary exemption (49 CFR Part 555) from the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 which would, if granted, apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the ex emption. Excalibur has also asked that it apply to those vehicles already manufactured but unsold and in dealer inventory. In addition, the manufacturer has also applied for an exemption from notification and remedy of its noncompliance with the automa tic crash protection requirements on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR Part 556). If granted, this would relieve Excalibur of the obligation to notify and remedy the noncompliance in vehicles already man ufactured and not covered by the safety exemption petition. Prior to acting upon either of these applications, NHTSA will publish notices in the Federal Register requesting comments.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Ralph T. Welch

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: 1991 Coachmen RV Class C Motorhome, Model: Leprechaun 248 DD MM Ser:1TCC03677M1001007

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RALPH T. WELCH (A43; STD. 101)

TEXT: On Dec. 15, 1994, I wrote to your office regarding incorrect date of manufacture posted on the outside of this motorhome.

I had another question regarding this motorhome, but overlooked including it in that letter.

Would you please advise me if there are any federal laws or regulations pertaining to the type of odometer installed on a motor vehicle sold in the United States?

We were not told when we purchased this vehicle that it had an odometer that registered kilometers instead of miles per hour. As a result I had to make a number of trips to the dealer's shop for repair. In addition a statement had to be filed with DMV regarding replacement, and the title had an endorsement stating that the mileage was not correct. I have no way of knowing the extent that this affected the value of the coach, but suspect that it did.

The dealer who purchased the coach from the factory, has stated that he did not order this coach to be equipped with this type of odometer.

If further information would be helpful please let me know.

PREVIOUS LETTER:

Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th St. S W Washington, D C 20590

December 15 1994

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RE LABEL, DATE OF MANUFACTURE ON EXTERIOR OF MOTORHOME

Would you advise if it is a violation of Federal Law, or Regulations to place a false date of manufacture on the exterior of a motorhome? When we purchased this motorhome we noticed a label on the outside of the coach stating that the coach was manufact ured 5/91. However after we agreed to purchase the vehicle, we found on closer inspection that the coach manufacturers label on the door post showed a different date. This date was 10/80. This label is only visible when one opens the right hand door a nd bends over to read the label. The label on the outside of the coach is readily observable when one enters the coach.

A photograph of the coach showing the label is enclosed. Also enclosed is a photocopy of letter from Coachmen Industries with a copy of a label, this one with a corrected date. Additional correspondence is enclosed from the manufacturer, furnishing var ious explanations for this false label.

I do not know the reason why this incorrect date was placed on the coach, but I do know that it misled me into thinking that I was buying a coach just over a year old, when I was really getting a coach almost two years old.

Yours truly,

RALPH T. WELCH 840 SE SUMMIT DR ROSEBURG OR 97470 503-673-0586

cc: Coachmen Industries, Thomas Corson, Chairman of Board Coachmen Industries, Michael Pangburn Esq. (w/o enc.)

ID: nht95-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: J. Gregory Studemeyer

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Safety standards for school buses

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/27/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO J. GREGORY STUDEMEYER (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

It is my understanding that passenger vans meeting the definition of "school bus" as defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, must meet certain safety standards. It is further my understanding that these safety standards are implemented by prohibiting manuf acturers and dealers from selling new vehicles which meet the definition of "school bus" to educational institutions.

Notwithstanding the fact that the burden of enforcing these standards is placed upon manufacturers and dealers, can you advise as to whether or not your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these requirements.

ID: nht95-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lois Castillo -- Travel Tray, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/94 from Lois Castillo to Joan (John) Womack (OCC 10464)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Castillo:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff, asking about safety regulations for the "Travel Tray," a product you wish to manufacture. The brochure you enclosed with your letter states that the Travel Tray is a plastic tray that is desig ned to lay across the top of a child's car seat. The tray attaches to the car seat by the use of straps with "velcro" ends. Children would use the tray to "play on with their toys or to eat on."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) N o. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.213.) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seat s," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if the Travel Tray were marketed as part of a car seat, the car seat would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard, with the tray a ttached.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. Your tray is incapable of restraining a test dummy in a crash. Since the tray is unable to restrain the dummy, a car seat with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a car seat could not sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child seats, the tray would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard applies to new child restraint systems, or car seats, that are design ed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not be designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

While no FMVSS applies to the Travel Tray, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remed y of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . a ny part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in v ehicles by commercial businesses instead of car seat owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in the categories listed in section 30122, that would constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of section 3 0122.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E. -- The Braun Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/18/94 letter from Jerry G. Sullivan to Mary Versailles (OCC 10443)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on n on-school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section @5.2.

The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating pos itions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement.

With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door a s an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Melinda Dresser -- Manager Contracts/Transportation, Carlin Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/28/94 letter from Melinda Dresser to Philip Recht

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 28, 1994, asking whether the exterior lighting of six Oscar Mayer "Wienermobiles" that your company is manufacturing conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed diagrams showi ng the location of the exterior lighting devices.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the determination of whether a vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is that of the manufacturer who, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115, must certify compliance of the ve hicle with those standards upon completion of manufacture. NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove specific vehicle designs. We do, however, provide interpretations of our standards to manufacturers upon request. The appropriate standard here i s Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter does not state whether Carlin has classified the Wienermobile as a "passenger car" or as a "truck". We believe that the vehicle is a "truck" within the meaning of 49 CFR 571.3 (b) because it appears to be "designed primarily for the transpor tation of property of special purpose equipment", rather than for the transportation of passengers, and that its overall width of 94 inches makes it more appropriate for the Wienermobile to meet wide vehicle lighting requirements. Therefore, the Wienermo bile must be equipped with the lighting equipment specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, and located as specified in Table II, the requirements for trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more. This means that they must be equipped with the front and rear clearance and identification lamps that Table I requires for wide trucks; these lamps do not appear on your drawings.

In addition, all four-wheeled motor vehicles are required to have hazard warning/turn signal lamps and we don't see these lamps either on the drawings. With respect to front lighting equipment that is depicted, we note that supplementary lighting equipme nt such as fog lamps and the "front marker light" are permissible under Standard No. 108 if the manufacturer determines that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, in this instance, the headlamps. In the absence of a clearly erroneous determination, NHTSA will accept the manufacturer's judgement on impairment. Trucks that are subject to Table II need not be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp or parking lamps, if that is the purpose of the front marker lamp.

We hope that these comments will be helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: nht95-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Barbara Kise

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/11/94 letter from Barbara Kise to Chief Consul (OCC 10499)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kise:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1994 asking whether the air bag in your 1994 Oldsmobile can be disconnected. You explained that you use oxygen for emphysema and chronic bronchitis and are concerned that your lungs might not be able to toler ate the powder ejected if the air bag deploys in a crash.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The provision provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor veh icle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperat ive" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

NHTSA has previously stated that chemical and medical tests indicate that an air bag inflation poses no respiratory system hazard, even for persons who are highly susceptible to airborne particles. However, one recent test series of persons with an asth matic condition revealed that prolonged exposure (20 minutes with the windows rolled up) to the atmosphere inside a vehicle after both the driver and passenger air bags have deployed can induce significant asthmatic reactions in some persons. Please not e that these were worst case test conditions unlikely to be found in a real world crash situation.

However, given this test, we would recommend that you consult your doctor to determine whether any significant hazard could result if you were exposed to air bag deployment by-products. I have enclosed a report on this test for you to share with your do ctor to assist in this determination. If you and your doctor decide that the risk to you offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of your air bag, and you wished to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical v iolation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against the person who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag b e consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufact ured. Accordingly, we urge that the air bag be reactivated prior to selling the vehicle. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle always uses his or her safety belt.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 2, 1995

FROM: Jim Cawse -- Principal Scientist; George Diehl -- Standards Engineer, General Electric

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Counsel - NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/6/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jim Cawse and Fred (George) Diehl (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

As GE Plastics continues to develop and introduce new products for the Automotive Lighting marketplace, it is extremely important that we continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C, to ensure that our products meet the pass /fail three year natural weathering criteria in South Florida and Arizona. The Design of Experiment (DOE) approach we discussed with you in August and September, 1994, will enable us to generate a much wider spread of data utilizing dependent and indepe ndent variables including haze. Yellowness Index (YI), color shift, thicknesses, formulations, colors, color concentrations, and coatings. This will supply very meaningful results for us and our customers in that we will be able to extract more results from less testing.

As a result of our discussions with NHTSA, AAMVA (now AMECA), and the major automotive and automotive lighting players, we have modified our initial approach to incorporate the important concerns of all parties. These include:

* The thicknesses used in the study will be at least the three minimum as called out by SAE J576C (0.062, 0.125, and 0.250 inches). We have added the 0.040" thickness as well.

* The formulations (base material recipes) used in the study will be commercial formulations and the results of the study will be usable for only those formulations (i.e., no blends of two formulations).

* Each coating will be tested at least once on each formulation.

* Each color candidate will be tested in a low and high color concentration so that interpolations can be made from the test results for color concentrations that fall in between.

* The final list of coatings is being firmed up as of this writing, and actually is being expanded beyond the list presented in previous meetings.

We would appreciate your written affirmation of our approach so that we have a mutual understanding of our new testing directions, and so that our customers are assured of your concurrence.

Sincerely.