ID: nht93-3.46

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Ray Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, Ltd.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/2/93 from John Womack to Ray Kesler (A41; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Mr. Hufstedler and I would like to thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993. It clarified many things for us which heretofore we had been unsure of, however, there is still one area which is not clear to us.

The enclosure you included in your letter was the Federal Register (in part) of September 2, 1982, which addresses FMVSS 111 rear-view mirrors. Section s571.111 states that a deviation of 12.5 percent, plus or minus, from the average radius of curvature, is allowable.

Although a method of calculating the radius of curvature is specified in section s12.1 - s12.8, it is not clear how the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

We would greatly appreciate it if your office could tell us the maximum amount of deviation we would be a owed from the bottom end of the standard (i.e.: 35" ROC), as well as perhaps explain the method by which the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

This information would be of great help to us in our continuing effort to save lives and property damage through the installation and use of our mirror.

ID: nht93-3.47

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REFERENCE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2,1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No.2 proposed the of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter...." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In addition, Blue Bird requests that appropriate NHTSA officials and staff review the enclosed photographs and advise if the retro-reflective tape installations shown would be in compliance with the subject requirement of Section S5.5.3(c).

Although the final rule does not become effective until May 2, 1994, several states have mandated conformance to the new standard in advance of the FMVSS effective date. Blue Bird must therefore complete the Engineering work and release final designs to Production in the very near future. We, therefore, request that prompt and favorable responses to our requests for interpretations be provided.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-3.48

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Ray Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, Ltd.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Lawrence Hufstedler

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/2/93 from John Womack to Ray Kesler (A41; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Mr. Hufstedler and I would like to thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993. It clarified many things for us which heretofore we had been unsure of, however, there is still one area which is not clear to us.

The enclosure you included in your letter was the Federal Register (in part) of September 2, 1982, which addresses FMVSS 111 rear-view mirrors. Section s571.111 states that a deviation of 12.5 percent, plus or minus, from the average radius of curvature, is allowable.

Although a method of calculating the radius of curvature is specified in section s12.1 - s12.8, it is not clear how the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

We would greatly appreciate it if your office could tell us the maximum amount of deviation we would be a owed from the bottom end of the standard (i.e.: 35" ROC), as well as perhaps explain the method by which the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

This information would be of great help to us in our continuing effort to save lives and property damage through the installation and use of our mirror.

ID: nht93-3.49

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Ron D. Belk -- President, Kustom Fit

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. Gonzalez; B. Barras; G. Slee; E. Belk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/93 from John Womack to Ron D. Belk (A41; Std. 209; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter concerning certification of FMVSS 208. Your explanation of "Self-certification" and "Due Care" is helpful in our efforts to comply with all Federal Safety Standards that apply to seating systems, especially in light trucks. However, we still need your further assistance to feel totally comfortable with our "Due Care and self-certification." Our last letter to you asked about a factory "Baseline" sled test as a comparison to our own component test. Your letter has explained NHTSA's position on that. What we don't understand yet is the relationship we have as a seating manufacturer to uncontrollable factors within the "Restraint System" to comply with FMVSS 208. In this instance, our uncontrollable factor is the "Seat Belt Payout" as it relates to (HIC) levels and (Chest "G") force. Our analysis has pointed us in a particular area which is the seat belt pay out dimension from the data we have received. I'll try to explain this. The seat belt pay out is inconsistent comparing all three tests. See our "G" van sled test comparison sheet, attached.

This data was further compared by my Engineering Manager, Mr. Jose Gonzalez and is also attached. Please read this written analysis before you go further. This comparison relates to the impact of "Seat Belt Pay Out" to (HIC) levels and (Chest "G") force. His findings show that the inconsistencies of belt pay out (2.25 inches to 4.9 inches) definitely contributes to the success or failure of these two very important injury criteria. We don't manufacture the seat belts. How do we qualify the test with belt pay out variables such as these? Does FMVSS 209 allow for this 2.65 inch variance? Are we expected to pass these injury criteria even though the belt pays out from 2.25 inches to 4.9 inches from test to test? How do I show my customer, the van converter, that I've passed these criteria? If I had unlimited funds I suppose I could keep running sled tests until the belt pays out just the right amount. But that's not what we should have to do. We need a test report that shows we passed these injury criteria. Is our comparison "Baseline to Kustom Fit test" acceptable? Furthermore, we want to know where you stand from a compliance standpoint on this issue "Seat vs. Seatbelt."

For example, If NHTSA crashes a "G" van and the belt pay out is below or above my engineer's allowable length and the (HIC) level and (Chest "G") forces are above NHTSA's standards, is NHTSA going to analyze the data as we have or will they pose the liability on the seating or seat belt manufacturer?

We need your response to this situation as soon as possible.

Attachment

(Kustom Fit test data omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.5

DATE: April 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice-President, Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-93 from Scott R. Dennison to Robert Hellmuth

TEXT: Robert Hellmuth, Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, has asked us to respond to your FAX of March 12, 1993. You offer your input and assistance "regarding the alleged debate over the treatment of vehicles replicating pre-safety standard vehicle designs and their compliance with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

We are unsure what you mean by "debate." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, all new motor vehicles, including replica vehicles, must conform to the Safety Standards unless exempted by the Administrator from one or more of those standards pursuant to 49 CFR Part 555. This regulation has been in effect since 1972, and is intended to assist temporarily those manufacturers whose products may differ from those of conventional motor vehicles. I should note that the predecessor owners of Excalibur have been able to certify compliance of this replica vehicle since 1972 with all Safety Standards without seeking a temporary exemption from them.

However, the Safety Standards do not cover a vehicle in use. Occasionally, situations arise in which a vehicle is newly manufactured, but contains a substantial number of parts from a vehicle previously in use. In these instances the question arises whether the vehicle may be considered "new" and required to comply with the Safety Standards, or one that may be regarded as having been a vehicle in use for which compliance is not required. Perhaps this is the "debate" to which you refer. We handle these situations according to the facts of each.

If you wish to offer further comments, we would be pleased to consider them.

ID: nht93-3.50

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Carl W. Ruegg -- President, Carlo International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-27-93 from Carl W. Ruegg to Niel Eisner (OCC 8513)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "(t)hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht93-3.51

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: A. F. Zang, III

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 01-01-93 EST from A. F. Zang, III, to NHTSA (OCC 8408)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about government rules applicable to your product, which you describe as an aftermarket child's car seat cover made out of a plastic-coated fabric. In particular, you were concerned about flammability restrictions that would be applicable to your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat cover.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of your product. Under the Safety Act, 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 in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by a child seat cover. Standard No. 213 sets flammability resistance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No.

302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, if they were to install it, they should ensure that they do not compromise the safety protection provided by the child restraint system. The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your seat cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS's. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302.

I will now take this opportunity to answer your specific questions.

OUESTION ONE

1. Where can the fabric be tested?

The agency does not recommend any test laboratory. However, the following laboratories have conducted similar tests for this agency.

Commercial Testing Co Detroit Testing Laboratory 1215 S. Hamilton Street P.O. Box 869 Dalton, GA 30722-0985 Warren, MI 48090-0869 Phone: (404) 278-3935 Phone: (313) 754-9000 Fax: (404) 278-3936 Fax: (313) 754-9045

United States Testing Co. Engineering Services Division 291 Fairfield, NJ 07006 Phone: (201) 575-5252 Fax: (201) 575-8271

OUESTION TWO

2. What are the test specifications?

As explained above, Standard No. 302 specifies the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to flammability resistance. This standard does not directly apply to aftermarket products such as a seat cover for a child restraint. However, we have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information.

OUESTION THREE

3. Are these questions something that are already available from the factory?

We are not certain what information you wished to obtain by this question. We assume that you were asking whether a manufacturer of a product subject to Standard No. 302 can rely on the assurances from the fabric manufacturer that the material meets the standard's flammability requirements. The manufacturer of the product (e.g., a new child restraint system) would be responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product meets all applicable

FMVSS's. The manufacturer of the product would thus be responsible for ensuring that its reliance on the fabric manufacturer's assurances were reasonable and that the assurances were bona fide.

OUESTION FOUR

4. Whether the packaging can state that the fabric has been tested and found to be within compliance with government regulations.

Only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are subject to and that meet the FMVSS's may be certified as complying with those standards. NHTSA does not permit manufacturers of products that are not subject to the FMVSS's to certify to those standards because consumers might be confused or misled about a statement that a product complies with a standard when in fact no standard applied. Accordingly, since no FMVSS applies to an aftermarket child seat cover, you must not state on the packaging that the fabric of your product complies with the FMVSS's.

OUESTION FIVE

5. Seeks any other government regulations for children's products.

We are not aware of any other Federal government agency that, regulates items of motor vehicle equipment. More generally, please be aware that the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates certain consumer products used by children. You may wish to contact that agency at (301) 492-6580 for information about their statutes and regulations related to children's products.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.6

DATE: April 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin -- Consulting Editor, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Publishing, Automotive and Technical Writing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter date 12-30-92 from Donald L. Anglin to William A. Boehly (OCC 8223)

TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you asked whether removing the self-adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the "anti-tampering" provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS and Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters.

You specifically asked about the agency's "anti-tampering" provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the "rendering inoperative" provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by

telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.7

DATE: April 19, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Matthew J. Ryan -- Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau, State of New York, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-3-93 from Matthew J. Ryan to Charles R. Hott (OCC 8382)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993, regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, SCHOOL BUS PASSENGER SEATING AND CRASH PROTECTION (58 FR 4586; January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows.

1. IF A SCHOOL BUS IS BUILT OR MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE ONE OR MORE WHEELCHAIRS, AFTER JANUARY 17, 1994, THE RESTRAINT/SECUREMENT SYSTEM REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION CHANGE MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.

This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location.

Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a PRE-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified BEFORE the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an "alterer" under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR S567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements.

If a school bus is modified AFTER the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first

sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the "render inoperative" prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The "render inoperative" prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the "render inoperative" provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222.

2. A SCHOOL BUS BUILT WITH NO WHEELCHAIR SEATING POSITIONS, IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A WHEELCHAIR POSITION.

This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a "school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair" to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations.

If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586.

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

ID: nht93-3.8

DATE: April 20, 1993

FROM: Dennis Platt -- Sergeant, Program Supervisor, Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section, Department of Public Safety, Utah Highway Patrol

TO: Marvin Shaw -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-17-93 from John Womack (Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Dennis Platt (A41; Std. 205)

TEXT: Recent school bus and truck inspections performed by inspectors from our agency have found some safety glass installations that may or may not be legal application.

Windshields (flat glass applications) in some Blue Bird School buses and other heavy trucks have been replaced locally with glass that is marked;

- Buchman AS1 Safety Laminated Float glass DOT #146M-592 16 CFR 1201 CAT II

Other manufacturers are etching similar markings on flat glass for replacement windshields, all of which are marked with the common AS1, 16 CFR 1201 CAT II marking.

In speaking with Mr. Messera of your office, he indicated he was not aware of any automobile AS1 glass that has been dual certified as being 16 CFR 1201 CAT II.

In reading 16 CFR 1201, our staff has been unable to find any provision in the regulation that allows dual certification.

If there is such a provision, and AS1 glass may also be 16 CFR 1201 CAT II, and 16 CFR 1201 CAT II may also be AS1 certified, please advise.

Our intent is to prevent glass which has been designed for shower stall doors and patio doors from being installed in school bus windshields and side windows and similar applications in heavy trucks.

Your attention and response in this matter is appreciated.