ID: nht94-8.14

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Daniel T. Mason -- Product Development Engineer, Automotive Division, Avery Dennison

TO: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Daniel T. Mason (A42; Part 541)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for a ruling of the footprint requirements of the parts marking legislation, 541-Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

I am a Product Development Engineer working under Cliff Nastas for Avery Dennison. My question refers to the footprint feature of the label that appears under a UV light in the substrate after the label (illegible words).

Both Avery Dennison and (illegible word) supply parts marking labels to the automotive industry. Both have a florescent agent that migrates into the substrate once applied. Would a label that substitutes a florescent copy of the VIN instead of the whole footprint of the label be in compliance to the federal legislation?

Please inquire for a ruling on this. I will follow up this letter with a phone call to discuss any questions you may have in the next couple weeks.

ID: nht94-8.15

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA/DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/11/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Part 591; Part 592)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion latter from your office concerning a determination made my OVSC regarding the importation of vehicles from Canada.

OVSC has allowed the importation of vehicles which conform to Canadian safety standards, and U.S. safety standards with the exception of "minor labeling requirements." These vehicles must be for the owner's personal use.

OVSC has interpreted "personal use" to exclude importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use. For example, an individual moving to the U.S. would be allowed to import a vehicle, provided he had a statement from the manufacturer that the vehicle complied with all FMVSS with the exception of labeling. However, a company moving to the U.S. with the identical vehicle and letter would be required to import the vehicle through the R.I. program, under bond, etc.

I agree that if the company was importing the vehicle for resale, the R.I. program is necessitated. I do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Please provide me with an interpretation to settle this issue.

ATTACHMENT

PERMANENT IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN VEHICLES

PERSONAL USE (Not included - vehicles owned by business or used in commerce)

If an individual has a letter from the manufacturer stating that a Canadian vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper and theft prevention standards (FMVSS), except minor labeling:

a. A letter is provided by our agency that it is satisfactory to import the vehicle under the Box 2 category on the declaration statement (Form HS 7).

b. The HS-7 form must be completed with Box 2 checked and a copy of the manufacturers letter and our correspondence must be attached.

c. If a manufacturers letter isn't available - a registered importer must be used.

FOR SALE

Such vehicles have to be imported by a registered importer (The RI is not necessarily the owner. If the vehicle manufacturer provides a letter that the vehicles comply except for minor labelling, we will require:

a. An HS-7 form indicating the registered importer (RI) as the importer of records. A Box 3 entry will be required.

b. A compliance package showing any modifications that were required including photos of the speedometer and Canadian certification label, DOT bond, and payment of appropriate fees.

c. Warranty Insurance Policy

MANUFACTURERS LETTERS

Since we have previously made a determination about Canadian vehicles that was published in the Federal Register, if a manufacturers letter is not available, the process also falls into a Box 3 category. We will require all of the items listed above. If a Canadian vehicle was built on or after September 1, 1989, if it is not on our approved-eligible vehicle list, and if the MANUFACTURER DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTOMATIC RESTRAINTS THAT COMPLY WITH STANDARD NO. 208, or any other crash survivability standard, a petition will be required and it will have to be entered as a Box 3 (formerly allowed for determination under Box 7).

HOWEVER

If the vehicle is equipped with the necessary automatic restraints and other modifications required to meet U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards but the manufacturers letter is not available, the RI DOES NOT have to petition if it can verify identicality with a car certified by its original manufacturer to meet the U.S. Standards by part numbers, drawings etc.

ID: nht94-8.16

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Business Distributor Ass'n, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney Advisor, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (Std. 217; USA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

I am following up on the fax that I sent to you dated January 12, 1994.

As of this date - I have not received a response, to the question that was raised during our verbal conversation, and which I requested a formal written response in the aforementioned fax.

Will greatly appreciate your follow-up with the written formal response.

Another question has developed pertaining to the implementation of FMVSS 217 (amended). New York State school bus regulations - Chapter VI transportation regulations - article 3 safety part 721 requires two side emergency doors on vehicles of greater than 67 pupil capacity. New York State also - in the past has required the side emergency doors to be "to the rear of center of the passenger compartment?" - they have just recently amended their regulations to conform t the FMVSS as to location "as near center of passenger compartment" - and have also in my reading have required both the left and right side emergency doors in center - BUT not in the same body section. The question is raised by some of the manufacturers/distributors - can the right side emergency door be located to the rear of the passenger compartment?

TEXT OF RICHARD KREUTZIGER'S 1/12/94 FAX TO WALTER MYERS:

In a follow-up to our morning phone conversation of this date, I hereby formally request a written response (preferably by fax) to the point of discussion in reference to the ability of any individual state agency to require that an entity other than a political sub-division of the state (such as a school district) had only to meet the requirements/standards/regulations of NHTSA and not added individual state regulations, even if such regulations exceed the federal standards.

Example: "ABC" Central School - is required in their purchase of a school bus to transport students to and from home to school - and/or to transport students to school sponsored events - such vehicle must meet the prescribed FMVSS and to further meet the individual state regulations that exceed the FMVSS.

"XYZ" Bus Company - has a contract with "DEF" school district to transport the school pupils of the district to and from home to school, and/or school sponsored events. Because this entity is not a political sub-division the

state enforcement agency relating to school bus regulations can not mandate that this private enterprise meet the state regulations that exceed the FMVSS - the only requirements for this private entity and their school buses are those that are mandated by FMVSS.

I hope my interpretation of our phone conversation, reflects your

ID: nht94-8.17

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Donald P. Green

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Donald Green (A42; Std. 109; 120)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

I am seeking official professional advice regarding the use of passenger radial tires on recreational--pull type--trailers.

I have made numerous inquiries to various tire dealers and in nearly every case they have refused to consider the installing of passenger radial tires on a trailer, stating that this tire's construction with a soft sidewall could cause an uncontrollable swaying condition that could result in a serious accident. They would only install special trailer tires or light truck tires that have stiff sidewalls and are designed to operate at higher pressures resulting in a harder ride but stable condition.

I had the misfortune, in an emergency situation, allowing a professional tire dealer to install a set (4) passenger radials (P215-75R15) on a 1989 trailer, since they did not have one tire to match the F78-15ST "C" rating tires that were supplied with the trailer from the manufacturer.

The result was that several months later I became the victim of an upset of the trailer and the towing vehicle, that was triggered by a cross-following wind that caused the soft sidewall tires to squish to one side, forcing the tow vehicle into the adjoining left lane of a two lane divided highway. When I attempted to correct the tow vehicle the trailer reversed its attitude, overcame the Reese anti-sway systems and went into a horrifying jackknifing that ended with both trailer and tow vehicle overturned. My passenger and I were using lap and shoulder harnesses and escaped without injury. No other vehicles were involved. The 1990 GMC Suburban received $ 8,000.00 damage, the trailer was cashed out by the insurance company.

I have checked with the dealer that installed the passenger radials and he claims no responsibility or negligence, saying tires were of correct size and load carrying capacity, and that there is no regulation, local, state or federal, that prohibits installing radial passenger tires on a trailer. It does seem odd that this application is allowed since it seems to be the opinion of most tire dealers that the use of these tires on trailers is a hazard to both the driver of the tow vehicle and other approaching or passing vehicles.

I do not believe that I was an isolated case, and have since heard of similar accidents happening from the same cause.

Your advice and reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht94-8.18

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Department Of Transportation, Division Of Traffic Safety

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/01/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To Gary D. March (A42; STD. 217; Part 586)

TEXT: On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in-between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-8.19

DATE: February 11, 1994

FROM: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Jerry L. Steffy (A42; Std. 108; Part 555)

TEXT:

Since I faxed you with my question regarding FMVSS 108 and ECE Reg. 20, I received Part 555 of 49 CFR from Luke Loy.

555.5 implies that we could apply for an exemption from FMVSS 108 for this headlamp since there exists "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." This is of course, if NHTSA recognizes the worthiness of the testing under ECE Reg. 20.

This exemption would only be for the first model year as afterwards we will change to a headlamp already FMVSS 108.

Can you please confirm for the if this is a route we can employ in this instance?

Best regards.

2-10-94 fax from J.L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson:

Dear Taylor:

Luke Loy suggested that I contact you with a specific query I have. Recently, in Canada, we were able to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp system use. Is it possible to substitute ECE 20 for FMVSS 108 in the states in some instances? Of course the majority of our suppliers fulfill testing according to FMVSS 108 however, there are individual exceptions. Some cases may require significant investment in order to have individual cases comply, so it is important to know.

Best regards

ID: nht94-8.2

DATE: March 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC-9662)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the "re-importation" of used certified motorcycles into the United States after modifications have been performed abroad. These modifications would not involve a "knowingly rendering inoperative" of equipment related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether our interpretation of November 16, 1992, "regarding this matter" remains operative.

We assume the letter to which you refer is the one addressed to Wolfgang Klamp of Blaine, Washington. Mr. Klamp's wife crossed the border daily in her Canadian-manufactured Ford Tempo to her Canadian place of employment. Because the vehicle was not certified as meeting U.S. safety standards, the U.S. Customs Service had informed her the car would not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. We verified that the Customs Service was acting in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and provided several suggestions.

This letter remains our position. However, we fail to understand its relevance to the fact situation you present regarding importation of motorcycles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We can only surmise that individual Customs officials may be questioning whether the modified motorcycles comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of entry, notwithstanding the fact that they are certified as complying as of their manufacture. As you know, a motor vehicle offered for importation must comply with the U.S. safety standards at the time of importation (or be converted to those standards after entry), regardless of its state of compliance at the time of its manufacture.

We have no regulations under which a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may state that it has not knowingly rendered inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, we would recommend that Customs accept such a statement accompanying an HS-7 Form's declaration of vehicle compliance if it also contained the statement that in the modifier's opinion the vehicle remained in compliance upon completion of the modifications.

Alternatively, and relevant to modifications that relate to a safety standard which may not have had to be met initially (i.e. installation of glazing on a motorcycle that was not originally manufactured with a windshield), we suggest that the modifier provide a statement, in writing

or on a label affixed to the vehicle, of the kind required of an alterer of a new vehicle, as set forth in 49 CFR 567.7. This statement attests to the continuing compliance of a motor vehicle after modification. Our willingness to accept such a statement should enable Customs to enter the modified motorcycles as conforming vehicles.

ID: nht94-8.20

DATE: February 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Shapiro -- RV Designer Collection, Woodbridge, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/17/93 from David Shapiro to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9358)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials to aftermarket products. You state that you are planning to market fabric window coverings such as drapes and fabric bedding such as bedspreads for use in recreational vehicles. In response to your request for confirmation that Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket products, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

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 products you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. However, Standard No. 302 would not apply to your products because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your products. Under the Safety Act, your products are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in S151-159 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 products contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I note that even though Standard No. 302 would not apply to your product, the product's flammability characteristics could be relevant to whether it contained a safety related defect.

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 vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from installing your product in used vehicles if the effect of such installation was to render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 302.

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 products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, your products would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302.

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: nht94-8.21

DATE: February 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Pat McCue -- Allied Service Systems Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/15/93 from Pat McCue to Ed Jettner (OCC-8962)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of this agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on "how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act 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 is in conformity 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies.

Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying compliance to these standards.

Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a "seat belt assembly," and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold.

If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehicle. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our understanding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. 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.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant

protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limits the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment.

You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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: nht94-8.22

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maurice Hannigan -- Commissioner, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from P. J. Harrington to Potter Valley Community Unified School Dist. Superintendent and letter dated 3/31/93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke

TEXT:

It has come to our attention that a misunderstanding has arisen about a letter we issued on March 31, 1993 to W.C. Burke of your Department. That letter explained the marking responsibilities of a person who installs replacement glass (referred to as glazing in the Federal standard) under section S6.4 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205, copy enclosed.) On January 12, 1994, Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff contacted Mr. Walter Burke and Mr. Kyle Larson of CHP to discuss this matter. This letter is a follow up to that discussion.

Based on its understanding of the March 1993 letter, CHP is requiring installers to mark replacement glazing with a number (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) and has directed school districts to tell installers of glass to contact NHTSA "(t)o obtain a number as required by (Standard No. 205)." Standard No. 205 does not require the typical aftermarket installer to obtain such a number from the agency.

We explained in the March 1993 letter that a person who cuts glazing (i.e., a typical installer of aftermarket glazing) must mark the piece with the following information required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark.

Mr. Larson stated that he was under the impression that "(3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer" was a number assigned by NHTSA. As we explained to him, this is not the case. The installer devises his own model number. The only number assigned by NHTSA under Standard No. 205 is the code mark assigned to a manufacturer who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material" (known as a "prime glazing material manufacturer").

We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter on this subject. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.