ID: nht91-6.49

DATE: November 1, 1991 EST

FROM: Joe S. Brito -- President, Preferred Custom Concepts Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 01/07/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Joe S. Brito (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter comes to you in hopes that you might be able to set many rumors to rest. We at Preferred Custom Concepts manufacture dash and door trim kits, overhead consoles, floor consoles as well as other accessories that are sold as aftermarket bolt-ons by custom shops or installed by people in the Truck and Van conversion industry.

The recent changes that have occured in the Truck and Van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints has also sparked rumors that this new laws will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle.

We have yet to receive any official notification of any such changes nor have we seen or read any written material on this subject. Therefore, you can see our reason for this letter. Could you tell us, are there laws that are regulating the use of wood in custom interiors? If so what are these laws? Can you send me copy of any regulations that govern same? If not where might I be able to obtain a copy of these illusive documents.

We would greatly appreciate any and all help you may be able to offer us in solving this problem. Thank you.

ID: nht91-6.5

DATE: September 19, 1991

FROM: Earl H. Kester -- President, Seatco

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Earl H. Kester (A38; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Seatco is a manufacturer of custom seating for the van, pickup and Surburban market both to bailment pool converters and to aftermarket accounts. My question concerning FVMSS 208 is directed to the aftermarket accounts. These are retail establishments that sell and install accessories on titled vehicles. Our opinion is that 208 compliance includes installing seats in a 1992 vehicle that falls under the 208 envelope. Our competition has taken the position that this is not true. There is a considerable difference in pricing based on a seat that will meet 208 standards and one that will not.

We need a ruling from NHSTA as to the proper position to take on compliance in our industry. The part of the law that we interpreted as compliance is under the section of " not rendering a safety item inoperable". Please respond as soon as possible as we are in grave need of a ruling.

ID: nht91-6.50

DATE: November 1, 1991

FROM: Tadoru Yamamoto -- General Manager, Technical Administration Division, Hino Motors Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Questions on the Interpretation of FMVSS 113 "Hood & Latch System"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Tadoru Yamamoto (A39; Std. 113)

TEXT:

Hino Motors, Ltd. is a Japanese manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks & buses. We export some kinds of trucks & buses to the United States.

We are now developing new model vehicles (cab-over type) which have a front panel. In designing the front panel, we have some questions on the interpretation of FMVSS 113 "Hood & Latch System."

It will be greatly appreciated if you would answer the attached questionnaire by Nov. 20, 1991 at the latest. If possible, we would like to receive your answer by facsimile. Our FAX No. is 011-81-0425-86-5006. I'm looking forward to your reply.

ID: nht91-6.51

DATE: November 1, 1991

FROM: William E. Kenyon -- Mr. K's Original Headsaver, Patented Restraint Systems

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Mr. K Headsaver (A Head Restraint System for Pickup Trucks)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/15/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to William E. Kenyon (A39; Std. 202)

TEXT:

Pursuant to a phone discussion with Dr. Carl C. Clark, NRD-12, I was advised to send this letter and Affidavit to your attention. We are the manufacturers of a universal, retrofit head restraint system for pickup trucks with bench seats.

Our head restraint has been on the market for four years and meets or exceeds the federal Standard 202 as shown in the enclosed Affidavit of Testing. We would like our product to be federally approved as an after-market safety product.

Please advise us at your earliest convenience if we have not met all requirements.

Attachment

AFFIDAVIT Confirmation of Test Results of Mr. K HeadSaver (A head restraint system for pickup trucks)

COUNTY OF MARICOPA) ) STATE OF ARIZONA )

I, William E. Kenyon, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, under oath, depose and say:

1. That I am the inventor and patent holder of US Patent #4,869,448, a Head Restraint for Vehicles.

2. That on the 29th day of October, 1991, a test was conducted of the Mr. K HeadSaver in the presence of your affiant and two witnesses.

3. That the head restraint used in the test is, in fact, the head restraint known as the Mr. K HeadSaver; that the manufacturer has warranted to your affiant that the head restraint does comply with Standard 202.

4. That this test is being conducted to show that the product known as the Mr. K Headsaver is in compliance with the 202 Standard and that said headrest meets the qualifications to be a federally approved aftermarket safety product.

5. That when installed, the headrest is 27.5 inches in height; the two end pads are 11" x 8-1/2"; pads are filled with extra- firm, high-density impact foam and covered with fabric.

6. That the following test was conducted:

US49, S571.101 Standard No. 202; Head restraints, S4.3(b):

(1) The top of the head restraint is 27.5 inches above the seating reference point.

(2) When measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the head restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, the lateral width of the head restraint is not less than 10 inches for use with bench seats.

(3) There was no displacement of the rearmost portion of the head form.

S5.2 Compliance with S4.3(b):

a. A test device was placed in accordance with (a).

b. A reference line was established.

C. A 9 inch diameter, 16 lb. spherical head form was used in producing a moment greater than 3,300 in.

lbs.

d. A Load was gradually increased to exceed 200 pounds.

The Mr. K HeadSaver was installed in a 1985 S10 Chevrolet pickup cut-a-way, with bench seats, for testing purposes.

Inspection of the headrest after testing found it to be in the same condition as before testing.

DATED this 29 day of October, 1991.

William E. Kenyon (Notary information is omitted)

ID: nht91-6.6

DATE: September 23, 1991

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Esq.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lawrence A. Beyer (A38; VSA Sec. 112)

TEXT:

This office, as well as my clients, have been advised by an office of NHTSA that attorneys cannot submit documentation and make declarations on behalf of clients unless they submit formal power of attorney documentation which authorizes such representation.

I have been under the assumption that as an attorney I have the right to fully represent my clients before the federal government. Such representation includes the preparation and submission of completed documentation on their behalf.

Please advise me if, in order to represent my clients, it is NHTSA's policy that I have to provide proof to NHTSA that my statement that I represent a party is true.

Thank you for your time.

ID: nht91-6.7

DATE: September 23, 1991

FROM: Gene Byrd -- Manager, Auto/Truck Div., Legris, Incorporated

TO: Vernon Bloom -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: Re MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 106 (D.O.T. FMVSS 571-106 REV. 2/1/85); REFERENCE: SECTION S7.3.8 AIR PRESSURE & SECTION S8.7 AIR PRESSURE TEST

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 12-5-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gene Byrd (A38; Std. 106)

TEXT:

WE REQUEST YOU ASSISTANCE IN CLARIFICATION OF THIS SECTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.

SECTION 7.3.8 READS AS FOLLOWS:

AN AIR BRAKE HOSE ASSEMBLY SHALL CONTAIN AIR PRESSURE OF 200 PSI FOR 5 MINUTES WITHOUT LOSS OF MORE THAN 5 PSI.

OUR QUESTION; IS THERE IS A TABLE THAT DEFINES WHAT THE PROPER LENGTH OF THE AIR BRAKE HOSE ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE FOR TEST PURPOSES?

MR. BLOOM, IF WE HAVE SENT THIS INQUIRY TO THE WRONG DEPARTMENT, WE REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE FORWARD TO THE CORRECT PERSON.

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS PLEASE GIVE US A CALL.

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION WITH THIS INQUIRY.

ID: nht91-6.8

DATE: September 24, 1991

FROM: Wayne Trueman -- Plant Manager, BX-100 International

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel Office, U.S. DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-16-91 from Paul Rice to Wayne Trueman (A38; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 7-31-91 from Wayne Trueman to Barry Felrice (OCC 6314)

TEXT:

This is in response to the letter of September 16, 1991 from Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice. I would like to thank Mr. Rice, yourself, and the other staff members who provided the information that went into the above letter.

One point that I believe needs clarification is the second sentence of paragraph one (copy enclosed). The BX-100 Brake Equalizer is NOT a valve, and has no impact what so ever on the axle to axle brake application timing. Having these units centrally installed between the brake chambers of EACH braking axle, only effects the air application at the individual axle ends into whose air system they are installed.

Per the Webster's New World Dictionary, a VALVE is: "Any device in a pipe or tube that permits a flow in one direction only, or regulates the flow of whatever is in the pipe, by means of a flap, lid, plug, etc. acting to open or block passage."

The function and intent of the BX-100 Brake Equalizer is simply to absorb brake system application PRESSURE variations. There is no air flow within this system once it is pressurized by the relay or quick release valve which also control the overall braking pressure applied to the brake ends. The only other pressure variations in the system are the various internal and externally induced air spikes. Having the BX-100 Brake Equalizers installed between the brake chambers, absorbs or removes the induced system air pressure variations. These high speed transient pressure variations during braking are normal and are caused by changes in the road surface, out of round brake drums, glazed brake pads, out of adjustment slack adjusters, and a host of other possibilities. The BX-100's absorb these variations and provide a more consistent brake application pressure which results in a decrease of heat production at the brake end and a resulting decrease in wear in all affected components. Since equal pressure is maintained, the driver retains complete control of his vehicle and is able to bring it to a shorter, safer, straight line stop.

Once again, thank you for your time and assistance in answering the various questions that I have submitted to your offices.

ID: nht91-6.9

DATE: September 25, 1991

FROM: Gordon W. Didier --Butzel Long

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice; Ed Glancy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon W. Didier (A38; CSA S501(8))

TEXT:

Page one is missing

decision denying ASC's petition on July 29, 1991. In that decision, the NHTSA stated that it was concerned to avoid establishing a precedent by which a major manufacturer (in this case, General Motors) could potentially transfer significant numbers of low fuel economy vehicles out of its production otherwise subject to the industry-wide fuel economy standard.

Subsequent to the NHTSA's decision, ASC has evaluated the various alternatives available. In the course of these considerations, ASC discussed with General Motors the alternative of including ASC's total 1989 and 1990 production of 4,500 of these automobiles in General Motors' corporate average fuel economy. As you may recall, the agency's correspondence to ASC on February 20, 1990, suggested that, due to the relationship between General Motors and ASC in connection with the production of these automobiles, all of ASC's production could or should be included in General Motors' calculation of its corporate average fuel economy. Further, both the proposal for decision issued by the agency on January 28, 1991, and the final decision in this matter confirm the NHTSA's position that it would allow the manufacturers under these circumstances to determine, by agreement, which of them would count a vehicle as its own.

As I advised both Barry Felrice and Ed Glancy yesterday, General Motors Corporation has now agreed to include ASC's production of the Turbo Grand Prix and Grand Prix STE Turbo four-door sedan during 1989 and 1990 in its production and corporate average fuel economy for these model years, subject to the acceptance of the NHTSA. A copy of the letter of September 25, 1991, from General Motors Corporation setting forth this agreement is enclosed. Ed Glancy confirmed to me yesterday afternoon that the NHTSA has no objection to this arrangement and will agree to an amendment of General Motors' production for model years 1989 and 1990 to include ASC's production of these automobiles and a recalculation of the corporate average fuel economy for General Motors Corporation.

Pursuant to my discussion with Ed Glancy, ASC and General Motors are communicating directly with the Environmental Protection Agency to arrange for the EPA to amend its data base and include ASC's production in the calculations for General Motors for model years 1989 and 1990. We are requesting the EPA to conclude this amendment of its records as soon as possible and make an appropriate report to the NHTSA. In this regard, the

EPA has requested a copy of a letter confirming the NHTSA approval of this arrangement. We would, therefore, appreciate receiving your written confirmation as soon as possible.

On the basis of this understanding and agreement with the NHTSA, ASC will not be filing a petition for review of the agency's decision with the U.S. court of Appeals at the end of this week. As I indicated in my telephone conversations yesterday, we appreciate your consideration and agreement to this arrangement which, ASC believes, represents a reasonable resolution under all of the circumstances.

Thank you again for your cooperation. Please call me immediately if you have any questions or if the foregoing does not correctly set forth the understanding and agreement of the NHTSA in this matter.

ATTACHMENT

September 25, 1991

Mr. Joseph D. Bator ASC, Inc. One Sunroof Center Southgate, MI 48195

Dear Mr. Bator:

Re: GM - ASC Turbo Master Production Agreement - Possible Inclusion of ASC Turbo Grand Prix Vehicles in GM's CAFE

This is to confirm that General Motors is willing to accept the transfer from ASC, Inc. to General Motors of responsibility under the CAFE law for the 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles produced pursuant to the referenced production agreement, provided that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not object to this transfer of CAFE responsibility. If NHTSA indicates its acceptance of such transfer, General Motors anticipates that it would submit to NHTSA a supplementary CAFE report for model years 1989 and 1990 noting the inclusion of the Turbo Grand Prix vehicles in its domestic passenger car fleets. We anticipate that the inclusion would have no effect on General Motors final CAFE numbers for those model years.

Very truly yours,

David W. Schrumpf Attorney General Motors Legal Staff

ID: nht91-7.1

DATE: November 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Engel -- Assistant Chief, Covington (Kentucky) Fire Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-80 from Frank Berndt to L. Steenbock; Also attached to letter dated 2-11-88 from Erika Z. Jones to Joanne Salvio (Std. 206); Also attached to letter dated 9-16-91 from William Engel to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6504)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." (S S4)

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-7.10

DATE: November 14, 1991

FROM: Anonymous

TO: Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 114; "Theft Protection"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Anonymous (A39; Std. 114)

TEXT:

A major automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "The Company") is seeking an interpretation relating to the applicability of a transmission shift override mechanism concealment cover as it is applicable to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard FMVSS No. 114; "Theft Protection", as recently defined per notice of response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule published in the Federal Register notice (56 FR 12464) of Tuesday, March 26, 1991.

The Company is presently considering the incorporation of several possible transmission shift override mechanism concealment covers, and is requesting the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel to interpret the applicability of these proposals as they relate to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.114, S4.2.2(b), which states that the transmission shift lock override device "... may be operable by another means which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool".

The Company has proposed five (5) alternative systems that it believes will afford concealment for the transmission shift lock override mechanism. These proposals are set forth below.

Proposal I

The shift lock override mechanism access panel is a non transparent plastic applique that is affixed to the horizontal surface of the automatic transmission shift gate by vertical members with barbed formations that snap into position upon engagement with complementary vertical walls of the shift gate as shown in section A-A of Fig. #1. The shift lock override panel, when seated in position, has a flush fit arrangement with respect to the finisher panel horizontal plane on all of it's perimeter, with the exception of an approximately 10 millimeter horizontal spacing along it's rear most edge as oriented in car position. This horizontal spacing provides an approximately 2 millimeter vertical gap between the shift gate and the surface of the horizontal member of the cover. In order to remove the shift lock override mechanism cover, one must apply a blade like device such as a knife or screwdriver to the 2 millimeter vertical spacing and pry the cover upward, thus defeating the retention features (Fig. #2) and exposing a button. This button, when depressed, actuates the link mechanism that provides lock override. Company design engineers estimate that a vertical load of approximately 5 to 10 Kg applied normal to the horizontal surface is necessary to remove the shift lock override access panel. Once the cover is removed, transmission shift lock can be defeated by depressing the override button.

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #1 - Shift Lock Override Mechanism Cover Location

(Drawing omitted) Section A-A

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #2 - Removal of Shift Lock Override Mechanism Cover

Proposal II

Proposal II is identical to Proposal I, except that the override button is replaced with a threaded screw with a conventional or cross recessed head that can be advanced by use of a screwdriver. The downward motion of the rotating screw depresses the override link which actuates the override mechanism (Fig. #3).

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #3 - Override Actuation Using Screw to Depress Override Actuation Link

Proposal III

Proposal III incorporates a cross recessed countersunk screw to retain the override mechanism cover rather than the barbed features that are incorporated into the cover in Proposals I and II (see Fig. #4 and Section B-B). In Proposal III, no actuation button or screw is provided. In order to actuate the override link, a screwdriver or similar tool must inserted the through the hole created by the removal of the cover screw to depress the override actuation link to override the transmission shift lock (Fig. #5).

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #4 - Shift Override Mechanism Cover Affixed With Threaded Fastener

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #5 - Actuation of Transmission Override By Depressing Link With Tool

Proposal IV

Proposal IV utilizes the console finisher panel only in providing a concealment device for the shift override mechanism. The finisher panel, as designed, has a "line to line" interference to the console housing (Fig. #6 and Section C-C). The finisher panel is fabricated from injection molded plastic resin, which has some degree of flexibility. To remove the finisher panel, a screwdriver or similar tool is placed in a 6 millimeter crease at the surface of the panel to housing interface, and then applying a prying action. Removal of the panel exposes the shift override link, and actuation of the override is accomplished by depressing the actuation link (Fig. #7).

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #6 - Console and Finisher Panel Assembly

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #7 - A/T Shift Gate Removed Exposing Shift Override Mechanism

Proposal V

Proposal V involves an identical shift override button actuation device as in Proposal I. Company designers have alternatively proposed to have a non removable cover with a slot to access the shift override incorporated as opposed to Proposal I, which has a removable cover. To actuate the override mechanism, a key, screwdriver or similar tool must be inserted into the slot and the shift override release button must be depressed in order to actuate the shift override. This proposal is illustrated in Figure #8 and Section D-D.

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #8 - Proposal V With Key/Tool Access Slot in Shift Override Cover

(Drawing omitted) Section D-D

Supplements to Proposals I and II

(Anonymous) engineers have also proposed identify the transmission shift override mechanism by placing the verbiage "shift lock" in white lettering on the shift lock override mechanism access cover horizontal surface. An illustration is shown below.

(Drawing omitted) Transmission shift lock cover with white lettering on black field