ID: nht88-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03-28-88 TO ERIKA JONES, NHTSA, FROM CLAIRE HAVEN, V. P., QUADWEST; OCC-1874; LETTER DATED 03-15-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN FROM CARL C. CLARK; NRD-12-CC-88048

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking further agency assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. You r product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances.

If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with standard No. 208, Occupant Cr ash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies(49 CFR @ 571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad.

If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, an y device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The safety belt systems installed in vehicle are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or

repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a sh oulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standard s. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a "render inoperative" violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a "render inoperative" violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacture, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the invent or contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agen cy would be very likely to find a "render inoperative" violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed.

Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder be lt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. J. BROWN, GENERAL MANAGER, PRODUCT SERVICES, MOHAWK TIRE COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-20-87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. J. BROWN, MOHAWK TIRE COMPANY; OCC1178

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. According to your letter, you are considering purchasing for resale a group of metric size tires from a foreign manufacture r. The maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls of the tires are indicated in kilograms and kilopascals only, without any indication of the maximum pounds and PSI pressure. The actual stamping on the tires is as follows: Maximum Load 530kgs 165SR15 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 600kgs 185SR14 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 560kgs 175SR14 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 475kgs 165SR13 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 420kgs 155SR13 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 220 KPA

You stated that you question whether the omission of the load designation and pressure in pounds prohibits the tires from being sold in the United States and requested our opinion on the matter. As discussed below, it is our opinion that tires without t he maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 and therefore cannot be imported into the United States for use on passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and resistance to be ad unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire

and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States.

Section S4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 109 requires that the maximum permissible inflation pressure of each tire "shall be either 32, 36, 40 or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa." Thus, no value other than those listed may be used for the maximum permissibl e inflation pressure of a passenger car tire. Sections S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire.

Section S4.2.1(b) originally listed only three permissible maximum inflation pressures, all in English units (32, 36 and 40 psi). The agency interpreted sections S4.3(b) and (c) to require that the maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating be in English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers.

The first permissible metric maximum inflation pressures, 240 and 280 kPa, were added to Standard No. 109 in 1977. 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. In permitting metric-series tires, the agency established a requirement that the metric unit inflation pressu re and load rating be supplemented by English system equivalents on the tire sidewall. That requirement, set forth in section S4.3.4, now reads as follows:

S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa, then:

(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next whole number; and

(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load rating pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Thus, each tire must have a maximum inflation pressure of either 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, 60 psi, 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa. If the maximum inflation pressure is 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, or 60 psi, the maximum permissible inflation pressure and max imum load rating provided pursuant to sections S4.3(b) and (c) must be in English units. I would note that so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it cannot also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presen tation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. If the maximum permissible inflation pressure is 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa, the maximum permissible inflation pressure in kPa provided pursuant to secti on S4.3(b) must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number, and the maximum load rating provided pursuant to section S4.3(c) in kilograms must be followed in parenthesis by the equivale nt load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Since the tires you are considering purchasing do not have the maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units, they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 and may not be imported into the United States for use on pa ssenger cars. I have also enclosed for your information a copy of a December 12, 1985, letter, addressed to Mutual Trading Corporation, which provides a general discussion of issues related to the importation and sale of tires in the United States.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ANDREW E. WOOLNER -- GENERAL MANAGER AUST IN ROVER U.S. LIAISON OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM ANDREW E WOOLNER TO ERIKA JONES; RE INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 101, CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS, SECTION S 5.3.5

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woolner:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked about the illumination requirements applicable to a trip computer display. According to your letter, the trip c omputer display is provided in addition to a fuel gauge and a speedometer/odometer. The trip computer is able, among other functions, to display supplemental information concerning fuel consumption, fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance t o arrival. As discussed below, this letter confirms your understanding that illumination is not required for the trip computer display, but, if illumination is provided, it is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5 of the standard. This letter a lso addresses the illumination requirements applicable to a vehicle condition monitor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See section S5. Among the displays listed in Standard No. 101 are the fu el level telltale, fuel level gauge, speedometer and odometer. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 2.

It is our opinion that a trip computer provided in addition to a fuel gauge and speedometer/odometer is not considered a fuel level guage,

speedometer or odometer within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Moreover, a trip computer is not otherwise included among the displays listed in the standard. Since Standard No. 101's illumination requirements other than those of section S5.3.5 onl y apply to displays listed in the standard, they are not applicable to the trip computer.

As you suggest in your letter, if illumination is provided for the trip computer display, the illumination is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. That section specifies requirements for any source of illumination within the passenger compartme nt which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by the standard, which is not a telltale, an d which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, Mr. Marx Elliott advised that you are also interested in what illumination requirements may be applicable to a vehicle condition monitor. According to the information provided with your letter, the vehicle condition monitor indicates the following: door or trunk lid not shut, low outside air temperature, lamp failure, low washer fluid, and low engine coolant.

Each of the displays included in the vehicle condition monitor is a telltale. However, none of the telltales are among the displays listed in the standard. We note that the information provided with your letter indicates that the vehicle condition monito r illustrates, using a vehicle map, the operation of several lamps. If a lamp fails, the vehicle condition monitor causes the appropriate segment in the vehicle map to extinguish. While the headlamp high beam is among the lamps for which the vehicle co ndition monitor provides information, Mr. Elliott has advised us that this information is supplemental to the traditional high beam telltale provided on the instrument panel. It is our opinion based on these facts, that such a supplemental display is no t considered a high beam telltale within the meaning of Standard No. 101.

The telltales included in the vehicle condition monitor are not subject to any illumination requirements. Since none of the telltales included on the vehicle condition monitor are listed in Standard No. 101, they need not meet the illumination requireme nts specified by that standard for telltales. Moreover, as indicated by the language of section S5.3.5, quoted above, the illumination requirements of that section do not apply to telltales.

ID: nht88-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/24/88

FROM: MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 126; STANDARD 302 LETTER DATED 05/08/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2027

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am requesting a legal interpretation concerning Motor Vehicle Standard No. 302 and whether or not my product must comply.

The product consists of interior window coverings for pick up truck shells. The shell is a segregated area from the cab. It is placed directly over the bed of the truck. There are no seats in the bed, and the shell is installed as an after market prod uct. The window coverings are made out of an apparel type material.

Am I required to comply with this regulation? Alternatively, if I have the product treated with California Health and Safety Code Standard No. 19, and if I send you a copy of the Standard, could you determine if I have met the No. 302 Standard.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KAREN WHITEHEAD

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-9-88, TO NHTSA, FROM KAREN WHITEHEAD, OCC2019

TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you sought information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213; copy enclosed). You provided a diagram of your back and head rest attachment which would a ccompany a child's car toddler seat. You noted that your device will allow a child's head and shoulders to be supported in an up-right position and that the back rest is anchored by slipping the motor vehicle's seat belt through elastic loops by the bac k rest and around the toddler seat. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You should be aware that your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, and you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, apply to the child restraint system before its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories, s uch as your back and head rest, may be added to a child restraint system after its first sale.

This general rule is, however, limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any devi se 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 . . ."

You should be aware that some elements of design incorporated in child restraint systems in compliance with Standard No. 213 might be affected by adding your headrest. For example, under section S5.7, all child restraints are required to incorporate the flammability resistance requirements under standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your letter indicates that you are aware of these requirements and that your product would be in compliance with these requirements. Also, child restraint s recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds

must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your back and head rest by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business would impair features provided in compliance with these or any other provision in the standard, then these entities would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of t he Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108. Each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a seperate violation of section 108.

Since an owner of a child restraint is not among the parties listed in section 108(a)(2)(A), he or she is not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design specified in the safety standards. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntaril y ensure that your back and head restraint would not render any such elements inoperative.

You should also be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, you would be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor ve hicle safety. If you as manufacturer or the agency determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Whichever of these options was chosen, you as the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. Therefore, you could not charge owners of the back and head restraint for remedy if the device were first purchased less t han eight years before the notification campaign.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/26/88

FROM: M. M. YOON -- DIRECTOR, IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. SEOUL, KOREA

TO: STEVE KRATZTE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/31/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO M. J. YOON, REDBOOK A33 (2), PART 571.3

TEXT: DEAR, MR. KRATZTE

WE, IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., ARE DOING AS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER OF SSANGYONG MOTOR COMPANY, PROCEEDING TWO PROJECTS WHICH ONE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE AND ONE PASSENGER CAR AND PLANNING TO LAUNCH THE CARS IN U.S.A.

THEREFORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATIONS (PASSENGER CAR OR MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER CAR) OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES PLANNED TO PRODUCT IN THE END OF 1991.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE, GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VEHICLE ARE AS FOLLOWS.

OVERALL LENGTH: 4200 approx. 4250 mm, DRIVE SYSTEM: 4 WHEEL DRIVE (PART TIME)

OVERALL WIDTH: 1716 mm, FRAME: LADDER TYPE FRAME

HEIGHT (ON GROUND): 1670 approx. 1700 mm

WINDSCREEN SLOPE ANGLE: 55 degrees

APPROACH ANGLE: 40 degrees

DEPARTUER ANGLE: 30 degrees

GROUND CLEARANCE (IN LADEN CONDITION): MINIMUM 200 mm

(THE SHAPE OF THE VEHICLE LOOKS LIKE PASSENGER CAR; AERODYNAMIC SHAPE)

AND, WE ALSO WANT TO KNOW THE CRITERIA FOR VEHICLE TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS. YOU ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO SENT THE INFORMATIONS, IF AVAILABLE. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE. NOTE). OUR ADDRESS & FAX. NO ARE AS FOLLOWS.

ADDRESS: 2nd FLOOR, GUKDONG BUILDING, 3-GA CHUNGMOO-RO, JUNG-GU, SEOUL, KOREA.

FAX. NO: 02-277-5321

SINCERELY YOURS

ID: nht88-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1988

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES, -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: PART 571.3 VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GM 200

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 21, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BALL

TEXT: On November 21, 1988, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with you and other NHTSA personnel to review GM's bases for classifying the passenger van versions of its GM 200 minivan family as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under 4 9 C.F.R. Part 571.3. The purpose of this letter is to summarize that presentation and to seek your concurrence with our determination. You will recall that "GM 200" is the program designation for the entire minivan family, and that the cargo van version of that family will be classified as a truck under Part 571.3.

Pre-introduction publicity relating to this vehicle family has made reference to the GM 200 being launched from the GM "A" car platform. Although the GM 200 will share some of the "A" car front wheel drive components, the common chassis used in the carg o and passenger van versions of the GM 200 is unique from the "A" car chassis and its unique features make it more suitable for commercial usage than a passenger car chassis. In this regard, the GM 200 cargo van version and the passenger van with its re ar seats removed will have approximately 95 percent greater cargo-carrying volume than an "A" car station wagon.

With respect to pertinent definitions in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NHTSA interpretations, the definition of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in Part 571.3 provides that an MPV is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." As we indicated during our meeting; the focus of our vehicle classification was based on the "truck chassis" alternative of the definition.

2

Although "truck chassis" is not defined in the regulations, the NHTSA indicated in the December 1, 1983 interpretation letter to Mazda that:

The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck att ributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis.

With these criteria in mind, GM concluded that the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan are appropriately classified as MPVs because the GM 200 minivan family is constructed on a "truck chassis." In this regard, "truck attributes" of the GM 200 c hassis which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis include:

1. An integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members;

2. An extended width rear axle;

3. A specific truck family powertrain certified to comply with light-duty truck emission standards, including the 11-year, 120,000 mile "useful life" requirements; and

4. A flat load floor.

As further evidence that the GM 200 chassis is a "truck chassis," a cargo van version will be marketed and sold by Chevrolet to compete in the commercial truck market. As we demonstrated during our presentation and through the review of a prototype of t he cargo van, this truck version of the GM 200 minivan family has commercial use characteristics not available in a passenger car.

3

We also showed at the November 21 meeting through an analysis performed by Failure Analysis Associates, that minivans classified as MPVs have certain similar chassis and body characteristics. In this connection, Failure Analysis Associates concluded fro m its review of the GM 200 and nine competitive MPVs that the GM 200 has a frame construction similar to these MPVs and falls within the range of chassis and body measurements exhibited by such competitive vehicles.

In summary, the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan family are constructed on a "truck chassis," and are, therefore, appropriately classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 571.3, inasmuch as: (1) the GM 200 fami ly of vehicles uses a common chassis which has "truck attributes" which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis; (2) a cargo van version will be produced to compete in the commercial truck market; and (3) the physical chassi s and body characteristics of the GM 200 fall within the range exhibited by competitive MPVs.

Due to the confidential and proprietary nature of the future product information and the product comparisons included in certain slides presented at the November 21 meeting and attached to this letter, GM requests that they be afforded confidential treat ment by the NHTSA and Department of Transportation until the GM 200 family of vehicles is made available for sale to the public.

Future product plans, descriptions and comparisons of future products with competitive vehicles are "trade secrets" within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code, entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The specific slides for which confidential treatment is being requested have been labeled "GM CONFIDENTIAL". The information contained in these slides is not customarily made public by GM. The disclosure to the public of GM's future product plans, desc riptions and comparisons with competitive vehicles is likely to result in significant competitive harm to GM. Furthermore, GM believes that this information falls within the "Class Determinations" in Appendix B to 49 C.F.R. Part 512 which the NHTSA has concluded would presumptively result in significant competitive damage to the submitter.

4

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 512.4(e), an affidavit in support of this assertion of confidentiality is also attached. If you should disagree with our position that these documents are entitled to confidential treatment, we would appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a further explanation and to address any concerns you may have.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented at the November 21 meeting will provide a sufficient basis for the NHTSA to concur with GM's determination regarding the vehicle classification of the GM 200. However, please contact m e if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

Attachments

(Affidavit Omitted.)

ID: nht88-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/28/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT L. RIPLEY -- PRESIDENT KNAACK MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM ROBERT L. RIPLEY OCC -- 2406

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ripley:

This is a response to your letter asking this agency to review three product catalogs you submitted with your letter, and tell you whether your company is required to furnish information pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Based on the information you supplied with your letter, your company is required to file information under Part 566 for the warning devices shown in one of the catalogs, but not for any of the other items shown in the three catalogs.

As specified in the Application section of Part 566 (@ 566.3), Part 566 applies to (1) all manufacturers of motor vehicles and (2) manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than tires, to which a safety standard applies. The only item advertised i n the three catalogs that is motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies is the "Safety Reflector Kit" shown on page 6 of the catalog entitled "weather guard For Full-Size and Mini Vans." These devices are subject to Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). Accordingly, your company, as the manufacturer of these devices, must furnish the information specified in @ 566.5 within the time period specified in @ 566.6.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: MELANIE TURNER -- QUALITY CONTROL DIAMOND STAR MOTORS

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MELANIE TURNER; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 08/31/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 04/13/78 FROM JOSEPH J. L EVIN -- NHTSA TO MOE PARE; NOA 30; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

Diamond Star Motors is presently producing cars for Chrysler and Mitsubishi. In order to insure that DSM is meeting FMVSS STD 205 (Glass Markings) without fail we'd like to request a written interpretation of this Standard for clarification purposes. P lease address the following questions:

1. Must the manufacturer markings be in a specified position on the glass (particularly side door glass?) If so, what are the specifications?

2. Must the manufacturing markings be readily and completely visible without dissassembly of the vehicle and without manually moving any molding in order to make markings more visible to the eye?

3. Must the markings be readily readable in a certain position? For example . . . from left to right, right to left, right-side up, or up side down?

4. Must the markings be readable from the outside of the car of the inside of the car?

5. What is the specification for the height of the lettering, point size, and dimensioning of the markings?

6. What does the content of these labels consist of?

Thank you for your cooperation. I greatly appreciate your assistance in supplying any additional information with reguards to this topic. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Your reply is critical to the quality of our cars.

Thank you,

ID: nht88-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/88

FROM: JAMES A. COWAN -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/24/89 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 227, BUS WINDOW RETE NTION AND RELEASE; OCC 2847

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

In a telephone conversation this morning with Marty J. Paliokes Safety Compliance Engineer for NHTSA, we were referred to your office for an interpretation regarding FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Our question regards figures 1 and 2 (p ages 418 and 419, CFR 49, Parts 400 to 999, October 1, 1985) of the subject regulation.

As background information, Crown Coach has developed a new transit style school bus based on our current production body shell. The current bus has been tested and certified for FMVSS 217 compliance as recently as March, 1988; see report no. 217-MSE- 87-10-TR7122-10 prepared under contract no. DTNH22-87-P-01028 for the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Attachment 1 (photograph) shows the relationship of the seat at the emergency exit door to the door opening in this test.

In the new bus we have widened the door as shown in attachment 2 (Crown drawing E-504-278). Attachment 3 (photograph) shows the relationship of seats with the new door frame.

Our question regards the seat back in front of the seat at the emergency exit. Aforementioned figures 1 and 2 show a two inch (2") dimension between the access regions and the seat back forward of the emergency exit seat. This dimension is noted as "clearance area around seat back, arm rests, and other obstructions". With our wider opening, the entire seat back is in the emergency exit door opening. However, the actual minimum region area between the two seats are unchanged from the previous desi gn. We feel this wider opening is in full compliance with Part S5.2.3 of FMVSS 217.

An interpretation on this matter at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Please call the undersigned at (714) 591-0567 if any additional information is required.

Very truly yours,

PHOTO GRAPHS OMITTED