ID: nht91-6.46

DATE: November 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ronald Van Campenhout -- US Liaison Officer, ABC Coach/Van Hool

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 29, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a situation you recently encountered in Florida.

You state that "one of our client's coaches was stopped by a DOT-inspector and a compliance-audit with FMVSS-standards was performed." According to the DOT inspector, "the third, centrally mounted, rear stoplight needs to be illuminated, not only when the brake pedal gets activated, but also whenever the coach is parked with the engine running at high idle speed . . . ." It is your interpretation that the center light "should only come on when pressure is applied to the brake pedal."

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to the center highmounted stop lamp. Standard No. 108 does not require that the center highmounted stop lamp be activated when a vehicle is parked with the engine running at idle. In fact, S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 specifies that the center lamp shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes. Thus, your interpretation is the correct one.

There are other anomalies reported in your letter that I would like to address. First, Standard No. 108 does not require buses manufactured before September 1, 1993, to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp (and, after that date, only buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds and less than 80 inches in overall width must be so equipped). Apparently, the inspector was not informed that the requirement for certain buses to be equipped with center highmounted stop lamps does not take effect for nearly two more years. Second, this agency has no inspectors performing compliance audits of vehicles in service. We surmise that your coach may have been inspected by either the Florida State DOT, or the U.S. DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for compliance with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The FHWA, which concurs in this letter, does not require in its Motor Carrier Safety Regulations or elsewhere that stop lamps on a bus be illuminated when the service brakes are not being applied, even if the vehicle is idling.

ID: nht91-6.47

DATE: November 1, 1991

FROM: John C. Buonora -- Director, The City of New York Police Department, Motor Transport Division

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA Administration, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John C. Buonora (A38; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

As per our telephone conversation regarding the removal of the operating handle for the reclining mechanism of the 1991 Chevrolet police car split bench seat, I am requesting a written determination stating whether or not the removal of the operating handle violates the seat safety standard and any possible NYPD legal liability in the event of an accident.

Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

ID: nht91-6.48

DATE: November 1, 1991

FROM: Sandra Mesh-Witucki -- Paralegal, McGraw, Borchard, & Martin

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Gettel

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sandra Mesh-Witucki (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

In recapping our telephone conversation, this case involves a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion which was involved in an accident in which a vehicle driven northbound in the same southbound lane struck the van head-on.

Allegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt.

I have enclosed the requested information: GBWR weight of 4,138 before conversion; invoice of the original manufacture; invoice of original purchase.

I have not been able to get a weight or weight estimate for the van following conversion.

Please forward a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to this van both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance.

If any fee is involved in procuring this information, pleas forward your bill which will be paid promptly.

If there are any questions or more information is needed, please call.

Thank you.

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.