ID: 10148

Mr. Richard J. Quigley
5886-b Fernflat Road
Aptos, CA 95003

Dear Mr. Quigley:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether a drawing you provided would meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets, that specifies motorcycle helmets be labeled with the symbol DOT. The answer is no.

Your drawing, approximately 2 cm. high, consists of three figures that you believe are the symbol "DOT." For the letter "D," the right side of the letter is not curved, but is formed by a series of jagged lines at the top and bottom of the letter that meet in a straight line parallel to the line that forms the left side of the "D". In lieu of the letter "O," your drawing depicts what appears to be a corporate logo, with a cartoon eagle inside a circle, and the name of a company written on the circle. The letter "T" is formed like a conventional "T," with straight sides.

S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218 specifies the symbol DOT:

(e) ... This symbol shall appear on the outer surface, ... in letters at least 3/8 inch (1 cm) high, ... (Emphasis added.)

Because the symbol DOT constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to Standard No. 218, there must be no ambiguity in the symbol. In your drawing, the corporate logo is clearly not the letter "O". Using the corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O" may confuse consumers and others as to whether the manufacturer has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218. Thus, the drawing you have provided does not meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218.

If you have any questions, please contact Ken Weinstein of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:218 d:7/15/94

ID: 9661

Mr. Jerry L. Steffy
Triumph Designs, Ltd.
Hinckley
Leicestershire LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#555 d:3/16/94

ID: nht94-7.40

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/11/94 and 2/10/94 from Jerry L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson (OCC 9661)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

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

ID: nht74-1.7

DATE: 12/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec 18 1974 N40-30 (TWH)

Mr. J. R. Farron Group Director of Engineering The Bendix Corporation 401 Bendix Drive P. 0. Box 4001 South Bend, Indiana 46634

Dear Mr. Farron:

This responds to your undated letter which requests a determination that the Bendix "Hydro-boost" qualifies as a brake power assist unit" as that term is defined in Standard No. 105-75. You describe the unit as designed with a "push through" cabability in both the "normal" and "failed power" operating conditions, and with an accumulator that permits low pedal effort for a limited number of brake applications after a power failure has occurred.

The following definitions distinguish a "Brake power assist unit" from a "Brake power unit":

"Brake power assist unit" means a device installed in a hydraulic brake system that reduces the operator effort required to actuate the system, and that if inoperative does not prevent the operator from braking the vehicle by a continued application of muscular force on the service brake control.

"Brake power unit" means a device installed in a brake system that provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, either directly or indirectly through an auxiliary device, with the operator action consisting only of modulating the energy application level.

In the preaamble to Notice 8 of Docket No. 70-27, we made the further clarification that the capabilities of the unit in the "failed power" condition determine whether it is a brake power assist unit. A copy of this discussion is enclosed. Because the Bendix "Hydro--boost" in the "failed power" condition does not prevent the operator from braking the vehicle by a continued application of muscular force on the service brake control (i.e.. with "push through" capability), it qualifies as a brake power assist unit under the definitions of Standard No. 105-75.

Yours truly,

Original Signed By

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure SECURITY=000

ID: nht92-1.35

DATE: 12/07/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARK V. SCHWARTZ -- ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM MARK V. SCHWARTZ TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7927)

TEXT: This responds to your October 28, 1992 letter, asking me to reconsider my September 29, 1992 letter to you interpreting 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies. More specifically, my September 29, 1992 letter addressed the requirement in @ 572.36(g) that the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers in the Hybrid III test dummy "shall have the dimensions and characteristics of Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent."

You had asked if one of your company's accelerometer models would be deemed "equivalent," within the meaning of @ 572.36(g), to the specified make and model accelerometer. I stated that Part 572 sets forth the specifications with which test dummies must comply if those test dummies are to be used in this agency's compliance testing. I further stated that the agency has always used the specified make and model accelerometer in the compliance testing conducted to date. Thus, it has not been necessary for the agency to make any determination of which accelerometers, if any, are "equivalent" to the specified accelerometer for agency compliance testing purposes. Until the agency makes a determination about equivalent accelerometers, I indicated that the matter is one to be worked out between your company and prospective users of your company's accelerometers. I also indicated that NHTSA will not review the use of any particular accelerometers in certification testing, including your company's accelerometers, unless the test results indicate a problem or problems caused by those accelerometers.

In your October 28, 1992 follow-up letter, you expressed that you were "extremely disappointed" with my September 29 letter. You stated that "[though] your letter states that users of accelerometers are free to define equivalence, the reality is that they will take no unnecessary course of action that varies from your compliance testing." You said that you had spoken with "technical decision makers" at Chrysler, Ford, and GM and all three indicated that they would not use an accelerometer for development and certification work, when a different accelerometer must be used in NHTSA's compliance testing. Accordingly, you again asked that the agency state whether a model of accelerometer manufactured by Entran is equivalent to the make and model of accelerometer specified for use in compliance testing.

In order to make a determination of which accelerometer models are "equivalent" to the make and model of accelerometer currently specified for use in compliance testing, NHTSA must conduct an analysis to identify the attributes that will ensure that an accelerometer measures results in the relevant crash environment that are equivalent to the results that would be measured in that crash environment by the currently specified accelerometer. This analysis would require an expenditure of agency time and resources, although the amount of the expenditure is currently not known. These expenditures would not benefit the agency's compliance testing efforts, since the currently specified accelerometer is readily available, nor would the expenditures contribute generally toward the agency's safety mission. Accordingly, the agency cannot justify the expenditure of resources needed to make an analysis of the equivalence issue at this time.

However, accelerometer manufacturers and other interested parties are free to make their own analyses of equivalence, using their resources. The interested parties may present their analyses of equivalence to potential users of a non-specified accelerometer, in order to demonstrate to the potential user that the non-specified accelerometer will be found equivalent to the specified accelerometer when NHTSA makes its determination of equivalence. If the potential user is convinced by such demonstration, that party can then use the non-specified accelerometer in its testing.

In my previous letter to you, I stated that NHTSA will not review the use of any particular accelerometers in certification testing, unless the test results indicate a problem or problems caused by those accelerometers. This statement was included in that letter to make clear to all parties that the absence of a NHTSA determination of equivalence for a particular accelerometer model does not represent some sort of negative finding by the agency with respect to the performance or capabilities of that particular accelerometer. This statement has apparently served that purpose. For instance, it has come to our attention that Chrysler and General Motors have procured significant numbers of Entran accelerometers for use in vehicle crash tests. Thus, it appears that vehicle manufacturers and other potential users correctly understand the meaning of the current specification in Part 572 for one particular accelerometer model, and that the specification of one particular accelerometer model in Part 572 does not pose any insuperable obstacle to the use of other, non-specified accelerometer models for testing other than NHTSA's certification testing. There is, therefore, no compelling need for NHTSA to use its resources to conduct an analysis of accelerometer equivalence.

ID: nht71-3.40

DATE: 07/11/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY J. ZEMAITIS

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 18 and 21, 1971, concerning the application of the proposed requirements for glazing materials (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) as they would apply to heated rear windows and mirrors.

In your letter of June 18 you state that the heating lines used in the rear window continue almost to the bottom of the glass at the ends. You propose putting an abbreviated mark at the bottom left hand corner, with the full trade mark appearing at the bottom center, and ask whether this would(Illegible Word) with the proposed requirements. The answer to this question is no. Paragraph S5.5 of the proposed amendment would require the complete mark to be placed in either the lower left or right hand corner of the rear window.

Your letter of June 21 asks whether it is likely that there will be further amendment to Standard No. 205. You mention that you were told that the proposed amendment should have referred to interior vanity mirrors and not the normal rear view mirror. Finally, you state that if the proposed requirements apply to the normal rear view mirror, you will need to do additional development work.

The proposed amendment to Standard No. 205 is still under consideration, and no final determination has been made as to whether the proposal, or any part of it, will be issued as a final rule. With reference to your comments concerning the normal rear view mirror, S4.3 of the proposal clearly refers to glazing for use in all interior mirrors, including both the normal rear view mirror, and any other interior mirror, such as a vanity mirror. With reference to your comments concerning the need for additional development work, adequate lead times will be provided for in any final rule that is issued.

Copies of your letters will be placed in Docket No. 71-1.

ID: 2976yy

Ms. Vicki Haudler
4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Dear Ms. Haudler:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/l0/9l

ID: nht75-1.10

DATE: 12/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 20, 1975, letter concerning the status of amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, that were proposed in Notice 10 (Docket 1-18, 38 FR 26940, September 27, 1973).

Although a further proposal on this subject is being considered, no final decision has been made by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning action on the outstanding proposal. You should be guided by the standard in its present form. The effective date of any amendments issued by the NHTSA will allow adequate lead time for compliance.

YOURS TRULY,

October 20, 1975

Office of General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On 27 September, 1973, Docket 1-18, Notice 10 proposed several changes to FMVSS 101. One specific change proposed the use of ISO symbols in lieu of the current 101 symbols.

Notice 11, issued 29 July, 1975, amended the Standard in respect of the ISO symbols alone. It made, however, no reference whatsoever to the remaining proposals of Notice 10.

We are presently negotiating with our supplier for new instruments for 1977 model year vehicles. We propose to identify the fuel, oil pressure and temperature guages with ISO symbols rather than words, as this would allow commonization between European and USA guages. While the symbols we propose for these guages are not prohibited at the present time, we are concerned that the words proposed in Table 2, Notice 10 might be implemented.

Are steps being taken on the Notice 10 proposals or may we proceed with ISO symbols with confidence that NHTSA will propose ISO symbols for all controls mentioned in Notice 10 at some future time.

BRITISH LEYLAND MOTORS INC.

Dianne Black Liaison Engineer

ID: nht91-3.47

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vicki Haudler

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Vicki Haudler to S. Kratzke (OCC 5943)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., (the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect)." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

ID: 1985-02.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. B. Roosen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. B. Roosen Director of Transportation Richland County School District One 927 Whaley Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. Roosen:

This responds to your February 25, 1985 letter to me requesting information about our school bus regulations. You have been asked by your school district to purchase new 15-passenger vans for use on school related activity trips. You believe that our regulations require that 15-passenger vans sold as school buses must be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards. Your understanding is correct.

In your letter, you requested that we send you a copy of the regulation that requires manufacturers and dealers who sell new buses to schools to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As explained below, this mandate is found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the 1974 amendments to that Act.

To begin, I would like to explain that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. You will find a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act enclosed. The 1974 amendment is incorporated in S103(i)(1)(A) and S103(i)(1)(B).

The Vehicle Safety Act contains the following definition of "school bus":

"Schoolbus" means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. (Emphasis added.)

Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture and sale of, any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Since the 15-passenger vans you plan to purchase are included in the above definition, they are school buses subject to the school bus safety standards. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, any person selling you a new school bus must sell a vehicle that complies with the school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a December 31, 1975, Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) which discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to sell complying school buses.

This agency also administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, recommends that a bus used to transport 16 or less students be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors ( as well as many other safety features) . Because it must have this equipment, a 15-passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS No. 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if South Carolina has adopted it and if South Carolina accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 25, 1985

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have been requested by members of this school district to purchase commercial type 15 passenger vans. These vehicles will be used for the purpose of transporting school students on field trips and other social related functions.

I am of the opinion that this type equipment is not authorized for these purposes, since they do not comply with the school bus safety standards. I have no regulations or documentation to confirm this, which is my problem.

I would appreciate very much if you could send me the regulations or advise me where I might obtain this information concerning this subject.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

M.B. Roosen Director of Transportation 803/799-1477

MBR/jl