ID: nht92-7.7

DATE: May 12, 1992

FROM: Michael Gronowicz -- Keiper Recaro Seating, Inc.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Gronowicz (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

At first, please let me take this time to introduce myself. My name is Michael Gronowicz, I have been with Keiper Recaro a little over a year as Julie Gonzalezs' successor. Along with this letter, you will find the inquiry to you dated Sept. 21, 1990, as well as your reply dated Nov. 20, 1990. In your reply, you refer to the "render inoperative" provisions. I have been studying this letter, and I find this subject difficult to comprehend. Can this be re-worded in "laymans" terms to clear up the confusion on my part? If you could, please respond by fax at 1-313-288-0811. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 1-800-873-2276. Thank you very much for your reply.

ID: aiam5652

"Dear Ms. Stabile: This responds to the letter from you and you brother James Stabile regarding a 'Vehicle Illuminated Warning System' that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its 'review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.' While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messages to other drivers. These are 'School Bus' (in green), 'Slow Down' (yellow), and 'Do Not Pass' (red). You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the 'School Bus' message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, 'Slow Down' would show when the school bus driver brakes, and 'Do Not Pass' when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Down message and the small red lamps would flash with 'Do Not Pass.' The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain requirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each jurisdiction. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided. To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system. General lighting requirements In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady-burning. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the 'message' that the required lamp is intended to impart. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform, at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment did not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous. If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not 'make inoperative' any of the required lighting equipment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard 'making inoperative' in this context the equivalent of 'impairment' discussed in the previous paragraph. The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute. Specific issues concerning 'impairment' As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. 'Impairment' can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the performance of required lamp systems, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference: Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108. It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard. The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady-burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady-burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operating through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass' messages. 'Impairment' can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely to be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the actions other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages--an identification of the vehicle as 'School Bus' and advisories of 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass'--generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108. There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute 'impairment.' These are as follows: Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the 'School Bus' message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory lighting equipment. Another feature that could distract a driver is the message 'Slow Down,' which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some drivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes. State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety' (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things, Be identified with the words 'School Bus' printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.) Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words 'School Bus,' and the 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass' messages. If you have questions about State law requirements, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht73-2.25

DATE: 03/15/73

FROM: B.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: WARREN M. HEATH -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: N41-34

TEXT: Dear Mr. Heath:

This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Dougins W. Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.

The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner M. Pudinski was placed in Docket 69-19; Motion No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.

The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 100 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or[Illegible word] lids open or otherwise having the lights and reflectors obscurred by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: 22944.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
FSSA Consultant
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States, i.e., vehicles that are driven on the public roads and highways of the United States, be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). Many of these standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, while others do so for items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). While portions of several FMVSSs were subject to the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, and FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, were not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

In your letter, you raised several questions related to the February 27 final rule that are detailed below.

1) Is there a "grace period" in which vendors can still modify vans without regard to this new ruling?

NHTSA has never provided a "grace period" during which businesses could modify vehicles in a manner that would negate compliance with applicable FMVSSs. Rather, the Part 595 exemption allows businesses to make such modifications subject to the terms of the exemption. The exemption took effect April 30, 2001. Prior to that time, NHTSA considered requests from businesses or individual vehicle owners on a case-by-case basis. NHTSA issued letters stating that it would not take enforcement action against the business if it made the modifications detailed in its correspondence to the agency.

The final rule also imposed certain reporting requirements for businesses that avail themselves of the Part 595 exemption. Those requirements did not take effect until August 27, 2001. The separate effective date for the reporting requirements did not create a "grace period" from the prohibition against making required safety equipment inoperative.

2) Can the air bag exemption (FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection) be granted if another type vehicle could be done without interfering with the air bag system or its components?

The Part 595 exemption does not require a different vehicle to be used in situations where modification could be done on that vehicle in a manner that does not negate compliance with a portion of a FMVSS that is included in the Part 595 exemption. However, if a vehicle has not yet been purchased, the purchaser should consider whether another vehicle may be more appropriate for the types of contemplated modifications.

3) Is it reasonable to believe that moving the under-the-seat air bag module would affect the operation of the OEM system? Would moving the module (such as between the two front seating locations) require new crash testing to provide needed documentation that the system has been recertified in this configuration?

It is certainly possible that moving an air bag module or sensor could affect the operation of the original system. While a modifier would need to assure itself that such a modification does not undermine compliance with a standard that is not subject to a Part 595 exemption, NHTSA has included certain relevant portions of FMVSS No. 208 in the Part 595 exemption.

4) To our knowledge there is not a crash tested lowered floor Chevy G-1500 conversion type. Lowering the floor 4" would either require relocating the OEM tank, rerouting the fuel filler neck and hoses and or replacing the tank with an aftermarket model. General Motors does not offer a factory approved replacement fuel tank and fuel delivery system. Would any of these modification methods be compliant with FMVSS 301?

As noted above, FMVSS No. 301 is not included in the Part 595 exemption. Accordingly, a modifier must assure that vehicle modifications do not negate compliance with the standard. However, it is not possible for NHTSA to answer your question "Would any of these modification methods be compliant with FMVSS No. 301?" NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or vendors. Furthermore, we cannot provide specific information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This responsibility lies with the modifier. If a lowered floor is desired, one way to provide assurance that modifications do not undermine compliance is to purchase a vehicle with a lowered floor that has been certified as complying with FMVSS No. 301. Another way is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Finally, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

5) Moving the anti-lock brake sensor may affect the braking system. FMVSS No. 105 was not granted permission to be made inoperative. Would moving the module from the OEM location require testing and recertification? What method of testing would satisfy the recertification requirement?

As discussed in response to the previous question, any modification that may take a vehicle out of compliance with a particular safety standard must be done in a manner that does not take the vehicle out of compliance unless the affected portion of the standard is covered be the Part 595 exemption. If the exemption is not applicable, the modifier must assure itself that the vehicle has not been taken out of compliance. Since FMVSS No. 105 does not require destructive crash-testing, the modifier may choose to run the test protocol set forth in FMVSS No. 105. Alternatively, the modifier may be able to rely on the other alternatives provided in the response to the previous question.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301 or FMVSS No. 105. Such responsibility lies with the modifier. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass NHTSA's compliance tests for those standards. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202)366-2992, should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/4/02

ID: aiam4746

"Dear Mr. Bird: This responds to your request for an interpretation b this office as to whether a portable back massage device capable of being used in an automobile and powered by the vehicle's electrical system constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The product you described in your letter consists of an inflatable cushion that conforms to the user's back and contains two electric massage units capable of massaging the upper and lower portions of the user's back. The device can also provide heat. It is designed for use either indoors or in a vehicle by means of an adapter which plugs into the cigarette lighter. When the device is used in a vehicle, it is simply placed on the seat, and does not require any additional installation, other than connection to a power supply. You have asked three questions about this device, which I have discussed below. Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? Section 102(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle..... (Emphasis added.) Since the portable back massage device is not original equipment or sold for replacment or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an 'accessory.' In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory,' the agency considers the following two criteria: First, when a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, the product should be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Second, if the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of such motor vehicles, we would consider it to be an accessory. Based on the limited information you have provided, I am unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the back massage device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. However, I will explain the considerations the agency focuses upon when applying the above critieria to specific products. We would determine the expected uses of a product by considering the product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store which retails the product, as well as any available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. For example, if the device is portrayed in advertising as being in used in motor vehicles, includes as a standard feature a 12 volt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, and is sold through retail outlets specializing in automotive equipment and accesories, it would be more likely to be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment than a product which did not have these characteris- tics. In evaluating the second criteria, the agency looks at whether the product is intended primarily for the use of consumers, rather than by professionals such as automotive repair and service personnel. Your second question concerned whether the back massager would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the device is not determined to be an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is beyond the scope of the agency's authority to regulate it. Even if it is determined to be motor vehicle equipment, and therefore subject to other provisions of the Safety Act, there is no Standard applicable to this type of device. With regard to your final question, we do not generally provide advice about the authority of other Federal agencies. However, if it is not considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may have requirements governing such a device. It is also possible the Food and Drug Administration might consider it to be a medical device subject to that agency's regulation. In addition, some States may choose to regulate such devices. I am enclosing an information sheet which describes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards program, and how to get copies of the standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht92-4.10

DATE: September 12, 1992

FROM: Mindy Lang -- Division Manager, Huntleigh Transportation Services, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mindy Lang (A40; Std. 207)

TEXT:

I am writing to you regarding the regulations governing vehicle conversion. We are interested in bus conversions. We are wanting to do conversion work to the interior of existing buses that have been manufactured by certified bus builders such as Supreme Corp. and Goshen Coach both out of Indiana.

We would be converting the interior only of the finished bus. Such conversions would include carpets, wallcovering, headliners, blinds on the rear windows etc. all of the materials used are for the automotive, RV, and Marine industry. All of which have the proper ratings for this application. My main question is concerning the seating arrangments and requirments for attaching the frames structurally. and any requirements for materials used in the constuction of the seats.

Please forward any information that applies to these conversions. and any legal consideration we need to be concerned with.

Again, we do not modify the structural part of the vehcile at all. Thanks for your time in this matter. If you have any question please feel free to contact me at 1-800-966-2777.

ID: Dhiman1

ID: nht72-2.19

DATE: 08/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Imperial Fire Apparatus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 21 to Mr. (Illegible Words) Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning interpretations of FMVSS No. 108 requirements relating to fire trucks.

The answers to the questions you asked are as follows:

I. Flashing Identification, Clearance, and (Illegible Word) Lights. (Illegible Word) calls for all identification clearance, and (Illegible Words) to be wired into a motor driven (Illegible Word) with a selector switch for "steady on" or "flashing". Is this procedure allowable?

(Illegible Word). Flashing side (Illegible Words), but not clearance and identification lamps, are permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

II. Flashing Lights.

Customer calls for a second set of identification and clearance lamps ((Illegible Words) and power) to be mounted adjacent to the existing lighting. This second set of lights is to be wired into a motor driven flasher with a separate control switch located in the cab. Is this procedure allowable?

Yes. The additional or supplemental lamps are permitted by FMVSS No. 108, and flashing these additional lamps is (Illegible Word) in non-compliance with the standard. Regulations of individual states may, however, be applicable to this arrangement.

III. Battery Disconnect Switch.

On many trucks, the battery is wired into a master switch whereby the battery can be completely isolated from the electrical system. When this switch is in the "off" position, all light switches including identification, clearance, and four (4) way hazard flashers become in-operative. With the vehicle's engine shut down, the four (4) way hazard signals may only be activated by turning (Illegible Word) to "on" and turning four (4) way hazard switch to "on". Is this installation in compliance with SAE (Illegible Words) 4.21. If there are lights that must be activated by a single driver action, could you please note them.

This installation is in compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, providing the master switch is separate from the ignition switch and the hazard warning signal lamps will flash with the master switch on and the ignition switch off.

ID: nht74-5.48

DATE: 05/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Renault, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 3, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.

Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.

Thus, the interpretation of the requirement expressed in your letter is correct.

YOURS TRULY,

May 3, 1974

Mr. Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION - FMVSS 301-75

We would appreciate receiving a confirmation that our interpretation of @ S.7.1.3 of FMVSS 301-75 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) is correct.

@ S.7.1.3 says, "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump that normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash".

Our understanding is that while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position, the engine is stopped since the fuel tank is filled with an ASTM type 1 solvent. However, some vehicles equipped with an electrically driven fuel pump include a switch device that shuts off the fuel pump after 1.5 seconds, should the engine stop for any reason.

This means that during the test at the time of the crash the fuel pump will not be running even though the ignition key is turned "ON".

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Francois Louis Manager Technical Standards Department

ID: nht94-8.29

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Associate Administrator for Enforcement -- NHTSA

TITLE: Motorcycle Projector Beam Headlamps Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/94 from John Womack to Jeffrey D. Shetler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting a interpretation from NHTSA regarding the application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle and its compliance with FMVSS 571.108.

When reviewing FMVSS 108 we are not sure if our proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle will meet the specified requirements. Your response regarding the following questions would be greatly appreciated:

1. Table IV of FMVSS 108 specifies that if two (headlamps) are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.

Attached is a layout drawing which provides a general description of our proposed application of a projector beam headlamp. Our headlamp is not completely aligned symmetrically because the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side. However, the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline.

Question: Is our headlamp in compliance with the provision stated above?

2. Section S5.1.1.23 of FMVSS 108 indicates that instead of the headlamps specified by Table III, a motorcycle may be equipped with one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamp shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable.

Question: Does this requirement mean our proposed projector beam shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7? Or, is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our questions. If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext. 2456.