Interpretation ID: nht69-1.48

DATE: 01/16/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: State of Iowa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1968, concerning the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With respect to the number and color of lamps in your six-lamp system, I would agree that, when viewed singly from the front or rear, your system would have the same general appearance as a four-or eight-lamp system of other states. However, as mentioned in the third paragraph of your letter, Standard No. 108 also specifies a standard method of energizing the lamps in a four-and eight-lamp system, including the front-and rear-mounted lamps. Therefore, a motorist, who is familiar with the four-or eight-lamp system in other states, could be easily confused when viewing alternately the front and rear of a six-lamp system, since on a system basis it would not conform to either the four-or eight-lamp system.

As stated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, any person adversely affected by the safety standards may, under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, petition the Administrator under Part 206, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is again enclosed for your convenience. Your attention is particularly invited to paragraph (d) of Section 216.35 which reads, "Unless the Administrator otherwise provides, the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the rule."

With respect to the questions raised in Mr. Arthur Roberts' letter of February 22, 1968, to Mr. David A. Fay of this Bureau, and also relating to your preparation of proposals for new school buses, I would call your attention to Section 103 (d) of Public Law 89-563, a copy of which is enclosed.

In part, this section reads, "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." It would appear therefore that preparation of your proposals for new school buses could be initiated on the basis of Standard No. 103 requirements and prior to the next meeting of your legislature in January, 1969.

Again, as indicated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision of Standard No. 103 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. A consideration of the information presented in your letter has not altered this position. Therefore, we still do not believe that a change in the provision of Standard No. 108 to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.

Thank you for writing.