ID: 9229

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President-Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This responds to your letter of October 19, 1993, with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108.

You report that "[o]ften a new tank trailer will be sold to a customer who will contract with another party to have a lining installed in the tank." Because of the high heat used in the installation of the lining, retroreflective sheeting cannot be applied before the lining is installed.

We believe that the trailer manufacturer is a more appropriate person for ensuring that its product meets the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 than the installer of the lining, or the owner of the trailer. We would like to suggest alternative methods of compliance, other than a direct application of retroreflective tape to the trailer sides, as a resolution of this problem. Standard No. 108 permits the use of reflex reflectors as an alternative to retroreflective sheeting. If the trailer manufacturer prefers retroreflective sheeting, the sheeting may be applied at a lower level if deemed "practicable", or it may be applied to horizontal strips of aluminum that can be fastened to the sides of tank trailers and removed during the installation of the lining.

You also state that "non-tank trailers may be sold without conspicuity treatment when the owner wishes to contract the application of special paint and logo schemes." Sale of a trailer under these circumstances, without its compliance with the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, would be an apparent violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:11/22/93

ID: nht76-5.57

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: United Rubber; Cork; Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of December 1, 1975, to the Federal Trade Commission, concerning the dates molded into tires manufactured by the Dayton Tire and Rubber Company, has been forwarded to this agency for further reply.

Motor Vehicle tires are required by @ 574.5 of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to be labeled with an identification number containing certain information. A copy of this regulation is enclosed for your convenience. The last three digits of this number indicate the week and year of manufacture of the tire, as follows: the final digit is the last digit of the year, and the preceding two digits represent the week within that year. The numbering of the weeks begins with "01" for the first full calendar week in each year. For example, "016" indicates that a tire was manufactured during the week beginning Sunday, January 4, 1976, and ending Saturday, January 10. While the precise labeling on the tires that you have described is not clear from your letter, it appears that some of the tires do not comply with this labeling requirement, because November 24 and December 1 were not in the same calendar week of 1975.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

YOURS TRULY,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Corres. No. 12022

Robert C. Yates President, Local 178 United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America

Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1975 requesting information regarding tire regulations. In 1966, the Commission issued the "Tire Labelling and Advertising Guides" which set standards for advertising and promotion of tires to the public. However, there are no provisions within the Guides regarding the stamping of curing dates. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Guides.

Since it is possible that the Department of Transportation has regulations on this issue, I have referred your letter to them for any additional information they can offer.

D. McCarty Thornton Attorney Division of Marketing Practices

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America December 1, 1975

Federal Trade Commission

I am writing to request information concerning acts by the Company I work for, The Dayton Tire and Rubber Company, Dayton, Ohio.

It has been brought to my attention that the Company is back dating tires from their actual curing dates. For example. mold set and dated on November 24, 1975, the tires are then cured on December 1, 1975, bearing the date of November 24, 1975.

I would like to know if there are any regulations covering this type of production on passenger and truck tires. Any information concerning this matter would be appricated.

Robert C. Yates President of Local # 178 URW, AFL, CIO, CLC

ID: 1983-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc. -- H. Nakaya, Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1983, asking whether the headlamp bezel is considered a "styling ornament or other feature" for purposes of paragraph 5.2 of SAE J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, Aug 79 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

The referenced SAE paragraph prohibits styling ornaments or other features in front of the lens when the headlamp is in use. The intent of this paragraph is to guarantee optimum light output from the headlamp by insuring that no part of the vehicle interferes with the light pattern. If a headlamp bezel is so large that it could interfere with the design light patterns of the lamp, we would consider it a "styling ornament or other feature" within the meaning of paragraph 5.2.

An oversize bezel interfering with light output would also be prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3. of Standard No. 108 which prohibits installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment which the standard requires.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel May 24, 1983

Our Ref. No.: SDL3-016

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Per a recent phone conversation from a member of my staff to Mr. Taylor Vinson, we request a clarification concerning FMVSS108: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Our question is: Is the headlamp bezel included in "... any styling ornament or other feature..." which is explained in SAE J530 5.2.

Of course, the performance of the headlamp satisfies all requirements of FMVSS108.

We are looking forward to receiving your response as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

ID: nht74-2.35

DATE: 07/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1974, requesting the status of a proposed amendment published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 327), to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," that would have required markings specified for windshields to appear in each windshield's lower left-hand corner.

This proposed requirement was not adopted. Other requirements proposed by this notice, however, were adopted by a subsequent notice published June 21, 1972 (37 F.R. 12237), which amended Standard No. 205. The preamble of this notice referred to the agency's action on the proposed requirements for marking location. A further notice was issued on November 11, 1972 (37 F.R. 24035), which responded to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments of June 21, 1972. Copies of the notices of June 21 and November 11, 1972, are enclosed.

There are presently no requirements regarding the location of markings for motor vehicle glazing materials.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

June 28, 1974

Lawrence Schneider -- National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

On January 9, 1971, page 327 of volume 36, #6 of the Federal Register, a proposed amendment was made to FMVSS#205 at the request of the California Highway Patrol to the effect that after installation of the glazing material in the vehicle, the markings are required to be visible in the lower left corner of each windshield and either the lower left or lower right corner of any other window.

As a manufacturer of windshields and side windows for the recreational vehicle industry, particularly motor homes, we have been trying to comply with this proposed standard by adding two trade marks to our windshields so that in a two part windshield, the glass could be used on either side of the vehicle and still comply; however, in reviewing the Federal Register, we find that no follow-up amendments to the safety standard reflect this change.

With the cost of materials increasing daily, and the fact that we are paying a premium for this added marking, we are going to discontinue this practice since Mr. Douglas Delve of the Department of Transportation has confirmed that this legislation has never been effected. I would like a written confirmation that this pending legislation is either still pending or has been dropped, so that we may proceed with production without any further concern regarding the compliance to the standards.

Very truly yours,

Steve A. Spretnjak -- Chief Design Engineer EXCEL INDUSTRIES

ID: nht75-2.47

DATE: 08/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: F. A. McNiel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On May 12, 1975, you petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to provide "A means that will hasten the illumination of a vehicles conventional stop warning lamps at any time that a 'panic' or any other exceptionally sudden stop is made, but wherein the said means will not affect the normal functioning of the vehicles lighting system at any other time."

We have given thoughtful consideration to your petition. It appears to us that the system you prefer would indicate only that the accelerator pedal had been released suddenly, and not that a sudden or "panic" stop was being made. In our view, a sudden release of the accelerator does not necessarily mean that a panic stop is in progress. Conversely, all sudden stops are not necessarily accompanied by a sudden release of the accelerator. In short, the presumed benefit of the system appears speculative, and no data have been submitted demonstrating that the signaling system would enhance highway safety. For these reasons your petition must be denied.

Standard No. 108 would not preclude the sale of your deceleration warning device in the aftermarket, subject to regulation by the individual States.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Carter:

The May 1, 1974 issue of 'Status Report' published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety contained an article stating that your agency had proposed amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow the use of (1) a vertically mounted rear facing red-yellow-green lamp system that signals braking, no pedal application, or acceleration. -- or (2) Pulsating rear lamps that indicate when the vehicle is decelerating rapidly. - The proposal would also allow for the use of a combination of both systems.

Apparently both of these systems require auxiliary lamps in addition to the vehicles existing stop-light signal lamps. I am petitioning that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 be further amended to include basically the following - "A means that will hasten the illumination of a vehicles conventional stop warning lamps at any time that a 'panic' or any other exceptionally sudden stop is made, but wherein the said means will not affect the normal functioning of the vehicles lighting system at any other time".

It has long been a universally recognized and accepted fact that the flash of a lead vehicles stop-lights signal a following driver that the lead vehicles momentum is being retarded, possibly to the extent of a complete stop. As everyone knows there has been no basic improvement in a vehicles stop warning system since the adoption of the brake operated stop-light switch. - You could obtain an 'add-on' stop-light kit for a Model-T more than fifty years ago that would function just as effectively as the conventional stop-light system that is now in use on all modern automobiles, - either one will illuminate a stop lamp the instant that the vehicles brakes are applied.

The warning that is produced by such conventional stop-light systems is adequate under the proceedure that is customarily used by most drivers in making a normal stop, but is woefully inadequate when a 'panic' or other unexpected sudden stop is made. The critical factor in this instance is the loss of time that occurs between the driver of a closely following vehicle seeing the flash of a lead vehicles stop-lights (at which time the lead vehicles brakes are already on), and the time that the following vehicles brakes are actually applied. This time loss is composed of two very distinct and separate parts, the first part being 'driver reaction' and the second part being 'warning lag'.

Driver reaction accounts for the time loss occuring between a driver perceiving the flash of a leading vehicles stop-lights and the complete release of the following vehicles accelerator pedal. This time interval varies in accord with a specific drivers mental alertness and physical agility. It is estimated that this time loss is at least one quarter of one second for an exceedingly alert driver, and considerably more for one that is less alert. There appears to be no discernable way by which this reaction time loss can be prevented.

Warning lag is the split second that is required for a driver to shift his (or her) foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal and apply pressure to energize the brake operated stop-light switch, and illuminate the vehicles stop-lights. This time interval also varies to some extent according to the agility of a particular driver. -- Extensive tests have been conducted, using electronic detonating equipment to gauge the results. These tests have established the fact that this time loss is also approximately one quarter of one second for agile drivers. - This time loss can positively be totally eliminated.

It is an accepted fact that the majority of rear-end collisions occur when one driver in a congested flow of traffic unexpectedly jams on the vehicles brakes without prior warning, to make a 'panic' or other very sudden stop, and the driver of a closely following vehicle does not have sufficient braking time to stop before ramming the vehicle ahead. - This is particularily true of 'chain-reaction' pileups where the 'warning lag' is cumulative from car to car.

Enclosed is an outline for a hypothetical traffic situation of a type that is typical of todays congested traffic conditions. The accompanying chart that is based on the conditions as set forth by the hypothetical situation illustrates precisely the results that would be obtained by the elimination of 'warning lag'. - I am also enclosing sketches and an explanation of a particular means that I have perfected, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the possibility of eliminating 'warning lag' as emphasized by chart is a reality - not a 'pipe dream'.

I was informed by the National Highway Safety Bureau more than five years ago:- "The National Highway Safety Bureau is cognizant of the fact that rear end collisions account for 10 per cent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 per cent of all motor vehicle accidents". - In line with these statistics I pose the following analysis in accordance with the submitted data.

Assume that one half of all drivers that crash into a vehicle ahead see the flash of the lead vehicles stop-lights, and are on their own vehicles brakes at the time of the crash. - If the lead vehicles were all equipped with a means for the elimination of 'warning lag', this would mean that one eight of the drivers that are involved in all motor vehicle accidents would have been applying their brakes for an additional ten feet (at 30 M.P.H.) before becoming involved in an accident that would cause damage to two cars. - If this ten feet of braking did not prevent an accident occurring, it would in every instance greatly reduce the force of impact, and the resultant damages to both of the vehicles that were involved. - Thus, if the safety feature that I am advocating was standard equipment on all motor vehicles, it would greatly reduce the damages sustained by one fourth of all motor vehicles that are involved in motor vehicle accidents of any kind! - Stupendous? - but true.

If this reduced the rear-end collision fatality toll by one tenth, it would amount to the saving of one life out of every one hundred of the current traffic fatalities. - The reduction in personal injuries resulting from such accidents would be very considerable, and the monetary saving by the public would be collosal. - Also, it should permit the Insurance Companies to make a very substantial reduction in the cost of premiums that are charged the public for motor vehicle insurance.

Any vehicle that is damaged in a traffic accident is not any more valuable after it has been repaired than it was prior to the accident occurring - consequently, all expenditures that are required for both the labor and materials used for repair or replacement of vehicles that are damaged in accidents that could have been prevented are wholly wasted. - If these really enormous outlays were available for constructive purposes, it would help to bolster our sagging national economy.

In relation to the enclosed data concerning the particular means I have perfected, sketch No. 1 shows the general assembly of switch unit. Sketch No. 2 shows the unit mounted behind the instrument panel in passenger compartment of vehicle, and sketch No. 3 shows unit mounted under hood in the engine compartment of the vehicle. - Both methods of mounting as shown have been very thoroughly tested, and each has been found to function perfectly. The accompanying specifications are drawn around sketches No. 1 and No. 2. Sketch No. 3 shows some alternations in the assembly of the unit, but functioning is identical to that of sketch No. 2.

If your engineers will thoroughly check all of the submitted data they will find it to be totally correct. - Also, careful analyzation of this data will reveal that factory installation of this type of safety equipment would cost no more than does the installation of conventional turn signals.

In view of the unquestionable reduction in damages to both the vehicles and their occupants that would accrue from the use of safety equipment such as I am advocating, I request that your organization give due consideration to amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the use of such safety equipment for improving the performance of a motor vehicles existing stop warning lamps.

In the meantime, will you please inform me if the use of safety equipment such as is described by the enclosed data is permissible under the existing Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Yours very truly,

Fred A. McNiel

ID: 1984-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. Detroit Office 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfie1d, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFRS571.120). Specifically, you noted that section S5.2 of that standard required that certain information be labeled on the "weather side" of each rim or wheel disc. You then offered your interpretation of the term "weather side", and asked for my comments on that interpretation. My comment is that Standard No. 120 explicitly defines "weather side", and that the definition of the term in Standard No. 120 is somewhat broader than your interpretation of the term.

Section S4 of Standard No. 120 contains the following definition: "Weather side" means the surface area of the rim not covered by the inflated tire. The interpretation you offered in your letter was consistent with this definition, because it would require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by the inflated tire. However, your interpretation would also require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by any axle mounting components, and this requirement is not contained in the definition set forth in Standard No. 120. You are free to use your narrower interpretation for your own purposes since it is consistent with the definition in the Standard, but the definition set forth in the Standard would be used to determine whether a rim complies with the requirements of the Standard.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on the requirements of Standard No. 120.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 13, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 120; Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The above Standard provides guidelines regarding the nature and display of tire and rim specifications. Within these guidelines, reference is made in Section 5.2 that the specifications, placed on the rim or wheel disc, " . . . shall appear on the weather side".

Mazda believes that this terminology refers to the surface of the rim or wheel disc that is not obscured by the mounted tire or any axle mounting components. This would result in ready accessibility of all specifications to personnel as the tire is mounted to the rim and avoid the obliterating effects that often occur between mating surfaces.

Please clarify the above terminology and comment on Mazda's interpretation of this requirement.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

ID: 1983-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CONSUS INTERNATIONAL, INC

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Robert B. Wessel Consus International, Inc. P.O. Box 594 Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776

Dear Mr. Wessel:

This is in response to your December 1, 1982, letter regarding a warning device you plan to manufacture. The device is powered by 4 AA batteries, and has a light which can stay on continuously or can flash. You have asked whether the device complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125.

Standard 125 applies to warning devices "without self-contained energy sources." The four batteries in your device which power the light would constitute such a source. Therefore, Standard 125 is inapplicable to your device.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 1, 1982

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Rm 5219 U.S. Dept. Of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

To Whom It May Concern;

Please review the enclosed sample and advise complience with your standard 125. The unit is made to work with four "AA" Batteries and has reflective as well as lighted capabilities.

The light can stay on, or in the flasher mode will blink, and is visible at great distances.

Thank you in advance for your early response as we are waiting your acknowledgement before our marketing push.

I remain Very truly yours;

Robert B. Wessel

ID: 1982-2.4

DATE: 04/15/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Auto Safety House

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 25, 1982, letter asking whether an old school bus body can be mounted on a new chassis if the resulting vehicle would not comply with the safety standards applicable to school buses (Standards 220, 221 and 222). The answer to your question is no.

The agency regards the installation of a new chassis on a school bus as constituting the manufacture of a new school bus. Accordingly, the new school bus would be required to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. In the case to which you refer, that would include compliance with all of the current school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

AUTO SAFETY HOUSE

March 25, 1982

Administrator National Highway Traffic Administration.

Subject: Certification

Gentlemen,

What standards does a school bus body built prior to 1977 have to meet when installed on a 1982 school bus chassis? Can this body be installed on a 1982 chassis without meeting Standards, 220, 221 and 222 that apply to bodies built after 1977?

I would appreciate receiving this information as soon as it can be processed and thank you in advance for your assistance.

Wilmer E. Harper President

ID: nht91-2.6

DATE: March 1, 1991

FROM: Stanley L. Dembecki

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- National Highway Safety Administration Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stanley L. Dembecki (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It was suggested by Roman Brooks that we write and tell you of the advancement we have made to the third safety brake light.

Our "Flashin" safety brake light is at least AS SAFE as those presently on the OEM market since 1986. People who have helped in testing our complete unit on the 1984 and older vehicles and the electronic modules as retrofits on the 1986 and newer vehicles have testified that our "Flashin" third brake light is actually SAFER due to it's momentary flashing just before the full third brake light goes on. This function is repeated every time the brake is applied.

All those who have volunteered to have the brake light installed have testified that they have been approached as to where to purchase this brake light and complimented us on the added safety it gives especially in the bright Arizona sunlight. We are also in contact with one of the large OEM's at this time and they are very interested in our product.

We have conformed to all regulations and standards that had to be met by all the manufacturers of the third brake light. We also have a built-in safety factor in the "Flashin" safety brake light in that should the flashing unit malfunction the full brake light still comes on as do present third brake lights.

We have four prototypes as listed:

Complete single bulb unit for 1984 and older vehicles.

Complete two bulb unit for 1984 and older vehicles.

Single electronic modules for all third safety brake lights as retrofits through 1991.

Two bulb electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.

Enclosed is a copy of the abstract submitted recently for patent approval. We are about ready to work with a sub-contractor to manufacture our "Flashin" third safety brake light.

The Arizona Department of Transportation has suggested we contact your office for evaluation if in fact this light needs further evaluation. Since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed. If

more information is needed do not hesitate to contact us.

Please let us hear from you within the next two weeks. Thank you.

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A safety brake light assembly is disclosed which, when the brake system is activated, results in a changing illumination for an initial period. Once the initial period is ended, the illumination of the safety brake system is maintained with unchanging illumination. When the brake system is no longer activated, then the illumination is no longer present. In the preferred embodiment, the safety brake light assembly includes two illumination units in a side-by-side configuration. During the initial period, the illumination units are alternately illuminated.

ID: nht93-3.16

DATE: April 23, 1993

FROM: Wayne S. Ferguson -- Research Manager, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, Transportation Research Council

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/30/93 from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson (A41; Std. 108; VSA 103(d); VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The Virginia General Assembly recently passed a joint resolution requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles and other designated state entities to study the desirability of allowing deceleration lights on semitrailer-trucks in the Commonwealth (see attached). The purpose of these lights would be to warn following traffic of non-braking deceleration by trucks, thereby preventing potential rear-end collisions.

The Virginia Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate any potential legal problems regarding state regulation of such deceleration lights. Of primary concern is the potential federal pre-emption in the area of vehicle safety equipment.

I am writing to request your opinion on two questions. First, do the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth? Second, if such state action would be pre-empted, what is the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights?

I would appreciate your legal opinion on these questions, as well as any additional comments you may have on this matter.

Attachment

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 247

Requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation with the Center for Innovative Technology, the Motor Carrier Division of the State Corporation Commission, and the State Police, to study the use of deacceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth.

Agreed to by the Senate, February 25, 1993 Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 23, 1993

WHEREAS, trucks often deaccelerate without use of brakes, such as when traveling uphill; and

WHEREAS, such deacceleration can pose a hazard to following traffic which is given no warning of the deacceleration; and WHEREAS, deacceleration lights on trucks may provide an appropriate warning to following traffic; and

WHEREAS, such deacceleration lights are not currently permitted in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth should study the desirability of permitting deacceleration lights on trucks; and

WHEREAS, if the Commonwealth decides to allow such deacceleration lights on trucks, appropriate standards should be developed to dictate their use; now therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the Department of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation with the Center for Innovative Technology, the Motor Carrier Division of the State Corporation Commission, and the State Police, be requested to study the desirability of allowing deacceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, the types of deacceleration lights which currently exist, and the appropriate standards which should dictate their use.

The Department shall complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 1994 Session of the General Assembly as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents.