ID: nht90-3.76

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy Murphy -- Peterson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-23-90 from T. Murphy to S.P. Wood (OCC 5037)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1990, to Stephen Wood of this Office, in your capacity as Chairman, Engineering Committee--Lights, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute. You have asked that we review an interpretation furnished The Bargm an Company on February 26, 1990. Bargman's customer wished an amber reflector around the edge of an amber turn signal lens, and the company had asked "if an amber reflex reflector was permitted as an additional reflector on the rear of vehicles" covered by Standard No. 108. We stated that amber reflectors would be permissible.

You quote from our letter the sentence that "It does not appear to us that an amber tail lamp lens with an amber reflector would create an impairment", and you disagree with this conclusion. We are in error. Bargman asked its question only with referenc e to turn signal lamps, and our letter should have used the words "turn signal lamp", not "tail lamp." We have no intention of allowing amber as an alternate color for a tail lamp.

Notwithstanding the error, you are also concerned that amber reflectors in conjunction with red reflectors and red tail lamps could be the source of confusion. You point out that the amber reflectors would appear 2 1/2 times brighter than the red reflec tors, and conclude that "this would certainly represent an impairment of a required device."

Our letter to Bargman was in the context of an amber reflector surrounding an amber lens, and did not reach the question of separate amber reflectors on the rear. It is true that SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977 specifies values for amb er that are 2 1/2 times those for red. Whether supplementary amber reflex reflectors that are not required to conform to Standard No. 108 would nevertheless be manufactured to meet the SAE specifications is a question that we cannot answer. However, as we have advised inquirers from time to time in the past, the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer who certifies that its vehicle meets Standard No. 108 (and the other standards). If that determination appears clearly erroneo us, the agency will question it. If a manufacturer concludes that an amber reflector would impair the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment, the agency would not question that determination.

You also call our attention to the fact that several States "clearly specify that reflectors, visible from the rear of a vehicle, shall be red", and raise the possibility that drivers of vehicles with amber reflectors could be cited in States with the re d-only specification. We had advised Bargman, a company located in Michigan, that the appropriate

remedy appeared to be to seek an amendment of the Michigan law as we did not view Standard No. 108 as preemptive in this instance, and as this agency had no plans to specify amber as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors.

We believe that it is the responsibility of truck operators to ensure that their equipment is in conformance with all applicable State and Federal laws. Familiarity with State reflector laws is part of this responsibility.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht90-3.77

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald C.J. Gray -- Commissioner, Federal Supply Service, General Services Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-2-90 from D.C.J. Gray to B. Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications." You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by th e General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is "yes." Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces.

The exception in 49 CFR S571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating h ow the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outwe igh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards.

To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are:

manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.

We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to tbe GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces , as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency

interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly t o the Armed Forces.

Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces "in conformity with contractual specifications." In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include tbe s ubstantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses.

I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance.

ID: nht90-3.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, Ideal Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from S. Kimmelman to P.J. Rice (OCC 5074)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1990, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring thre e specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are:

"1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer ."

This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed; Standard No. 108 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Sta ndard No. 108's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October 1965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers "are intended to operate at the design loa d for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer." If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensu ring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108.

"2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer."

This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February 1966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers "are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load. . . . as stated by the manufacturer. Thus, in

order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 108, it must equip the vehicle with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer.

"3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle."

This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht90-3.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Holscher -- General Sales Manager, Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-90 from D. Holscher to T. Vinson (OCC 4796)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether your installation of a spoiler would be in violation of Federal regulations.

Specifically, one of your customers has "requested a factory design rear spoiler on their new Infiniti." This spoiler contains "a 3rd brake light which will illuminate during brake application." This would be in addition "to the existing rear window br ake light" which is not removable because of damage to the interior of the car.

The third brake light, or "center highmounted stop lamp" (CHMSL) to use its regulatory name, is an item of motor vehicle equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We understand that on the basic Infiniti Q45 the CHMSL is locat ed in the interior, while on a more upscale version, it is located in the rear spoiler. It appears that your customer is purchasing a basic model and wishes to add the spoiler from the more expensive model.

My initial comment is made on the assumption that the customer has not yet taken delivery of the car. In this circumstance, the dealer is required to deliver a car to the customer that remains in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard s after any modifications from its original state. The Federal lighting standard, Standard No. 108, permits the addition of supplementary lighting equipment such as a second CHMSL to the vehicle if it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the ligh ting equipment required by Standard No. 108. However, in your case, the supplementary CHMSL in fact is the complying lamp on other Infinitis and would be a complying lamp when installed on your customer's car. In this event, the original CHMSL becomes redundant, and you may disconnect it without violating any Federal requirement.

Somewhat the same considerations apply if tbe customer has already taken delivery of the car. Under this circumstance, the dealer may notperform alterations that render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accor dance with a Federal safety standard. Our usual interpretation of this prohibition is to equate impairment of effectiveness with at least a partial rendering inoperative. However, even if the supplementary lamp had this effect (for example, if the spoil er partially blocked the light from the lamp), it has become the primary complying lamp, and there would be no violation of the prohibition. For this reason, disconnecting the original lamp would then become permissible.

Finally, we see no safety problem or Federal violation if the original

lamp remains wired to be activated. However, vehicles in use are subject to State and local laws, and you should check with the Indiana motor vehicle authorities to ensure that there are no inspection or operational problems presented by this modificati on.

ID: nht90-3.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Pat Crahan -- Director, Government Relations, U-Haul International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 1-26-90 to A. L. Burgett from Pat Crahan attached; OCC 4404 TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Dr. August Burgett of this agency, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you stated th at U-Haul manufactures its trailers itself and never sells those trailers to any other party. You asked if Standard No. 115 requires trailers that are used exclusively by the party that manufactures them to be identified with a vehicle identification nu mber (VIN). The answer to your question is yes.

S2 of Standard No. 115 specifies that the standard applies to trailers, and makes no exception for trailers that are used exclusively by the manufacturer. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides that: "Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN t hat is assigned by the manufacturer." Again, no exceptions are set forth for vehicles that will be used exclusively by the manufacturer. Because those regulatory provisions do not include any special exceptions, every new trailer must have a VIN, irres pective of whether the trailer will only be used by the same party that manufactured it.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

LPDS 1989

ID: nht90-3.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Emory J. Lariscy -- Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to le tter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

We understand that you have waived the request for confidentiality in your letter of August 28, 1989, to George Shifflett, and now wish us to proceed with our legal opinion with respect to your "safety light assembly." In connection with this opinion, o ne of my staff attorneys viewed the videotape that you enclosed (which we return to you with this letter).

Your concept is to provide a warning to following drivers when the driver of the vehicle immediately ahead has released his or her foot from tbe accelerator, and the vehicle has begun to decelerate. On trucks, the device would be mounted singly or in pa irs (as it was in the videotape) "on the safety bumper bracket. In this configuration, it is a rectangular amber lamp 8 inches in height and 3 inches in width with the word "caution" on the lens. Passenger cars would be equipped with either a single sma ller lamp above the center highmounted stop lamp, or to one side, or with two smaller lamps flanking the center lamp. The system works as follows: it is "connected to a switch disposed on the vehicle carburetor and receives current from the vehicle fuse block such that the throttle valve arm on the switch is 'on' and the accelerator pedal is not depressed. When the accelerator pedal is depressed, tbe throttle valve arm moves out of contact with the switch to permit spring actuated opening thereof." Th is means that the system remains activated when the brakes are applied. You believe that the system is simple enough to be installed "by the novice mechanic or vehicle owner."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency administers and which is the relevant Federal statute with respect to your invention, imposes somewhat different requirements for new and used vehicles. If you wish to sell this device to motor vehicle manufacturers or dealers for installation on vehicles before or at the time of their delivery to their first owner, the manufacturer or dealer must ensure that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when the vehicle is delivered.

There are three Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are relevant to this interpretation: Standard No. 108, pertaining to lighting,

Standard No. 124 on accelerator control systems, and Standard No. 301 relating to fuel system integrity in crash situations. Judging from your letter, Mr. Shifflett has previously advised you that supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The "impairment" that is of most concern to us is in the effectiveness of the stop lamp to si gnal that the vehicle is braking. From this standpoint, it would be preferable for the amber lamps to be extinguished when the stop lamps go on. However, this is not the way your system operates. Intuitively, the closer your lamps are to the required s top lamps in both location and intensity, the more likely they are to impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We are providing you with these views, as the determination of impairment is made in the first instance by the vehicle manufacturer or deal er who installs it.

Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, specifies that the throttle must return to the idle position within 2 seconds after pressure is released from the accelerator pedal on a vehicle whose GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds, and within 1 second if the GVWR is less. Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes a maximum permissible limit to fuel spillage during and after 30 mph front and rear moving barrier impacts, and at 20 mph for a side impact. Because your modifications are related t o the accelerator and fuel systems, you should ensure that they do not affect the ability of the vehicle on which they are installed to comply with these standards.

If you wish to sell the system in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles already in use, similar considerations apply. The Act specifically prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We have interpreted this to mean that modifications that result in a noncompliance with a safety standard are prohibited. Thus, the modifier should ensure that there is no impairment of the rear lamps, or of the ability of the throttle to return to idle within the specified time, or of the ability of the fuel system to meet the impact test requirements.

However, there is no Federal prohibition against modifications by the owner, even if a noncompliance results. Nevertheless, the acceptability of any modifications, whoever performs them, remains subject to the laws of any State in which a vehicle is reg istered or operated. We are unable to advise you whetber your system is legal under the laws of Virginia or any other state, but suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlin gton, Virginia 22203.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety and wish you well.

ID: nht90-3.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: Hiroshi Kato -- Vice President, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TO: Jack Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to H. Kato (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lights and Relectors. S.5.1.3 of Standard 108 states that "no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lightin g equipment required by this standard."

We are considering lighting the rear panel garnish of a vehicle to illuminate the word "MITSUBISHI" at 0.1 cd (0.02 cd/in) when the vehicle headlamp system is turned on. This illumination would not be lighting required by FMVSS 108. The enclosed page s hows the proposed illumination and specifications. A similar illumination on the 1988 model year Pontiac Fiero is also shown.

We would like your determination as to whether the illumination described above would be considered impairment of the effectiveness of required lighting as described in S.5.1.3.

If the described illumination is considered an impairment due to the candela power, we would like to know what candela would be acceptable.

Also, we would like to confirm that if the center of the rear panel garnish was illuminated as a supplemental tail lamp and the word "MITSUBISHI" was not illuminated, this type of lighting would be allowed under FMVSS 108.

Your prompt response would be appreciated.

Enclosure

Drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-3.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool, & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W.C. Glasscock (A36; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Thank you for your attention to this letter as I am sure you recieve many with the position you hold.

My name is: William Charles Glasscock, operator of a small business located in Spfld. Il. known as Sun-Cool, & Co. which sells, services and installs solar film by Madico; on commercial, residence and last but not least automobiles.

I have personally engaged in this business for 18 years. Most recently I have contacted your office in Washington along with several Federal offices whose numbers were recieved thru several phone calls and by divine guidance with the last one directing me to the Chief Council Office. The answers to many questions I was searching for have left me no alternative but to address this letter formally and with utmost concern.

FMVSS205 has existed on the Federal Dept. of Transportation National Institute of Highway Transportation Associations book since 1968. This particular law, which until recently was not made clear to me as a layman of common interpretation, has shocked m e into reality faster than anything has in my 38 years thus far.

I first got started doing the Art of Window Tinting in 1972 in the state of Florida, where I was born. Circumstances have led me to return to Illinois where I had been raised and have resided for the last twenty years.

Sir, the problems I am now faced with are as follows:

Federal Law: FMVSS205 prohibits the use of materials on windows required for driving purposes to be installed by any after market specialty shop on any passenger vehicles that reduce the light transmission to less than 70% visible light.

State enacted laws have been revised and altered in accordance with the now existing Federal Law. Illinois for example, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles manufactured after January 1st. 1982, as long as owner of said vehicle has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois gives them a letter explaining the medical excuse for such need.

As I see now,a conflict does exist between State and Federal laws.

With the fact in mind that a Federal law supersedes State law, I personally would like to be able to understand why the people of the United States have had to pay State Government and Legislation to enact

their own laws in regards to the use of materials on automobiles, when in all reality there exists this Federal law that strictly prohibits its use as stated above. I personally have been going to our States Capitol office off and on for several years, to speak to representatives pertaining to this matter. I have been harassed by local and state police officers to the point that I was in a state of deep depression with many productive hours lost and personal health as well as respect in the community I and my family reside in.

In addition to the embarassment due to the neglect of enforcement by state and federal authorities of this particular law, I am now afraid to continue the business I am engaged in; which leaves me no means of support for myself and my family.

I am also very confused as to why advertising on the part of all manufactures of this material do so state by pictures that this is a legitimate business and that anyone that so desires may by video or personal training engage in this practice. Understa nding the laws of advertising, I would also like an answer to the reason major auto manufactures are allowed through subliminal message as I see it to advertise new automobiles on television and brochures that these autos may come already tinted less tha n the Federal standards allow. Major film studios are using in certain films automobiles that portray an image of criminal activity or wealth towards individuals driving certain automobiles, limo's, mercedes and the like, which I believe also to be decep tive practices.

I do believe that the crime here should not fall on the responsibility of the individuals such as myself, and that there seems to be a lack of intention on the part of Illinois government bodies as well as parts of the United States Government, to correc t what appears to be inconsistency in upholding the law. With all probability it is possible that through closed eyes for what I believe to be in essence of capitol gains, damage would intail loss of life as well as damage to the environment, through th e obvious procrastination of correction with this matter.

At this point in time I would like to close with the hopes of an immediate response to help with this dilema.

ID: nht90-3.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-90 from D.L. Giles to S.P. Wood; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker; Also attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dated 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 14, 1990. You report that Wayne Busettes, as delivered by Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, are equipped with an amber warning lamp system. You have asked whether tbese vehicles, which are used in the Head Star t program by Western Community Action, Inc., must be equipped with the amber lamp system, and, if so, when the system is to be used. You report that the Minnesota State Highway Patrol states that the vehicles are not "school buses" under Minnesota law, and have advised that the lamps must be removed or disabled.

Further, you have enclosed a copy of an opinion letter of this Office to Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, dated August 26, 1988. Finally, you report that the State has theorized that because the vehicles are being used entirely in Minnesota, they a re not subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We begin our reply with a comment on the compliance status of the Head Start buses themselves. Preliminarily, our review indicates tbat the Minnesota law on school bus lighting (M.S.A. Sec. 169.44, Subd. 1a) is congruent with the requirements of section S5.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Our standard allows a choice between a four-lamp system of two red lamps on the front and rear of the bus, or an eight-lamp system consisting of four red and four amber lamps on the front and rea r. Minnesota requires "prewarning flashing amber signals and flashing red signals", which we interpret to be the Federal eight-lamp system. Our engineers called Western Community Action to determine the type of warning lamp system with which the Head St art buses are actually equipped. They learned that the buses have a six-lamp warning system consisting of two red lamps on the front, and two red and two amber warning lamps on the rear. Thus, the six-lamp system on Head Start buses is a system that do es not conform to Federal requirements and apparently does not comply with State requirements either.

We continue to believe that tbe Head Start buses are school buses. Further, we believe that the existing lighting on Head Start buses should be brought into conformity with Federal and Minnesota requirements by the addition of two amber lamps to the fron t of tbe bus.

The 1988 letter to Minnesota Body and Equipment remains valid. Minnesota cannot forbid the dual system on vehicles that the Department of Transportation has determined to be school buses, even if these vehicles are not considered to be school buses unde r Minnesota law. Further, it must allow operators of these vehicles to retain and use the amber warning lamp system. These conclusions of law are clearly set forth in the 1988 letter.

The argument that the vehicles are exempt from Federal regulation because they are operated wholly within Minnesota is incorrect under the Vehicle Safety Act. Under the Act, all motor vehicles must be manufactured for sale, and sold, in conformance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a vehicle, once sold, may be operated exclusively within the borders of a single State, does not allow that State to regulate that vehicle in a manner that is inconsistent with or fru strates the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such regulations are preempted by the express preemption provisions of the Act, and the general principles of Federal preemption.

We are concerned with the position of Minnesota regarding these matters, and believe it may originate in a misunderstanding arising from what the State may perceive to be its prerogative under the Federal Highway Safety Program. In 1972, our agency issu ed Highway Safety Program Standard 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety." With respect to buses carrying less than 16 passengers, Standard 17 (since 1987, Guideline 17) provides the States with the option of either requiring compliance with school bus requi rements (e.g., color, lighting, identification as "School Bus") or specifically prohibiting such compliance. Minnesota appears to be exercising a prohibitive option with respect to the Head Start buses. Guideline 17, however, does not provide authority for a State to exercise its prohibitive option with respect to buses that the Department of Transportation has determined in the first instance to be school buses. This may not be clear to Minnesota.

For the reasons expressed in our previous letter and this one, we believe that the proper legal solution to the Head Start lighting question is the addition of two amber lamps to the front of the buses, rather than removing or disabling the two that are on the rear.

ID: nht90-3.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-22-90 from B. Abernethy to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 4858; OCC 4583); Also attached to Automotive Engineering Magazine editorial, dated July, 1985, entitled "Regulation at its Best?"

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and May 22, 1990, requesting an interpretation of the Federal standard on motor vehicle lighting, No. 108, as it relates to an invention of yours, and of July 2, 1990, withdrawing a request for confidentiality made in your earlier letter.

As we understand it, based upon your conversation with Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, your device would make the light emitted from a lamp increase or decrease in intensity based on the level of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle. Thus, as a vehicle decelerates, the intensity of the lamp would change from a high value to a low value as the vehicle proceeded to stop. You believe that this would discourage tailgaters.

However, the device would also simultaneously modulate in intensity at an unknown rate. The reason that it would do so is that it is sensitive to external forces and is of low inertia. This means that it would also respond to minute changes in decelera tion that occur because of other factors. These factors include uneven road surfaces, uneven brake rotor thickness that causes surging, and tire imbalance which causes vehicle vibrations. Thus, as the intensity changes from a higher to a lower level du ring the stop, it would randomly modulate from a slightly higher intensity to slightly lower and back as the device sensed the random accelerations and decelerations from these other effects. The actual signal resulting would vary from vehicle to vehicl e, and from roadway to roadway as these extraneous factors interacted with the device. A driver following would not see a signal that was consistent or reliable in its meaning.

Therefore, we have concluded that Standard No. 108 would not permit your device. Under the standard, rear lights such as stop lamps and taillamps must be steady burning when in use, and they would not be when your device is employed. Further, equipment not required by Standard No. 108 may not be used if it would impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. We believe that your device would impair the distinctive "message" (either as a signal light or as a presenc e light) that each rear lamp is intended to convey.