Interpretation 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.