ID: nht75-6.14

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: South Texas Tire Test Fleet

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires are available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that

tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)

As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate the method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.

ID: nht75-6.15

DATE: 10/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John G. Haviland; NHTSA

TO: Laird E. Johnston -- General Motors Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Free Sliding Latch With Tension Relieving Feature

Laird E. Johnston ASE - Engineering Staff

The following comments are in reference to your question concerning whether existing safety standards allow a shoulder belt tension relieving feature on a single loop three point belt system having a free sliding (non-cinching) latch.

GM Legal Staff has been consulted concerning interpretation of the present wording in MVSS 203, Section S7.1.1 (Attachment 1) and proposed amendment Docket 74-32 Notice 1 (Attachment 2). Legal Staff and ASE agree that:

a) The current MVSS 203 does not clearly prohibit the use of a free-sliding latch plate with a shoulder belt tension relieving device but the NHTSA interprets MVSS 208 as prohibiting such a system (see Attachment 3), and

b) A proposed amendment to MVSS 208 Docket 74-32 Notice 1, does clearly limit the use of comfort devices to the upper portion of the seat belt assembly - the lap belt portion must remain individually adjustable (i.e. introducing slack into the shoulder belt should not affect the lap portion of the assembly).

In our response to Docket 74-32 Notice 1 (Attachment 4), General Motors agreed that devices to relieve tension should not be used on systems permitting inadvertent misadjustment.

ASE also has reservations about the impact performance of such a system both for adult occupants and when used in conjunction with child seats. Although limited sled tests of one such system resulted in no submarining with up to three inches of slack in the lap belt, there is no assurance that occupants would wear these systems correctly or that all similar belt configurations would perform in this manner. Additionally, GM only recommends the use of the child seat in 1968-1975 domestic made vehicles. All of these vehicles have a lap belt that permits lap belt tension independent of the shoulder belt. Present thoughts are that a separate lap belt tension holding clip will have to be supplied with the child seat if GM were to recommend its usage with a free-sliding latch single loop system.

One compromise you may wish to consider is the use of a friction device on the free sliding latch that would allow free belt transfer from the lap belt to the shoulder but hold minimal lap belt tension, possibly five to ten pounds. This should satisfy the NHTSA but would still pose some problem with improper child seat usage. Another solution, which you are aware of, is providing low shoulder belt tension thus reducing the need for a tension relieving device. A one-way cinching latch is the ideal solution to the performance and compliance questions.

If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.

(original signed by) John G. Haviland Collision Protection/Restraints Automotive Safety Engineering JGH/rk

Attachments (4)

cc: G. F. Ball E. E. Conner T. G. Wingblad

ID: nht75-6.16

DATE: 06/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: S.L. Terry, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

S. L. Terry, Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs Chrysler Corporation P. O. Box 1910 Detroit, MI 48231

Dear Mr. Terry:

This responds to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting confirmation that Chrysler's new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way locking device in the buckle tip which prevents return of webbing to the lap portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use.

Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap bolt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction, set forth in a letter to Renault, Inc., on September 25, 1972, is that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder bolt cinches up the lap belt."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjustable." Thus, it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular bolt system is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your May 16, 1975, demonstration to Messrs. Hitchcock, Nelson, Medlin, Smith, Breedon, and Ziegler of the NHTSA, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors. It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket No. 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." Chrysler's response to that proposal and stated plan to introduce a continuous loop belt system with a "window shade" device in the new 1976 model four-door compact car assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is still outstanding in Docket No. 74-32.

Sincerely,

(original stamped by)

James B. Gregory Administrator

May 13, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation plans to introduce a new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature for the front seat outboard seating positions during the 1976 model year. We plan to introduce this system initially in the 4-door models of our all-new compact car, and later in the model year incorporate the system in all of our other 1976 model 4-door cars, including station wagons. As indicated in my letter dated November 7, 1974 (commenting on Docket 74-32, Notice 1, based on discussions with the Administration), we understand that a unibelt system with a "window shade" adjustment feature will conform to current MVSS 208 requirements provided it otherwise complies with MVSS 209. Because the modifications to proposed Docket 74-32 are still pending and we have not yet received written confirmation of our understanding, we hereby request that the Administration review our unibelt system and provide us with written response indicating that it complies with the regulations. Since we must make commitments for final tooling almost immediately, we request your review as soon as possible.

The system consists of a continuous webbing loop with a vehicle deceleration sensitive emergency-locking retractor located in the B-pillar. The webbing is routed from the retractor to a roof rail mounted turning loop, across the occupant's upper torso to the buckle tip, across his lap and down to the floor anchor. To encourage belt usage by making them more comfortable to wear, we have incorporated a "window shade" feature in the retractor to relieve objectionable shoulder belt tension. A slight extension of the shoulder belt provides slack in the shoulder belt; a second extension of the belt releases the slack.

To maintain lap tension when shoulder belt tension has been relieved by using the "window shade" in the retractor, we have incorporated a one-way locking device in the buckle tip. This permits the belt webbing to be pulled through the buckle tip by the retractor, but prevents webbing movement in the opposite direction. It also permits the user to tighten the lap belt beyond the tension created by the retractor, if he likes a snug lap belt.

We believe that this system is a significant step forward in the design of seat belt systems. Initially, it makes the belt buckle tip easier to find since it normally stows near the roof rail rather than near the floor between the door and seat. It is easier to buckle up because the motion required by the occupant to extend the webbing from the single retractor is more nearly linear. After buckling up, the occupant can easily relieve shoulder belt tension by moving forward slightly and then returning to his normal sitting position. If the occupant wishes, greater tension can be placed and maintained in the lap belt by pulling the shoulder belt upward. Moreover, this system is automatically and conveniently stored by tripping the "window shade." It also eliminates the lap belt cinch- up problem associated with auto-locking retractors which many customers find objectionable. Because this new design will encourage the use of seat belts and as we are able to work out the problems of application of the system of other car models, we expect to offer this system on our 2-door models.

Based on our interpretation of the requirements of MVSS 208 and MVSS 209, and our understanding of the letters of interpretation issued by the NHTSA to Renault dated September 25, 1972, and to General Motors dated March 27, 1975, we believe our new system fully complies with the applicable requirements of both standards. With respect to the issue raised in those letters, we have designed the one-way lock-up feature in the buckle tip of our system to allow self-adjustment of the lap belt by the retractor. When the occupant does not snug the lap belt, our testing experience indicates that normal occupant motions will cause the slack in the system to be taken up by the retractor.

Based upon this description of our new unibelt lap/shoulder belt system that we plan to use during the 1976 model year, we request a letter of confirmation of our interpretation that this system complies with the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. If considered desirable, we would be happy to demonstrate this new system in one of our vehicles.

Very truly yours,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

(original signed by)

S. L. Terry Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

/ms

ID: nht75-6.17

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: FRANK A. BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOHN B. WHITE -- ENGINEERING MANAGER TECHNICAL INFORMATION DEPT. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. White:

This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1975, concerning the importation into the United States of tires that will be mounted on trucks intended for export from the United States.

49 CFR Part 571.7(d) and Section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 specify that no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to

a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.

Therefore, tires which Michelin manufactures for sale directly to a truck manufacturer who will mount them on trucks which are intended solely for export need not comply with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. When imported and shipped to the truck manufacturer, the tires must bear a label or tag indicating intent to export. Such a label must also appear on the outside of the container, if any, in which the tires are shipped. Importation of such tires is permitted by 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), provided they are so labeled. A label need not remain on the tires after they have been mounted on the trucks, provided that the trucks bear similar labels.

Because these tires are not subject to any FHVSS and are beyond the scope of any expected defect notification and remedy program, Michelin Tire Corporation is not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, with respect to them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-6.18

DATE: 11/01/75 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: RONALD W. COOKE -- E. EDELMANN AND CO

TITLE: N41-42

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/26/76 FROM RONALD W. COOKE TO JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cooke:

Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1976, to Dr. James B. Gregory, requesting information on aftermarket gas caps as they relate to compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 301. Your inquiry has been forwarded to this office for reply. Apparently your letter of May 26, 1970, was either lost or misdirected, as we can find no record of it in our files, and we sincerely apologize for this delay in responding to your inquiry.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate vehicle fuel tank caps as such; however, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements to assure the integrity of the entire vehicle fuel system (which includes the fuel tank cap) in various crash modes.

Thus, if installation of your replacement cap is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the cap or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S106(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 09-503). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-292) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (S109(a) (2) (A)). Thus, it is illegal for any of the above named persons to install a fuel tank cap that he knows will cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the fuel system integrity standards. Federal Law does not, however, prohibit the owner of a vehicle from purchasing and installing a fuel tank cap of his choice on his own vehicle, even though he may compromise the Fuel System Integrity Standard.

We are interested in any information regarding safety problems associated with replacement gas caps as a basis for further action. If you could provide any such information, we would be most grateful.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-6.19

DATE: 01/01/75 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: J.W. KENNEBECK -- EMISSIONS, SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-6.2

DATE: 03/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gerard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1975, requesting information on forms and information to be used in complying with NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) and Manufacturer Identification regulations (49 CFR Part 566).

There are no special forms which the NHTSA provides for manufacturers for purposes of compliance with these requirements. Part 566 information may be furnished on a business letterhead. Part 567 and 568 information should be furnished in any form which complies with the prescribed requirements. Although the Certification requirements may be modified as the result of litigation, the NHTSA will consider compliance with the published requirements to meet any manufacturer's responsibilities for Certification under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403).

If you have further questions, please feel free to write again.

YOURS TRULY,

GERARD, INC.

February 4, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are in the beginning stages of manufacturing wrecker bodies to be mounted on truck chassis. We will mount some in our plant to complete the vehicle, but some will be shipped in kit form to our distributors for their installation.

I have contacted Mr. J. Leon Conner of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Atlanta and he sent me parts 566, 567 and 568 in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. He also advised me that some of the requirements of these regulations are being reviewed in litigation proceedings in Washington.

We are desperately trying to get into a position to start shipping units, but their seems to be doubt as to what will be required, on our part, to certify the vehicles. Could you please furnish me the necessary information and forms so that we can comply to Federal Regulations.

J. T. Roberts -- VICE PRESIDENT-SALES

ID: nht75-6.20

DATE: 03/21/75

FROM: BYRON CRAMPTON -- TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION MANAGER OF ENGINEERING SERVICES

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/75 EST, FROM RICHARD B. DYSON TO BYRON CRAMPTON; N40-30; OPINION FILE, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Recently several members of the Truck Body and Equipment Association have raised questions concerning state versus federal motor vehicle lighting requirements.

The vehicle in question is a multipurpose passenger vehicle less than eighty (80) inches wide, equipped with a raised roof.

Our question is as follows: Can a state require a motor vehicle to be equiped with lights not required under FMVSS #108?

Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Very truly yours,

ID: nht75-6.21

DATE: 02/28/75

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GERHARD P. RIECHEL -- ATTORNEY VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/11/74 FROM GERHARD P. RIECHEL TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, STANDARD 105-FAILURE INDICATOR LAMP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Riechel:

This responds to Volkswagen's December 11, 1974, request for a determination that a brake system indicator lamp which activates only upon application of the brake pedal with a control force of 50 pounds or more to signal a "gross loss of pressure" would meet the requirement of S5.3.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems:

S5.3.3 Each indicator lamp activated due to a condition specified in S5.3.1 shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position, whether or not the engine is running.

Your question arises as to the meaning of the phrase in S5.3.3 which requires that the lamp "remain activated as long as the condition exists", with reference to the condition described in S5.3.1(a) as "gross loss of pressure (such as caused by rupture of a brake line but not by a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems)". You point out that a condition involving loss of pressure cannot exist in the absence of pressure, that is, after control force is removed from the brake pedal.

While the NHTSA has always believed that the requirement in question can best be satisfied by an indicator lamp which remains activated after the loss of pressure has occurred, we agree that the language in question could be more clearly drafted to express this intent. Accordingly, we plan to propose an amendment to the standard to eliminate this ambiguity. The proposed effective date of the amendment

will be far enough in the future so that any new design changes required to comply may be effected without undue burden on affected manufacturers.

Because we conclude that the reliance Volkswagen has placed on its alternative reading of S5.3.3 can be justified in this case, we would accept the limited warning offered by the system you describe as satisfying the current requirement in S5.3.3 with regard to S.5.3.1(a).

Yours truly,

ID: nht75-6.22

DATE: 08/19/75 EST

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BYRON CRAMPTON -- BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION INC

COPYEE: MARTIN; ROGERS; OYLES; P.W MAURER

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/21/75 FROM BYRON CRAMPTON TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Crampton:

This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whether a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of this office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code@46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:

(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seven feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right-and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle; ***

(b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shall be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***

It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code also provides in$46.1-267: ***

No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equipped with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.

As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to "preempt" the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 and Virginia Motor Vehicle Code @ 46.1-265 regulate the same "aspect of performance." If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:

* Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. An ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a "motor vehicle" under Virginia Code 46.1-265.

* Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certain specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.

* The configuration and color of the lights required by the two laws differ.

Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the extent that they differ from the Federal requirements the state clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code @ 46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia or Federal standards, is incorrect.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,