Interpretation ID: nht88-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phoenix Transit System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030

Dear Mr. Hocken:

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1987 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a "Service Information Safety Related letter" from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for "Special Exception" if your buses are not in compliance.

This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no "Special Exception" is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a non compliant state.

We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in 1985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with 1984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experi enced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which has the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it he lpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, s.w., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in sa fety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1987 Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Rm 5219 NATHA U S Department of Transportation 400 7th St SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We request an official interpretation of rule FMVSS 108. We have received a Service Information Safety Related letter from the Flxible Corporation that states that our deceleration lights do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108, "lamps, reflecti ve devices and associated equipment."

In the spring of 1982, we began an experiment with 10 buses with DAS (Deceleration Alert System) to see if we could reduce our rear end accidents. The 18 months with the DAS was so successful that we had our entire fleet fitted with the lights. The year of 1985 was the first full year that lights were installed on all our buses. There was a 44 percent reduction in accidents over the previous year (1984).

You can see why we need an official interpretation. If we are not in compliance with FMVSS 108, we need to know how we can file for "Special Exception."

We will need the required forms; who we need to contact; and to whom the forms need to be sent to in order to achieve this Special Exception.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Hocken General Manager

pk