```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 104 (Thursday, May 31, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30324-30326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2693]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for 
Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for rulemaking regarding 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Mr. Richard 
Fairall petitioned the agency to amend the standard to incorporate 
performance requirements for a ``stroboscopic lighting system'' that 
can be installed on the front and rear of a motorcycle as a collision 
avoidance system. NHTSA is denying this petition because the petitioner 
did not demonstrate or provide any quantitative data showing that 
implementation of his recommended lighting system would result in a 
reduction of death and injury to motorcyclists or other motorists. 
However, notwithstanding the absence of detailed safety data in Mr. 
Fairall's submission, because NHTSA has a continued interest in 
identifying potential countermeasures to reduce motorcycle crashes, the 
agency conducted a preliminary evaluation of the petitioner's 
recommended auxiliary ``stroboscopic lighting system.'' The preliminary 
evaluation did not persuade NHTSA that the stroboscopic lighting system 
would result in fewer motorcycle crashes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590, telephone (202)-366-6987, facsimile (202)-493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Mr. Richard ``Scott'' Fairall petitioned NHTSA to amend Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to incorporate 
performance requirements for a flashing front and rear motorcycle 
collision avoidance lighting system. Mr. Fairall devised an auxiliary 
``stroboscopic lighting system'' for motorcycles to be used by the 
motorcyclist with the intent of reducing the incidences of other 
motorists violating the right-of-way of motorcyclists. The rider of the 
motorcycle would activate and

[[Page 30325]]

deactivate the system (usually when approaching an intersection) using 
a rocker switch.
    The forward facing portion of Mr. Fairall's system is comprised of 
two turn signal housings with clear lenses, each having a strobe light 
in it. The rearward facing portion has red lenses and is also comprised 
of two turn signal housings, each with a strobe inside. The strobe 
controller flashes each side's strobe twice (at 2 Hz) before 
alternating to the other side. The duration that the lighting system 
remains activated would depend on the speed of the motorcycle and the 
width of the intersection. Mr. Fairall stated the maximum length of 
time of use for the lighting system would be approximately four 
seconds.
    Mr. Fairall claimed his auxiliary ``stroboscopic lighting system'' 
would warn motorists of the potential for collision, and has 
effectively prevented accidents involving his motorcycle for over 
11,000 miles. In addition, he also provided numerous anecdotes 
regarding the effectiveness of his and other, similar, modulating 
headlamp designs. In his petition, Mr. Fairall claimed that his 
recommended lighting system would enhance the conspicuity of the 
motorcycle and produce a significant and immediate downward trend in 
crashes and injuries to motorcyclists. Finally, Mr. Fairall cited NHTSA 
statistics showing a substantial increase in motorcycle accidents and 
fatalities.
    FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 
specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective 
devices, and associated equipment. The purpose of the standard is to 
reduce traffic collisions, by providing adequate illumination of the 
roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the 
public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals 
understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of 
reduced visibility. Among the many aspects of vehicle lighting that are 
covered by FMVSS No. 108 are the conditions under which lamps on a 
vehicle are wired and permitted to flash.
    Paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 states:

    The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
    (a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school 
bus warning signal lamps shall be wired to flash;
    (b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired for signaling 
purposes;
    (c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper 
beam or lower beam, but not both to modulate from a higher intensity 
to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that the reference to S5.6 is an error, and that the 
reference should point to S7.9.4. NHTSA will issue a technical 
amendment to correct this error shortly.

    Steady means free from change or variation. This means that they 
must not modulate, flash, or vary in size, area, intensity or 
appearance.
    Motorcycle headlamp systems that modulate, as permitted under 
S7.9.4 of FMVSS No. 108, enhance the conspicuity of motorcycles without 
having other negative safety impacts (e.g., causing confusion with 
emergency vehicles). Currently, motorcycle headlamp modulation systems 
or other lighting systems that deviate from these requirements are not 
permitted under FMVSS No. 108 and may not be installed on new vehicles 
or sold in the aftermarket as replacement equipment.
    NHTSA notes that based upon the agency's policy statements 
published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998 (Volume 63, 
Number 213, pages 59482-59492) in order to be treated as a petition, 
the Fairall submission must have substantive data purporting to show 
positive safety benefits for the recommended idea. As the NHTSA policy 
statement makes clear, NHTSA has neither the budget nor the time to 
sponsor exhaustive research (such as fleet testing) of most lighting 
ideas presented to it. Because Mr. Fairall's submission did include 
some data, we treated it as a petition. NHTSA is denying this petition 
because the petitioner did not demonstrate or provide sufficient 
quantitative data showing that implementation of his recommended 
lighting system would result in a reduction of death and injury 
motorcyclists or other motorists.
    Paragraph 5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 restricts lamps that may flash to 
certain ones. The reason for restricting flashing lamps is to ensure 
that the signal is instantly recognized and unambiguous to drivers, as 
explained in our November 4, 1998 Statement of Policy. There is a 
positive safety benefit to the public from clear and unambiguous 
signals. Mr. Fairall's recommended lamps, which would be considered 
auxiliary because they are not required equipment, are not among those 
permitted to flash.
    We do not believe Mr. Fairall's data are sufficient to show 
positive safety benefits from changing our current standardized 
requirements. The petitioner's primary support for his contention that 
his recommended system is effective in reducing motorcyclists' death 
and injury is to refer to an ``11,000 mile benchmark test;'' i.e., 
operating the system while he rode his motorcycle. The petitioner 
stated, ``It has been 100 percent effective in stopping motorist from 
violating my right-of-way throughout the testing period of more than 
11,000 miles.''
    Based on statistical considerations, the 11,000 vehicle-miles-
driven is insufficient to form a valid estimate for the impact this 
system might have on motorcycle safety. Mr. Fairall's numerous 
anecdotal examples of drivers noticing his lighting system do not 
qualify as sufficient data. Moreover, the petitioner did not provide 
data to support his contention that the use of the ``stroboscopic 
lighting system'' was the reason that motorists did not violate his 
right-of-way. Data addressing the behavior of other motorists who 
encountered the lighting system was not provided.

Additional Data Analysis

    NHTSA is aware that since 1999, motorcycle injuries and fatalities 
have continued to rise and the majority of fatalities are multi-vehicle 
crashes. Frequently, crashes are the result of a right-of-way violation 
at an intersection, where the motorcycle is traveling straight when it 
collides with another vehicle that has either turned or pulled out in 
front of it. The agency has ongoing research efforts focusing on ways 
to increase motrcycle conspicuity. One such research effort, a study 
done by Calspan Corporation, examines whether the use of Daytime 
Running Lamps (DRLs) on motorcylces would improve their conspicuity.
    Despite the previously stated consideration of a lack of supporting 
data, NHTSA decided to undertake some additional testing of Mr. 
Fairall's recommended stroboscopic lighting system on an investigatory 
basis. The agency conducted a preliminary evaluation of the 
petitioner's recommended concept at our Vehicle Research & Test Center 
(VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio. We made this decision based upon our 
continued interest in identifying potential countermeasures to reduce 
motorcycle crashes.
    The prevalence of right-of-way collisions near intersections guided 
this research. Researchers have hypothesized that the majority of 
frontal crashes are attributable to either poor speed-spacing judgment 
of other motorists or insufficient front motorcycle conspicuity. Speed-
spacing judgment refers to the accuracy that a driver can estimate the 
distance at which it is safe to turn left at an intersection in front 
of an oncoming motorcycle. Conspicuity is the extent to

[[Page 30326]]

which an object can be distinguished from its surroundings. Because 
most fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcycles are the result 
of a right-of-way violation in the proximity of an intersection, three 
intersection-type test scenarios were utilized to examine potential 
conspicuity improvements to a motocycle equipped with the forward 
facing portion of the ``stroboscopic lighting system''. The test 
scenarios included a gap acceptance test that was initiated with the 
motorcycle taking a position in the adjacent, opposing traveling lane. 
The other two were right side and left side peripheral field-of-view 
scenarios.
    Since the majority of motorcycle fatalities involve other vehicles 
impacting the motorcycle from the front, the agency evaluated the front 
portion of Mr. Fairall's system. This evaluation involved three 
intersection-type tests. The agency did not find any safety benefits in 
a speed-spacing judgment test (gap acceptance test) nor in a peripheral 
detectability test involving motorcyclists at 90[deg] to a stationary 
vehicle driver's line-of-sight. While potential limited benefits were 
associated with the system in a peripheral detectability test at 
45[deg], it is unclear whether they would outweigh safety disbenefits 
such as the system providing a false sense of security to motorcyclists 
and the impact on the driving behavior of other drivers who may react 
to the strobing light in unexpected manners. A common concern with 
auxiliary lamps and lighting systems is their potential to distract 
other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to 
the lighting devices requires by the standard. In order to initiate 
rulemaking to allow a system such as the one identified by Mr. Fairall, 
the agency would need clear data demonstrating safety benefits.

Agency Conclusion

    After a thorough review of Mr. Fairall's petition, the agency has 
decided to deny Mr. Fairall's petition for rulemaking. The agency notes 
that the limited data the petitioner provided, consisting of the 
petitioner's own experiences in driving approximately 11,000 miles as 
well as anecdotal evidence, are insufficient to support a rulemaking. 
Despite the petitioner's attempt to demonstrate the effect of the new 
lighting system, NHTSA would require substantially more data 
demonstrating the effectiveness of such a system to initiate a 
rulemaking.
    A ``strooscopic'' or flasing lighting system operated by the 
motorcyclist near intersections to increase his or her conspicuity is 
an interesting concept. Our preliminary evaluation showed that the 
recommended ``stroboscopic lighting system'' does not appear to enhance 
motorcycle conspicuity if the driver of the car is directly observing 
the motorcycle, or if the motorcycle approaches the car at 90 degrees 
or greater to the driver's line of sight. While limited improvements 
were found in motorcycle conspicuity when the motorcyclist approaches a 
vehicle at approximately 45 degrees to the driver's line of sight, the 
data are insufficient to warrant rulemaking activity. Therefore, the 
agency is denying the petition.
    The agency remains interested in finding effective ways to increase 
motorcycle conspicuity and reduce the number of crashes involving 
motorcycles.

    Dated: May 23, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 07-2693 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
```