30324 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Rule 33.4 Part 70—Permits—Operational 

Flexibility (Adopted 4/10/01) 

Rule 33.5 Part 70—Permits—Time frames 

for Applications, Review and Issuance 

(Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.6 Part 70—Permits—Permit Term 

and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.7 Part 70—Permits—Notification 

(Adopted 4/10/01) 

Rule 33.8 Part 70—Permits—Reopening of 

Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.9 Part 70—Permits—Compliance 

Provisions (Adopted 4/10/01) 

Rule 33.10 Part 70—Permits—General Part 

70—Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 

3/14/95) 

Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Adopted 

11/12/96) 

Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/6/98) 

Rule 42 Permit Fees (Adopted 4/11/06) 

Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee 

(Adopted 9/10/96) 

Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 6/19/90) 

Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted 

8/4/92) 

Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and 

Call-Back Fees (Adopted 6/22/99) 

Rule 50 Opacity (Adopted 4/13/04) 

Rule 52 Particulate Matter-Concentration 

(Adopted 4/13/04) 

Rule 53 Particulate Matter-Process Weight 

(Adopted 4/13/04) 

Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 6/14/ 

94) 

Rule 56 Open Burning (Revised 11/11/03) 

Rule 57 Incinerators (Adopted 1/11/05) 

Rule 57.1 Particulate Matter Emissions 

From Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 1/ 

11/05) 

Rule 62.7 Asbestos—Demolition and 

Renovation (Adopted 6/16/92) 

Rule 63 Separation and Combination of 

Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78) 

Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 

4/13/99) 

Rule 67 Vacuum Producing Devices 

(Adopted 7/5/83) 

Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 4/13/ 

04) 

Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94) 

Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and 

Separation (Adopted 6/16/92) 

Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Adopted 9/26/89) 

Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Adopted 6/16/92) 

Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, 

and Well Cellars (Adopted 6/8/93) 

Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/ 

13/94) 

Rule 72 New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) (Adopted 9/13/05) 

Rule 73 National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) 

(Adopted 9/13/05) 

Rule 74 Specific Source Standards 

(Adopted 7/6/76) 

Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/ 

12/91) 

Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 

11/13/01) 

Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing 

(Revised 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04) 

Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers 

(Adopted 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04) 

Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive 

Organic Compounds at Petroleum 

Refineries and Chemical Plants (Adopted 

10/10/95) 

Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing 

Systems, Waste-water Separators and 

Process Turnarounds (Adopted 7/5/83) 

Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines (Adopted 11/8/05) 

Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil 

Production Facilities and Natural Gas 

Production and Processing Facilities 

(Adopted 3/10/98) 

Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential 

Water Heaters—Control of NOX (Adopted 

4/9/85) 

Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small 

Boilers (Adopted 9/14/99) 

Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts 

and Products (Adopted 11/11/03) 

Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (Adopted 11/8/94) 

Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (Adopted 6/13/00) 

Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations 

(Adopted 1/8/91) 

Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants 

(Adopted 1/11/05) 

Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines 

(Adopted 1/08/02) 

Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations 

(Revised 11/11/03) 

Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and 

Commercial Boatyard Operations (Adopted 

1/08/02) 

Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank 

Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94) 

Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid 

Storage Tank Degassing Operations 

(Adopted 11/8/94) 

Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations 

(Adopted 5/10/94) 

Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings 

(Revised 6/27/06) 

Rule 75 Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78) 

Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities 

(Adopted 5/23/72) 

Rule 102 Source Tests (Adopted 4/13/04) 

Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems 

(Adopted 2/9/99) 

Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 

9/17/91) 

Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 

9/17/91) 

Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 

9/17/91) 

Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 

9/17/91) 

Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures 

(Adopted 9/17/91) 

Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 5/9/ 

95) 

Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Adopted 11/9/ 

99) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–10457 Filed 5–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30325 

1We 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. 

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

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
30326 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

which an object can be distinguished 

from its surroundings. Because most 

fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving 

motorcycles are the result of a right-ofway 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-ofview 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° 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°, 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU48 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Wintering 

Population of the Piping Plover 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, notice of availability 

of draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment, and 

announcement of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment, the reopening of the public 

comment period, and a public hearing 

on the proposed revised designation of 

critical habitat for the wintering 

population of the piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We are reopening the 

public comment period to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed rule and the associated draft 

economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment. The draft 

economic analysis finds that costs 

associated with conservation activities 

for the wintering population of the 

piping plover in North Carolina are 

forecasted to range from $0 to $12.2 

million in lost consumer surplus and $0 

to $21.1 million in lost trip 

expenditures in undiscounted dollars 

over the next 20 years, with an 

additional $32,000 to $79,000 in 

administrative costs. Discounted 

impacts are estimated to range from $0 

to $6.2 million in lost consumer surplus 

and $0 to $10.6 million in lost trip 

expenditures over 20 years using a real 

rate of seven percent, with an additional 

$17,000 to $42,000 in administrative 

costs. This amounts to $0 to $503,000 in 

lost consumer surplus and $0 to 

$861,000 in lost trip expenditures, 

annually. Using a real rate of three 

percent, discounted impacts are 

estimated at $0 to $8.9 million in lost 

consumer surplus and $0 to $15.4 

million in lost trip expenditures over 

the next 20 years, with an additional 

$24,000 to $59,000 in administrative 

costs. This amounts to $2,000 to 

$600,000 in lost consumer surplus and 

$0 to $1.0 million in lost trip 

expenditures, annually. The draft 

environmental assessment finds that 

designation of critical habitat would not 

impose any physical alteration of the 

physical or biological communities used 

by the wintering population of the 

piping plover, nor would it alter any 

social, cultural, or recreational resources 

or the use of such resources beyond 

current conditions or existing 

management strategies. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted as they will be incorporated 

into the public record and fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: Written comments: We will 

accept public comments until July 30, 

2007. 

Public hearing: We will hold a public 

hearing on the proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat, and the 

draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment, from 5 p.m. 

to 7 p.m. on June 20, 2007. The public 

hearing will be preceded by a public 

information session from 4 p.m. to 5 

p.m. at the same location (see Public 

hearing under ADDRESSES). 

ADDRESSES: Written comments: If you 

wish to comment, you may submit your 

comments and information concerning 

this proposal, identified by ‘‘Attn: 

Wintering Piping Plover Critical 

Habitat,’’ by any one of the following 

methods: 

1. Mail to Pete Benjamin, Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Raleigh Field Office, P.O. Box 

33726, Raleigh, NC 27636–3726. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS