42226 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed on behalf of KSLS, Inc., licensee of

Station KSCI(TV), Channel 18, San

Bernardino, California, requesting the

reallotment of Channel 18 from San

Bernardino to Long Beach, California, as

that community’s first local television

transmission service and modification

of its authorization accordingly,

pursuant to the provisions of § 1.420(i)

of the Commission’s Rules. Coordinates

used for Channel 18 at Long Beach are

34–11–15 and 117–41–54. Although

Long Beach is located within 320

kilometers (199 miles) of the United

States-Mexico border, concurrence of

the Mexican government to this

proposal is not required based upon the

proposed retention of the existing

channel and transmitter site of Station

KSCI(TV). Rather, if the reallotment

proposal is granted, the Mexican

government will be advised of the

change to the TV Table of Allotments at

the conclusion of the proceeding.

Although the Commission has

imposed a freeze on the TV Table of

Allotments in certain metropolitan

areas, including Los Angeles, the freeze

is not applicable to changes requested

by existing stations. See Advanced

Television Systems and Their Impact on

the Existing Television Broadcast

Service, Order, 52 FR 28346, July 29,

1987. While this proposal does not

impact on the present draft digital

television (‘‘DTV’’) allotment table, any

resultant changes to the TV Table of

Allotments presented by the petitioner’s

proposal may be conditioned on the

outcome of the DTV rule making

proceeding. See Sixth Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

87–268, 11 FCC Rcd 10968 (1996), at

paragraph 61; 61 FR 43209, August 21,

1996.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before September 22, 1997, and reply

comments on or before October 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Kenneth

E. Satten and Christine V. Simpson,

Esqs., Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer &

Quinn, 1735 New York Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–170, adopted July 23, 1997, and

released August 1, 1997. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,

(202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–20660 Filed 8–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 90–01; Notice 6]

RIN 2127–AG81

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; School Bus Pedestrian

Safety Devices

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for

rulemaking from Transpec Inc., this

document proposes to amend Standard

No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety

Devices, with respect to the conspicuity

requirements for stop signal arms.

Specifically, the agency would amend

the standard to permit the use of

additional light sources on the surface

of retroreflective stop signal arms.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before October 6, 1997.

Effective Date: The amendments made

by this rulemaking would be effective

[Insert date of publication of the final

rule in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice numbers above

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours

are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Mr. Charles Hott,

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366–

0247.

For legal issues: Mr. Paul Atelsek,

Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–20,

telephone (202) 366–2992, FAX (202)

366–3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 3, 1991, NHTSA published a

final rule establishing Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School

bus pedestrian safety devices (56 FR

20363). The standard requires each new

school bus to be equipped with a stop

signal arm. A stop signal arm is a device

patterned after a conventional ‘‘STOP’’

sign and attached to the driver’s side of

a school bus. When the school bus’s red

signal lights are activated, the stop

signal arm automatically extends

outward from the bus. Its purpose is to

alert motorists that a school bus is

stopping or has stopped. The standard

specifies requirements about the stop

signal arm’s appearance, size,

conspicuity, operation and location.

To ensure the conspicuity of a stop

signal arm, Standard No. 131 specifies

that the device must either be

reflectorized or be illuminated with

flashing lamps. If reflectorization is

used to comply with the standard, ‘‘the

entire surface of both sides of the stop

signal arm’’ must be reflectorized.

(S5.3.1, emphasis added) If flashing

lamps are used to comply with the

standard, S5.3.2 requires the lamps to

comply with the location and

performance requirements set forth in

S6.2 of the Standard.

In a November 21, 1995, letter from

NHTSA’s Chief Counsel to Specialty

Manufacturing Company, a

manufacturer of stop signal arms,

NHTSA addressed the use of Light

Emitting Diodes (LEDs) to outline the

word ‘‘Stop’’ on the stop arm blade. In

that letter, the agency stated that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42227

1Transpec also submitted a petition under 49

CFR part 555 for a temporary exemption from

compliance with motor vehicle standards. Since

part 555 applies only to manufacturers of motor

vehicles, this procedure for a temporary exemption

is not applicable to Transpec, a manufacturer of

motor vehicle equipment.

2 Illegal Passing of Stopped School Buses in

Florida, University of South Florida College of

Engineering at vii (February 1996).

because the LEDs would obscure a

portion of the surface that is required to

be reflectorized, LEDs would not be

permitted under the reflectorization

option (S5.3.1) but could be used in

conjunction with flashing lamps under

the flashing lamp option (S5.3.2).

II. Petition for Rulemaking

On April 24, 1997, the law firm of

Winston and Strawn, on behalf of its

client, Transpec, Inc. (Transpec),

submitted a petition for rulemaking

requesting that S5.3.1 of the standard be

amended to allow the use of LEDs on

stop signal arms.1 The petition seeks to

amend the section to permit red LEDs

on the surface of the stop arm that are

‘‘contained within a light channel not

greater than 10mm (.394 inch) wide

centered within the stroke width of each

letter.’’ Under the requested

amendment, the minimum stroke width

of letters containing LEDs would be

increased from 20 mm (0.79 inch) to 25

mm (0.8984 inch). The LEDs would be

required to flash at the rate specified for

stop arm lamps conforming to S5.3.2.

The petitioner believes that such an

amendment would increase the

conspicuity and the readability of

school bus stop arms.

The petition also seeks to permit a

percentage of the surface area of the stop

arm to be obscured by mounting

brackets and other necessary

components, with the aggregate area

obscured by the LEDs and other

components not to exceed 7.5 percent of

the surface area of the stop arm.

In support of its petition, Transpec

cited a study by the University of South

Florida showing that a significant

percentage of motorists are passing

stopped school buses, despite the use of

the stop arms currently required by

Standard No. 131.2 In Transpec’s view,

the amendments it proposed would

reduce the incidence of illegal passing

by motorists and increase safety for

children exiting school buses. Transpec

also stated that LEDs on the stop signal

arm would not alter the fundamental

appearance of the stop arm and would

thus not confuse interstate motorists,

who might not have encountered LEDequipped stop arms in their home states.

III. Agency’s Decision

NHTSA has decided to grant

Transpec’s petition and to propose

amending Standard No. 131 to permit

the use of additional light sources on

retroreflective stop signal arms. The

agency regards such an amendment to

be consistent with the agency’s intent

that the reflectorization and lighting

requirements assure the conspicuity of

stop signal arms. The agency has

granted similar petitions in the past. In

response to a petition seeking to

facilitate the use of strobe lamps on stop

arms, NHTSA amended Standard No.

131 on March 24, 1994 (59 FR 26759),

to remove design-restrictive language

specifying a flash rate that effectively

prohibited strobe lamps. The agency

noted that its primary concern was to

‘‘assure the conspicuity of stop signal

arms.’’ The agency continues to believe

that this is the most important

consideration in regulating the

conspicuity of stop signal arms.

In proposing to adopt the substance of

the amendments sought by Transpec,

NHTSA requests comments and test

data about the effectiveness of LEDequipped stop signal arms as a means of

enhancing stop-arm conspicuity.

Because LED light sources are not the

only means for achieving an illuminated

legend, NHTSA also requests comment

on the use of other light sources, such

as miniature incandescent and neon

light sources, and their effectiveness.

In the final rule establishing Standard

No. 131, NHTSA emphasized that

uniformity was necessary to ensure that

school bus stopping and signaling

procedures give passing motorists a

consistent message throughout the

country. By standardizing the color

scheme, shape, and word STOP, the

agency sought to ensure that a driver

traveling in a different State would

encounter the ‘‘same familiar stop sign

design throughout the country.’’ (56 FR

20363, 20366). While the agency

tentatively agrees with Transpec’s

assessment that the LED-equipped stop

arms would not create confusion, it

requests comments on this issue relative

to LEDs and other sources that could be

used for legend illumination.

With respect to the details of

Transpec’s request, the agency is

concerned that specifying red as the

color for light sources may restrict the

use of other colors. It may be that white

light sources would provide equivalent

conspicuity, since the lettering being

enhanced is white. The agency requests

comment on whether to allow use of

either red or white LEDs or other light

sources, or to allow only one color of

emitted light. Rather than limit the

permitted light sources to LEDs, as

proposed by Transpec, the agency is

proposing to permit any type of light

source in the legend lamps. In addition

to LEDs, miniature halogen and nonhalogen light sources, and neon long-arc

discharge sources are becoming

common in automotive signal lighting.

In view of the availability of these other

light sources, the agency is proposing to

amend S6.2.2.1 to eliminate the word

‘‘filament’’ to remove this as a

restriction against non-filament light

sources that could be used in the legend

lamps.

There is the potential for confusion in

existing S6.2.2.2 with the term ‘‘gaseous

discharge lamp’’ because it covers a

broad range of light sources. It can apply

not only to the intended xenon short-arc

discharge lamps already permitted, but

to long-arc neon and other gaseous

discharge light sources. Yet these other

sources are not necessarily handicapped

by having the short ‘‘on’’ time

performance as the xenon short-arc

sources. Thus, most other discharge-arc

sources can comply with the duty cycle

requirements of S6.2.2.1 as stated above.

To eliminate the potential for confusion,

S6.2.2.2, which has been intended to

address only xenon short-arc discharge

sources, is proposed to be amended to

state specifically that it applies only to

such sources.

Given that NHTSA considers the

conspicuity of the stop arm to be

paramount, the agency seeks comment

on what, if any, intensities and test

procedures should be required for lamps

used on stop arms. In addition, NHTSA

notes that the Society of Automotive

Engineers standards referenced in

FMVSS 131 are not current. Would it be

useful to update some or all of these to

the latest versions? Would there be any

burden associated with making such

changes?

In proposing the option of additional

light sources on the surface of

retroreflective stop arms, NHTSA is

proposing regulatory language to

accommodate reasonably-foreseeable

designs other than Transpec’s. For

example, Transpec’s design has LEDs

centered within each letter of the word

STOP. However, another approach

would be to outline each letter of the

word STOP with light sources. In

addition, Transpec proposed that the

minimum stroke width of letters

containing LEDs be increased from 20

mm to 25 mm, perhaps to partially

compensate for the loss of retroreflective

material in the area occupied by the

9.52 mm-wide LEDs within each letter.

Instead, NHTSA is proposing that the

‘‘net stroke width’’ (the stroke width

minus the lamps’ width) of each letter
42228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

containing lamps be at least 15 mm.

This approach would accommodate the

Transpec design, while also

accommodating other possible designs

such as outlining the inside perimeter of

each letter with white lamps. (A design

that, for example, outlined the outside

perimeter of each letter with red lamps

would remain subject to the existing 20

mm minimum stroke width.)

In response to a separate request in

the Transpec petition, NHTSA is also

proposing to amend S5.3.1 to specify

the maximum amount of the

reflectorized surface that may be

obscured by nonreflectorized

attachment and electrical components.

The agency is proposing that

nonreflectorized materials, such as

mounting brackets, bolts, and other

necessary components, may not obscure

more than 7.5 percent of the total

surface area of either side of a stop

signal arm. The agency requests

comments about this proposed

requirement and whether 7.5 percent,

the percentage requested by Transpec, is

an appropriate amount. NHTSA is

proposing a similar amendment to

S5.2.1 to provide that the portion of the

white border that may be obscured by

attachment hardware or other

components shall not exceed 10

percent.

Since the proposed amendments

would permit an optional method of

compliance with S5.3.1, and would thus

not impose a new requirement on any

manufacturer, NHTSA considers that

good cause exists for proposing an

immediate effective date for the

amendments. The agency requests

comments on whether an immediate

effective date would be appropriate.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal

Regulation) and DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures

This notice was not reviewed under

Executive Order 12866, the Office of

Management and Budget having

determined that it is not significant

within the definitions of the Executive

Order. NHTSA has analyzed this

rulemaking and determined that it is not

significant within the meaning of the

Department of Transportation regulatory

policies and procedures. The agency has

determined that the economic effects of

the amendment would be so minimal

that a full regulatory evaluation is not

required. Since the amendment would

impose no new requirement but simply

would allow for an alternative design,

any cost impacts would be in the nature

of slight, nonquantifiable cost savings.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, NHTSA has evaluated

the effects of this rulemaking on small

entities. Based on this evaluation, I

hereby certify that the amendment

would not have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Few of the school bus

manufacturers qualify as small entities.

In addition, manufacturers of motor

vehicles, small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

units that purchase motor vehicles

would not be significantly affected by

the amendments. Accordingly, a

regulatory flexibility analysis has not

been performed.

C. Federalism Assessment

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612. NHTSA has determined that the

rulemaking would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

D. Environmental Impacts

In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

NHTSA has considered the

environmental impacts of this rule. The

agency has determined that this rule

would not have a significant effect on

the quality of the human environment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

This rule has no retroactive effect.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard is

in effect, a State may not adopt or

maintain a safety standard applicable to

the same aspect of performance which

is not identical to the Federal standard,

except to the extent that the state

requirement imposes a higher level of

performance and applies only to

vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49

U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for

judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

Public Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. The NHTSA will

continue to file relevant information as

it becomes available in the docket after

the closing date, and it is recommended

that interested persons continue to

examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50

§ 571.131 [Amended]

2. Section 571.131 would be amended

by revising S5.2.1, S5.2.2, S5.3.1,

S6.2.2.1 and S6.2.2.2, and by adding

S5.3.1.1 through S5.3.1.3 to read as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42229

§ 571.131 Standard No. 131, School bus

pedestrian safety devices.

* * * * *

S5.2.1 The stop signal arm shall

have a white border at least 12 mm (0.47

inches) wide on both sides, except as

provided in S5.2.3. Mounting brackets,

clips, bolts, or other components

necessary to the mechanical or electrical

operation of the stop signal arm may not

obscure more than 10 percent of the

border.

S.5.2.2 The stop signal arm shall

have the word ‘‘STOP’’ displayed in

white upper-case letters on both sides,

except as provided in S5.2.3. The letters

shall be at least 150 mm (5.9 inches) in

height. The letters shall have a stroke

width of at least 20 mm (0.79 inches),

except as provided in S.5.3.1.1.

* * * * *

S5.3.1 Except as provided in

S5.3.1.1, S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, or S5.3.1.4,

the entire surface of both sides of each

stop signal arm shall be reflectorized

with Type III retroreflectorized material

that meets the minimum specific

intensity requirements of S6.1 and Table

I.

S.5.3.1.1 The legend of the

retroreflective stop arm may be

illuminated in a manner such that light

is emitted from the surface of each letter

or from the area immediately

surrounding each letter. Only red or

white lamps may be used, and all such

lamps shall be of one color. They shall

form the complete shape of each letter

of the legend, and shall be affixed to all

letters (or to the areas immediately

surrounding all letters) in the legend.

The width of each letter shall remain

constant. The lamps shall either lie on

the centerline of each letter of the

legend or outline each letter of the

legend. If the lamps are contained

within each letter, the net stroke width

(not including the width of the lamp(s))

of each letter of the legend specified in

S5.2.2 shall not be less than 15 mm

(0.59 inches). When the stop arm is

extended, the lamps shall flash at the

rate specified in S6.2.2, with a current

‘‘on’’ time that complies with S6.2.2.1.

S5.3.1.2 Nonreflectorized mounting

brackets, bolts, or other components

necessary to the mechanical or electrical

operation of the stop signal arm shall

not obscure more than 7.5 percent of the

total surface area of either side of the

stop signal arm.

S5.3.1.3 When two stop signal arms

are installed on a school bus, the

forward side of the rearmost stop signal

arm shall not be reflectorized.

* * * * *

S6.2.2.1 Lamps, except those subject

to S6.2.2.2, shall have a current ‘‘on’’

time of 30 to 75 percent of the total flash

cycle. The total current ‘‘on’’ time for

the two terminals shall be between 90

and 110 percent of the total flash cycle.

S6.2.2.2 Xenon short-arc gaseous

discharge lamps shall have an ‘‘off’’

time before each flash of at least 50

percent of the total flash cycle.

* * * * *

Issued on: July 31, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–20574 Filed 8–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P