[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42226-42229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20574]


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

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

[[Page 42227]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transpec 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 LED-equipped stop 
arms in their home states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Illegal Passing of Stopped School Buses in Florida, 
University of South Florida College of Engineering at vii (February 
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 LED-equipped 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 non-halogen 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

[[Page 42228]]

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 self-addressed, 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

Sec. 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:

[[Page 42229]]

Sec. 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