Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 29139

PART 202—REGISTRATION OF

CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT

3. The authority citation for part 202

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.

§ 202.23 [Amended]

4. Section 202.23(e)(1) and (2) are

amended by removing ‘‘$270.00’’ each

place it appears and adding in its place

‘‘$365.00.’’

PART 203—FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION ACT: POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES

5. The authority citation for part 203

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702; and 5 U.S.C.

552(a)(1).

§ 203.6 [Amended]

6. Section 203.6(b)(2) is amended by

removing ‘‘$7 for up to 15 pages and

$.45 per page over 15.’’ and adding in

its place ‘‘$15.00 for up to 15 pages and

$.50 per page over 15.’’.

PART 204—PRIVACY ACT: POLICIES

AND PROCEDURES

7. The authority citation for part 204

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702; and 5 U.S.C.

552(a).

§ 204.6 [Amended]

8. Section 204.6(a) is amended by

removing ‘‘$7 for up to 15 pages and

$.45 per page over 15.’’ and adding in

its place ‘‘$15.00 for up to 15 pages and

$.50 per page over 15.’’

PART 211—MASK WORK

PROTECTION

9. The authority citation for part 211

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702 and 908.

§ 211.3 [Amended]

10. In § 211.3(a)(1) and (2) remove

‘‘$20.00’’ each place it appears and add

in is place ‘‘$75.00.’’

11. In § 211.3(a)(7), remove ‘‘$330’’

and add in its place ‘‘$500.00.’’

Dated: May 20, 1998.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyright.

Approved by:

James H. Billington,

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 98–14086 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3870; Notice 7]

RIN 2127–AG81

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; School Bus Pedestrian

Safety Devices

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: The agency is amending

Standard No. 131, School Bus

Pedestrian Safety Devices, to permit the

use of additional light sources on the

surface of retroreflective stop signal

arms and to permit a certain amount of

the retroreflective surface to be obscured

by mounting hardware. It also makes

minor clarifications to the standard.

This responds to a petition from

Transpec, Inc., a maker of stop arms.

DATES: This rule will become effective

on May 28, 1998. Petitions for

reconsideration of this rule must be

received no later than July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket number and

notice number and be submitted in

writing to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington DC, 20590. Telephone:

(202) 366–5267

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues: Mr. Charles Hott,

Office of Crashworthiness Standards,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366–

0247.

For legal issues: Mr. Paul Atelsek,

Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC–20,

telephone (202) 366–2992, FAX (202)

366–3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 131, School bus

pedestrian safety devices 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, that automatically extends

outward from the bus to alert motorists

that a school bus is stopping or has

stopped.

To ensure the conspicuity of a stop

signal arm, Standard No. 131 specifies

that the device must either be

reflectorized or be equipped 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). NHTSA has

interpreted this language to mean that

Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) outlining

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

would not be permitted under the

reflectorization option because LEDs do

not meet the requirements for

reflectorized material.

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. The petition sought 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 inches) 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 inches) to

25 mm (0.8984 inches). The LEDs would

be required to flash at the rate specified

for stop arm lamps conforming to

S5.3.2. The petition also sought 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.

2. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)

On August 6, 1997, the agency

published a NPRM proposing to amend

the standard in most ways as requested

by Transpec. It proposed to permit light

to be emitted ‘‘from the surface of each

letter or from the area immediately

surrounding each letter’’ in the legend

‘‘STOP.’’ Lamps on the surface of the

letter would have to be located on the

centerline of each letter, or outline each

letter of the legend. The lamps on the

surface of the stop arm would have to

flash in the same manner as specified

for the lamps in non-reflectorized stop

arms. The net stroke width (i.e., the

stroke width minus the width of the

legend lamps) of each letter containing

lamps was proposed to be at least 15

mm, to assure that an acceptable

amount of white letter reflectorized

surface would be provided.

Rather than limit the permitted light

sources to LEDs, the agency was more

flexible than requested, proposing to

permit almost any type of light source

in the legend lamps. It proposed to

permit white lamps as well as red

lamps, but not both colors

simultaneously, on the assumption that
29140 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

white lamps might better illuminate the

white letters. It also proposed amending

S6.2.2.1 to eliminate the word

‘‘filament,’’ in order to permit other

non-filament light sources to be used in

the legend lamps. It also clarified that a

requirement on the ‘‘off’’ cycle time of

gaseous discharge lamps applied only to

xenon short-arc discharge lamps.

The agency proposed to permit

‘‘mounting brackets, bolts, or other

components necessary to the

mechanical or electrical operation of the

stop signal arm’’ to obscure up to 7.5

percent of the total surface area of either

side of the stop arm, and up to 10

percent of the white border.

Finally, the NPRM clarified that when

two stop arms are installed on the same

side of a bus, the forward side of the

rearmost stop signal shall not be

reflectorized. This was done to avoid

confusing drivers in the lanes of

opposing traffic as to where they should

stop relative to the school bus.

The agency also requested comment

on a wide range of issues, including: (1)

comments and test data about the

effectiveness of LED-equipped stop

signal arms as a means of enhancing

stop arm conspicuity, (2) the use of

other light sources, such as miniature

incandescent and neon light sources,

and their effectiveness, and the

possibility of confusion from mixed

light sources, (3) whether to allow use

of either red or white LEDs or other light

sources, or to allow only one color of

emitted light, (4) whether 7.5 percent,

the percentage of permitted obscuration

requested by Transpec, is an appropriate

amount, (5) what, if any, intensities and

test procedures should be required for

lamps used on stop arms. In addition,

the agency noted that the Society of

Automotive Engineers’ standards

referenced in FMVSS 131 are not

current and asked if it would be useful

to update some or all of these to the

latest versions and if there would be any

burden associated with making such

changes, (6) whether light sources

should be allowed to outline each letter

rather than be centered on each letter,

and (7) whether an immediate effective

date is appropriate.

3. Summary of Comments

Comments were submitted by sixteen

State departments of education or

school districts, Mr. Harry Gough, P.E.,

and two stop arm manufacturers,

Transpec and Specialty Manufacturing.

Six of the school district comments

were forwarded by Transpec. Two

national student transportation

organizations commented, the National

School Transportation Association

(NSTA) and the National Association of

State Directors of Pupil Transportation

Services (NASDPTS).

The Florida Department of Education

conducted a comparative test program

involving school buses and three stop

arm designs: standard reflective stop

arms with incandescent lights; stoparms using strobe lights; and Transpec

LED-equipped stop arms. Fifteen

different Florida school districts tested

the three stop arm designs for 20 school

days each. Although the results were

not statistically significant, the Florida

study concluded that the LED and the

strobe lighted stops were ‘‘no less

effective’’ at stopping traffic than the

incandescent lighted stop arms Florida

currently uses. The study also

concluded that the raw data tend to

indicate ‘‘some improvement’’ at

stopping traffic by both the strobe and

the LED type stop arms over the

incandescent lighted stop arm. The

strobe lighted stop arm had a ‘‘small

advantage’’ over the LED stop arm at

stopping traffic.

All other commenting States and

school districts that had conducted pilot

tests liked the Transpec LED stop arm.

Most stated that it reduced the number

of illegally passing motorists and was

more visible than the ‘‘standard’’ stop

arm, although it was not always clear

what they were comparing it to.

Most commenters that addressed the

issue supported the idea of allowing

other light sources. Transpec stated that

NHTSA should establish performance

requirements for other light sources, but

that NHTSA’s consideration of other

light sources should not delay the

implementation of LEDs.

No commenters objected to the use of

other light sources. Transpec submitted

the only comment to address the

potential for confusion caused by the

LEDs and other light sources. It stated

that the potential confusion would not

be so great as the confusion caused

between the flashing lights and

reflectorized versions already allowed

by the standard.

A number of commenters expressed

the opinion that only red lights should

be permitted in or around the legend.

NSTA, Transpec and Specialty all

commented that these lights should be

red because red is the color that is

currently used in all traffic lights that

denote that the motorist must stop.

Transpec stated that white lights do not

create in a driver the same sense of

urgency as red lights. In addition,

Transpec stated that white lights

introduce a third lighting color (i.e., red,

amber, and white) to the school bus that

could detract from the ‘‘STOP’’ message.

Two commenters were concerned

about the intensity of LEDs. Specialty

believed that LEDs were less visible

when viewed from an angle (as when

viewed across multiple lanes) and that

side angle viewing should be studied. It

also believed that LEDs are less visible

when viewed in direct sunlight. In

contrast, a school district that had pilot

tested the LED stop arm believed that

LEDs were more effective than the

incandescent lights in bright sunshine.

Specialty provided test results showing

that LEDs do not pass the light

specifications for incandescent lamps in

Society of Automotive Engineers

Recommended Practice J1133, School

Bus Stop Arms. Mr. Gough also stated

that, based on testing, LEDs produce

only one third the intensity of light as

incandescent lamps. He stated that

NHTSA should establish minimum

intensity levels for LEDs.

Transpec indicated that it had

developed a prototype LED-equipped

stop arm with the LEDs outlining the

word stop, but that the design was

flawed because it had a ‘‘Christmas

tree’’ effect (i.e., appearing as a random

field of lights distracting the observer

and resulting in diminished readability).

Transpec urged NHTSA not to allow

such a configuration of lights unless

further testing was conducted.

The only commenter to address the

appropriateness of allowing obscuration

of up to 7.5 percent of the retroreflective

surface of the stop arm was Specialty.

Specialty stated that the proposed 7.5

percent figure was too great, and that

obscuring more than 2 or 3 percent of

the retroreflective material would

significantly reduce the effectiveness of

the stop arm because the retroreflective

material does the work of alerting the

motorist.

Comment was mixed on the

appropriateness of obscuring up to 10

percent of the white border of the stop

arm. Specialty believed that limiting the

border obscurement to 10 percent may

cause some difficulty in mounting

because some stop arms would have to

be positioned farther outward, which it

believes would cause them to protrude

so far out from the side of the school bus

that the bus would exceed the

maximum width under some State laws.

Some states have laws that limit the

distance a stop arm can extend from the

side of a school bus. Requiring that no

more than 10 percent of the border be

obscured would lead to additional

tooling cost for manufacturers.

However, the NSTA stated that 10

percent was an appropriate maximum.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 29141

4. Discussion

A. Stop Arm Effectiveness

NHTSA agrees with the commenters

who stated that effectiveness should be

the prime consideration in whether or

not to amend the standard. NSTA

expressed doubt that adding lights

would solve the problem of illegally

passing motorists, but both it and the

NASDPTS stated that NHTSA should

base its decision on ultimate

effectiveness. All field testing indicates

that the Transpec stop arm is at least as

effective as other stop arms that the

agency permits in preventing motorists

from illegally passing. The agency found

the Florida study to be the most helpful

because it was the largest study to

provide comparative data.

Although statistically significant data

would be preferable, the agency is not

constrained from acting without it. The

reactions to the field tests of the LEDequipped stop arm were positive, and

NHTSA considers this a sufficient basis

on which to act. The Clark County

(Nev.) School District, for example, has

employed over 230 school buses

equipped with the LED stop arm over

the past five months and feels they are

superior. Considering the positive test

results, the agency has decided to

permit LED-equipped stop arms.

B. Alternative Light Sources

The agency agrees with Transpec that

the standard should not prevent other

light sources from being used in the

legend of the stop arm. No commenter

opposed other light sources. The agency

notes that Standard No. 131 is a design

standard only to the extent that it

promotes uniformity. The agency did

not propose to allow only LEDs as

additional light sources, as Transpec’s

comment implies. Any light source that

meets the performance requirements of

this rule is permitted.

C. Intensity of Lights in the Legend

Specialty and Mr. Gough expressed

concern over the lower intensity of

LEDs and the inability to see them at

angles or in bright sunlight, and

encouraged the agency to set intensity

requirements. Transpec also suggested

that NHTSA set performance standards

for light sources other than LEDs.

However, at this time there are no

industry standards for the intensity of

lights used in the legend of school bus

stop arms.

As stated above, the primary

consideration is effectiveness. In the

field testing, the LEDs that are currently

used in the legend of stop arms did not

appear to have a negative effect on a

driver’s ability to see the extended stop

arm. Therefore, the agency does not

believe there is currently a need to set

intensity requirements. NHTSA will

monitor the situation closely. Should

manufacturers offer excessively dim

lights that do not adequately substitute

for the light ‘‘lost’’ by obscuring the

retroreflective material, or excessively

bright lights that interfere with the

drivers’ of other vehicles ability to see,

the agency will consider developing

intensity requirements.

D. Color of Light Sources

The agency finds persuasive the

arguments of NSTA, Transpec and

Specialty that lights in the legend

should be red and not white. Red is the

color that is currently used in all traffic

lights that denote that the motorist must

stop (e.g., brake lights, traffic lights,

railroad crossing lights). Therefore, the

rule has been modified from the

proposal to state that red is the only

light color that is acceptable in the

legend of school bus stop arms.

E. Amount of Retroreflective Surface

That May Be Obscured

Only Specialty commented on the

amount of surface area and white border

that could be obstructed on a school bus

stop arm. The NPRM proposed that no

more that 7.5 percent of the total surface

area be obstructed. Specialty questioned

whether 7.5 percent was needed, stating

that no more than 2–3 percent of the

total surface area of current stop arm

designs will be obstructed by the wires

and support clips running to surface

mount lamps. Specialty also suggested

that permitting the obscuration of 7.5

percent of the reflective surface could

have a safety impact. It stated that the

more retroreflective material that is

obscured, the less noticeable the stop

arm becomes. It concluded that

obscuring more than 2–3 percent of the

retroreflective material would

significantly reduce the effectiveness of

the stop arm.

During a May 7, 1998 telephone

conversation with Specialty’s

Engineering Manager, Specialty revised

its position on this issue. It referred to

an industry-wide market survey of

current stop arms showing that

mounting brackets currently obscure up

to 6.3 percent of the retroreflective

material. Since a small amount of

additional retroreflective material might

be obscured by bolts and other

necessary components, Specialty now

takes the position that permitting up to

7.5 percent obscuration is appropriate,

since it is needed by the industry for

current designs, and would not

significantly reduce the effectiveness of

the stop arm.

Ultimately, there was no opposition to

permitting 7.5 percent obscuration. The

market survey referred to by Specialty

adds support for the proposed amount

by indicating that current stop arm

designs require this provision.

Therefore, the proposed 7.5 percent

obscuration permitted for brackets,

bolts, or other components is retained in

the final rule.

F. Amount of White Border That May Be

Obscured

The amount of white border that may

be obstructed proved to be more

controversial. The NPRM proposed

allowing up to 10 percent of this border

be obstructed. Specialty argued that

more of the border should be allowed to

be obstructed for two reasons.

First, Specialty attempted to define

the role of the white border. It argued

that the purpose of the white border is

to provide a clear border definition and

an enhanced contrast between the

retroreflective material and the

background (i.e., the area behind the

stop arm). Specialty concluded that ‘‘the

border does not alert [the] motorist to

the stop arm, the retroreflective material

does that.’’

This argument is not persuasive

because, as stated in NHTSA’s

November 1, 1995 interpretation to

Specialty, the ‘‘entire surface’’ of the

stop arm is required to be reflectorized,

including the white border. Since the

white border is retroreflective, it

contributes to the light returning to the

drivers of other vehicles, while the area

that NHTSA is allowing to be obstructed

does not. As Specialty noted, the white

border also provides contrast. Therefore,

NHTSA also considers the border to be

important in attracting the motorist’s

attention.

Second, Specialty argued that stop

arms require mounting brackets to

mount the stop arm to the school bus

and the mounting brackets may obscure

part of the border, and that requiring no

more than 10 percent of the border to be

obscured would lead to additional

tooling costs for manufacturers to devise

methods for putting the stop arm blades

further outboard without violating State

laws.

This argument is persuasive. It was

not the intent of the NPRM to change

the way existing stop arms are mounted

on school buses. The intent was to

provide a basis for the amount of white

border that could be obstructed by

mounting and operational hardware.

Some obscuration is a practical

necessity for mounting the stop arm

blade in a cost-effective manner.

Specialty did not offer the percentage of

white border that is obstructed on
29142 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

current stop arms. Agency staff looked

at various models of stop arms and

concluded that, at most, 15 percent of

the white border is obstructed by

mounting hardware. Therefore, S5.1.2

has been changed to permit 15 percent

obscuration of the white border.

G. Outlining Versus Centering the

Lamps in the Legend

Transpec was the only commenter to

address the issue of placement of the

lights in or around the legend. Its

recommendation against placement on

the border of the legend was based on

its desire to avoid a ‘‘Christmas tree

effect’’ it found in one of its prototypes.

As stated in NHTSA’s November 1, 1995

interpretation letter to Specialty, widely

spaced lights ‘‘could appear as a random

field of lights (like a Christmas tree),

distracting the observer and resulting in

diminished readability.’’ Transpec

therefore recommends restricting light

placement to a location ‘‘centered’’

within the letters.

The agency notes that this ‘‘Christmas

tree effect’’ is caused more by excessive

spacing between adjacent lights than by

their placement relative to the legend.

The effect can also be caused by lights

centered in the legend’s letters, if the

spacing between the lights is too great.

Conversely, the effect can be avoided

with lights placed around the perimeter

of the legend’s letters if the lights are

located close enough together.

The option for placing the lamps

around the border is being retained in

the final rule. The agency does not

believe it is currently necessary to

regulate the spacing of the lights in or

around the legend. The optimum

spacing might vary according to the

lamp intensity, lamp size, and legend

letter size. NHTSA will monitor the

products being offered and will consider

specifying light spacing if it finds stop

arms being produced with LEDs that

impair the effectiveness the stop arm,

regardless of whether they are centered

in, or arranged around the border of, the

letters.

H. Effective Date

Some commenters urged delaying the

effective date. Specialty recommended

that the effective date of these

amendments be delayed until extensive

testing is conducted, out of a concern

that pushing untested, potentially

nonbeneficial technologies quickly to

market would not be in the interest of

the general public. The NSTA, the

NASDPTS, Mr. Gough, and a few other

commenters also encouraged NHTSA to

conduct extensive testing before

promulgating the rule.

Other commenters, notably Transpec

and some States and school districts

that liked Transpec’s stop arm, urged an

immediate effective date. The primary

reason given was that to delay

implementation would perpetuate

confusion and ambiguity over

Transpec’s LED-equipped stop arm and

delay arrival of a beneficial technology

in the market.

The agency concludes that an

immediate effective date is warranted.

Field testing indicates that the Transpec

stop arm is at least as effective as

existing stop arms in stopping motorists

from illegally passing stopped school

buses. The commenters who encouraged

more extensive testing did not have the

benefit of the results of the Florida

study and may not have realized the

large number of smaller pilot test

programs being conducted by the other

States and school districts when they

composed their comments. The agency

considers this field testing to be

sufficient.

This amendment is permissive only,

so there is no burden associated with an

immediate effective date. Since the LEDequipped stop arms seem effective,

there is no reason to delay their entry

into the marketplace.

I. Miscellaneous issues

There was no comment on several

aspects of the proposal, and these

elements are maintained in the final

rule. These include: (1) the proposal to

use a diminished ‘‘net stroke width’’ of

the letters in the legend to account for

the width of the lights centered within

them; (2) the removal of the word

‘‘filament’’ in S6.2.2.1 to remove the

restriction against non-filament light

sources; (3) the addition of the words

‘‘xenon short arc’’ clarification that the

requirements of S6.2.2.2 apply only to

that type of gaseous discharge lamp; and

(4) the addition of a requirement in

S5.3.1.3 that the forward side of the

rearmost stop signal not be reflectorized

if there are forward and rearward stop

arms.

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, because the

Office of Management and Budget

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,

there are no cost impacts. Because stop

arms with legend lamps are optional,

the agency assumes those companies

availing themselves of the option would

be maximizing benefits with respect to

any added costs associated with legend

lamps.

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

certify that the amendment will not

have significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility

analysis has not been performed.

The following is NHTSA’s statement

providing the factual basis for

certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). Because

Standard No. 131 applies to vehicles

rather than stop arms as items of motor

vehicle equipment, the rule applies

primarily to school bus manufacturers.

The school bus industry is dominated

by two companies that are not small

entities, but there are a few school bus

manufacturers that are small entities.

All school buses are required to be

equipped with stop arms. However, this

rule imposes no requirements, but

merely allows school bus manufacturers

to have more choice in the stop arm

designs they order. The rule is thus

beneficial to vehicle manufacturers, and

has no negative economic impact.

All stop arm manufacturers known to

the agency are small entities. They

might be affected in the sense that

market share might shift among them if

school bus manufacturers choose to

purchase stop arms with legend lights.

Transpec is the only company known by

the agency to produce stop arms with

legend lamps. However, NHTSA does

not know if Transpec’s design will be

widely accepted in the marketplace,

either by school bus manufacturers for

installation on new buses, or in the

aftermarket. In addition, this rule

provides flexibility for other

manufacturers to produce their own

legend lamp-equipped stop arm designs.

Therefore, the agency does not view this

rule as either conferring a competitive

advantage or imposing a negative

impact on any stop arm manufacturer.

C. Federalism Assessment

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 29143

12612. NHTSA has determined that the

rulemaking does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule does not impose any unfunded

mandates on State, local, or tribal

governments as defined by the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(2 U.S.C. 1532–38).

D. 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.

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

continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50

2. Section 571.131 is 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,

S5.3.1.2, and S5.3.1.3 to read as follows:

§ 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 15 percent of the

border on each side of the stop arm. The

portion of the border that may be

obscured is in addition to that portion

which may be obscured by the two red

lamps specified in S5.3.2.

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, or S5.3.1.3, 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 lamps

may be used. 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 shape of each letter shall remain

constant and, if the lamps are contained

within each letter, the net stroke width

(stroke width minus 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 inch). When the stop

arm is extended, the lamps shall flash

at the rate specified in S6.2.2, with a

current ‘‘on’’ time specified in S6.2.2.1.

All lamps shall be positioned in one of

the two following ways:

(1) centered within the stroke of each

letter of the legend, or

(2) outlining each letter of the legend.

S5.3.1.2 Nonreflectorized mounting

brackets, clips, 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: May 22, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–14110 Filed 5–22–98; 3:07 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P