Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38797

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking document was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ This action has been

determined to be insignificant under the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures.

NHTSA believes that this proposal, if

adopted, would result in no additional

cost to manufacturers and consumers as

the proposal would only expand

available options for the design of a

telltale for factory-installed air bag onoff switches. Accordingly, the agency

believes that the economic impacts of

this proposal would be so minimal as

not to warrant the preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

As explained above, this proposal

would have minimal economic impact.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this

proposed rule under the National

Environmental Policy Act and

determined that it would not have a

significant impact on the human

environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this proposed rule

would not have significant federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have

any 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.

V. Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this proposal. It is

requested but not required that two

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 the

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and two copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to Docket Management. 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 by NHTSA

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. Comments on

the proposal will be available for

inspection in the docket. NHTSA will

continue to file relevant information as

it becomes available in the docket after

the closing date, and recommends 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, it is

proposed that 49 CFR Part 571 be

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.

2. Paragraph S4.5.4.3 of Section

571.208 would be revised to read as

follows:

§ 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant

crash protection.

* * * * *

S4.5.4.3 A telltale light in the

interior of the vehicle shall be

illuminated whenever the passenger air

bag is turned off by means of the on-off

switch. The telltale shall be clearly

visible to occupants of all front seating

positions. The telltale:

(a) Shall be yellow;

(b) Shall have the identifying words

‘‘PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF’’ on the

telltale or within 25 millimeters of the

telltale;

(c) Shall remain illuminated for the

entire time that the air bag is ‘‘off’’;

(d) Shall not be illuminated at any

time when the air bag is ‘‘on’’; and,

(e) Shall not be combined with the

readiness indicator required by S4.5.2 of

this standard.

* * * * *

Issued on July 14, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–19155 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking;

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.
38798 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: This document denies Mr.

John K. Roberts’ petition to amend

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective

devices, and associated equipment, to

add requirements regarding the

maximum time for a stop lamp to reach

90 percent of its required illumination.

A requirement of this nature could be

met using currently-available

technology such as light emitting diodes

(LEDs), neon lamps, hot filament

systems, or shuttered systems. However,

the costs associated with such a

requirement would be far in excess of its

benefits.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Chris Flanigan, Office of Safety

Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Mr. Flanigan’s telephone number

is: (202) 366–4918. His facsimile

number is (202) 366–4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter

dated March 29, 1997, Mr. Roberts

petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS

No. 108 to create a stop lamp ‘‘rise

time’’ requirement. He suggested that

the standard require stop lamps to reach

90 percent of their presently-required

intensity within 75 milliseconds (ms)

following actuation. Conventional

incandescent lamps take about 250 ms

to reach 90 percent of their required

intensity. In an emergency stop

situation, this decrease in illumination

time would allow an extra fraction of a

second (approximately 1⁄6th of a

second), for a following driver’s brake

actuation time.

Vehicle manufacturers could meet

this requirement by using one of four

currently available technologies. LED

and neon lamps, which are both used on

current vehicles, could meet the

requirement as suggested by Mr.

Roberts. These types of lamp systems

can illuminate to 90 percent of their

required intensity in well under 75 ms.

Another method of meeting the

suggested requirement would be to use

a hot filament incandescent lamp. For

this type of system, a conventional

incandescent lamp would be constantly

supplied with a low voltage which

would not be enough to illuminate the

lamp, but would decrease the

illumination time. This is because the

lamp is already supplied with a portion

of the energy required for illumination.

Finally, a shuttered light system could

be used to comply. This type of system

uses a centralized light source and

individually shuttered fiber optic

bundles to distribute and modulate the

light sent to the stop lamps.

Mr. Roberts stated that Standard No.

108 should address the time lag

occurring between the actuation of stop

lamps and their rise to effective levels

of intensity. He believes that the

demands on a driver are much greater

today than when the standard was

promulgated, and therefore, this aspect

of stop lamp systems should be

regulated. He cites several vehicle

design trends which lead him to believe

that minimum stop lamp rise times are

necessary. These include: enhanced

capability for some vehicles to

decelerate abruptly due to improved

brakes, tires, and suspension systems;

the use of lighter (and more electrically

resistive) vehicle wiring harnesses to

improve vehicle fuel economy; and

increasingly overburdened vehicle

electrical supply systems. He states that

a vehicle travels seven meters or nearly

1.5 car-lengths at typical highway

speeds during a typical incandescent

lamp’s 250 ms rise time.

Agency Position

Based on NHTSA’s analyses, the

requirement that Mr. Roberts suggested

would produce relatively minor

benefits. A May 1993 DOT report,

‘‘Assessment of IVHS Countermeasures

for Collision Avoidance: Rear end

Crashes,’’ (DOT HS 807 995) found that

both vehicles were moving in only 25

percent of all rear-end crashes. Further,

in only four percent of these crashes

was ‘‘following too closely’’ or

‘‘tailgating’’ cited as the principal cause.

With respect to this one percent of all

rear-end crashes (four percent of 25

percent), Mr. Roberts’ suggestion would

only provide a benefit if all the

following conditions were met

simultaneously: (1) The following driver

is attentive enough to notice a 1⁄4th

second decrease in stop lamp actuation

time; (2) the following distance is so

short that the following driver cannot

apply the brake fast enough to avoid the

collision; (3) the lead driver decelerates

so rapidly that the following driver

cannot apply the brake fast enough to

avoid a collision, and; (4) the following

driver applies the brake upon first

seeing the stop lamp without waiting for

any additional clues such as closing

distance reduction, lead vehicle

pitching, or tire squeal. Even if all these

factors occur, it seems unlikely that

even one percent of all rear end crashes

would be eliminated or reduced in

severity by such a requirement.

While there would be some small

level of benefits if Mr. Roberts’

suggestion were to be included in the

standard, such benefits would be greatly

outweighed by the costs involved. LED,

neon, and shuttered light systems would

cost manufacturers upwards of $30 per

vehicle. The least expensive of the four

available technologies would be the hot

filament systems. These systems would

cost the industry approximately $15 per

vehicle. To incorporate these systems,

vehicles would need extra wiring and

circuitry to keep the filament of the

incandescent bulb powered to a level

that is just below illumination. Based on

an annual U.S. production of 16,000,000

vehicles, the suggested requirements

would cost at least $240,000,000 per

year to vehicle manufacturers which

would be passed on to the consumer.

This cost does not include manufacturer

installation and other costs such as

manufacturer and dealer profits. The

agency has found in the past that these

costs generally add about 50 percent

onto the original equipment cost. These

additional factors thus would raise the

cost to the consumer further. Also, there

would be an additional cost incurred by

the consumer due to the extra power

required to keep the lamp filaments

constantly powered. This would lead to

an increase in fuel consumption.

In order to confirm our belief that the

benefits of fast rise brake requirements

would be small, NHTSA analyzed data

to compare the crash involvement of

vehicles with LED and neon CHMSLs to

similar vehicles with conventional

incandescent CHMSLs. Specifically,

Maryland state files were searched for

model year 1994–1996 sport utility

vehicles and vans that were struck in

the rear while slowing or stopping.

These types of vehicles were chosen

because they had the highest percentage

of vehicles which had LED and neon

CHMSLs and were fairly similar in size.

When comparing the crash involvement

of LED and neon CHMSL vehicles to the

incandescent CHMSL vehicles, there

was no statistical difference found

between designs. This may reflect the

relatively small percentage of the

vehicle fleet now in service with LED

and neon CHMSLs, so that no

statistically valid study may yet be

conducted. Alternatively, it may be that

the effects of lesser rise times do not

show up in crash statistics. Whatever

the case, the current data do not show

safety benefits on the road from this

technology.

Although the agency does not have

data at this time to support such a

requirement, it seems intuitive that

there could be some value to a stop

lamp illuminating faster. Because there

are potential benefits, the agency will

revisit this issue in the future when

there are more vehicles on the road with

LED and neon stop lamps. Based on

NHTSA’s examination of recent model

year vehicles’ CHMSLs, manufacturers

are moving towards using more LED and

neon light sources for this application.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38799

Further, LEDs are beginning to be used

as a light source for the main stop lamps

as well. When the population increases,

perhaps this will give the agency

sufficient data to support proposing

such a requirement.

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,

this completes the agency’s review of

the petition. The agency has concluded

that there is no reasonable possibility

that the amendment requested by the

petitioner would be issued at the

conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding.

Accordingly, it denies Mr. Roberts’

petition.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: July 13, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–19154 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[NHTSA Docket No. 98–4027, Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AG01

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Steering Control Rearward

Displacement

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document terminates a

rulemaking proceeding in which the

agency proposed to exclude from its

standard on steering control rearward

displacement air bag-equipped

passenger cars and other light vehicles

certified as complying with the agency’s

occupant crash protection standard

based upon the frontal barrier crash test.

The agency proposed this exclusion

because the engineering need to provide

a stable air bag platform in order to

perform consistently during an

unrestrained dynamic crash test would

ensure that vehicle manufacturers

design their vehicles so that there would

be little steering control rearward

displacement. That necessity would

obviate the need for manufacturers to

conduct another crash test just to certify

steering control rearward displacement

performance.

However, since the proposal, the

agency has temporarily allowed the

manufacturers to certify their vehicles to

the occupant protection standard based

upon an unrestrained sled test and a

restrained (or belted) barrier test. The

capability of the steering column to

provide a stable platform for the air bag

is not tested in a sled test since no

structural deformation of the structure

occurs nor does the restrained occupant

30 mph barrier test adequately evaluate

the platform stability since the belted

dummy does not significantly load the

steering assembly. NHTSA anticipates

that nearly all manufacturers will certify

to the unrestrained occupant protection

standard based on the less rigorous sled

test procedure. Therefore, the agency is

terminating this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

On technical matters: Mr. John Lee, in

the Office of Crashworthiness

Standards, telephone: 202–366–4924,

facsimile: 202–493–2739, e-mail:

jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov.

On legal matters: Mr. Paul Atelsek, in

the Office of the Chief Counsel,

telephone: 202–366–2992, e-mail:

patelsek@nhtsa.dot.gov.

The mailing address is: National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Pursuant to the March 4, 1995

directive, ‘‘Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative,’’ from the President to the

heads of departments and agencies,

NHTSA undertook a review of all its

regulations and directives. During the

course of this review, the agency

identified several regulations as

potential candidates for rescission or

amendment. One of these regulations

was Standard No. 204, Steering Control

Rearward Displacement. The agency

concluded at that time that requiring

compliance with the standard appeared

to be redundant for certain vehicles,

given the actions which were separately

required to be taken to comply with

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash

Protection.

Standard No. 204 specifies a dynamic

crash test to measure the rearward

displacement of a vehicle’s steering

column to ensure that the driver is not

‘‘speared’’ by the column. The standard

specifies that the upper end of the

steering column and shaft may not be

displaced horizontally rearward more

than 5 inches (127 mm) in a 30-mileper-hour frontal barrier crash test. The

standard applies to passenger cars and

other light vehicles.

Passenger cars and light vehicles are

also required to pass a dynamic test

specified in Standard No. 208,

Occupant crash protection. For

unrestrained occupants, Standard No.

208 requires either a frontal impact

crash test into a rigid barrier at 30 mph

or a dynamic sled test, with the

performance measured by the impact

forces on an anthropomorphic test

dummy rather than by the displacement

of a vehicle component. Air bags

became mandatory in all passenger cars

on September 1, 1997, and will be

required in all light vehicles by

September 1, 1998. Since March 19,

1997, it has been permissible to certify

vehicles on the basis of a sled test

instead of a crash test. The agency

believes that the great majority of auto

manufacturers are now certifying

vehicles using the sled test.

On November 16, 1995, the agency

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, (60 FR 57565) proposing

that vehicles be excluded from having to

comply with Standard No. 204 if these

vehicles were certified to comply with

the frontal barrier crash test

requirements of Standard No. 208 by

means of an air bag. The basis for the

proposal was that the engineering

considerations that govern designing a

vehicle with air bags would ensure that

the vehicle would have the same

performance for steering control

rearward displacement as is currently

required by Standard No. 204. One of

the most fundamental engineering

considerations when designing an air

bag equipped vehicle is to provide a

secure platform for the air bag. The

designer must know the relative

location of the air bag and the protected

occupant during a crash because, if the

air bag platform were moving up or

down, or backward or forward during a

crash, it could adversely affect air bag

performance.

Since the driver’s air bag is located in

the steering column, the NPRM stated

that the engineering measures necessary

to provide a secure air bag platform will

also ensure that Standard No. 204’s

specified performance for steering

control rearward displacement is

satisfied, even if the standard were no

longer applicable. In case the public

knew of some factors that NHTSA had

not considered, NHTSA also asked for

comment on whether there was any

possibility that the proposed Standard

No. 204 exclusion might result in an

increase in injuries not protected against

by Standard No. 208. The NPRM stated

that the proposed rule would have

minor, nonquantifiable cost savings.

The public comment period closed on

January 16, 1997.

Subsequent to the issuance of the

NPRM on Standard No. 204, on March

19, 1997, in order to facilitate the