58786 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

1For more information on MBUSA go to http:// 

www.mbusa.com. 

2See S5.5.10 of 49 CFR § 571.108. Turn signal 

lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus 

warning lamps must be wired to flash. Headlamps 

and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for 

signaling purposes. Motorcycle headlamps may be 

wired to modulate. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

First Meeting: RTCA Special 

Committee 207/Airport Security 

Access Control Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special 

Committee 207, Airport Security Access 

Control Systems. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice 

to advise the public of a meeting of 

RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport 

Security Access Control Systems. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

November 17, 2005, from 9 a.m.– 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

RTCA, Inc.—MacIntosh-NBAA & 

Hilton-ATA Rooms, 1828 L Street, NW., 

Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) 

RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 

Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; 

telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 

833–9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, 5 U.S.C., appendix 2), notice is 

hereby given for a Special Committee 

207 meeting. The agenda will include: 

• November 17: 

• Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, 

Introductions, and Administrative 

Remarks). 

• Review of previous meeting summary. 

• Update by FAA. 

• Presentations by TSA/JPDO. 

• Presentations by ICAO. 

• Discussions on vendor presentations. 

• Division of work into subgroups. 

• Closing Plenary Session (Other 

Business, Establish Agenda for Next 

Meeting, Date and Place of Next 

Meeting). 

Attendance is open to the interested 

public but limited to space availability. 

With the approval of the chairmen, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements at the meeting. Persons 

wishing to present statements or obtain 

information should contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. Members of the public 

may present a written statement to the 

committee at any time. 

Dated: October 3, 2005. 

Natalie Ogletree, 

FAA General Engineer, RTCA Advisory 

Committee. 

[FR Doc. 05–20281 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22653, Notice 1] 

Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC; Receipt of 

Application for a Temporary 

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 108 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application 

for a temporary exemption. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures of 49 CFR 555.6(b), 

Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC (‘‘MBUSA’’) 

has applied for a Temporary Exemption 

from S.5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. The 

basis of the application is to facilitate 

the development and field evaluation of 

new motor vehicle safety feature 

providing a level of safety at least equal 

to that of the standard. We are 

publishing this notice of receipt of the 

application in accordance with the 

requirements of 49 CFR 555.7(a), and 

have made no judgment on the merits of 

the application. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments not later than November 7, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Feygin in the Office of Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, (Phone: 202–366–

2992; Fax 202–366–3820; E-Mail: 

George.Feygin@nhtsa.dot.gov). 

I. Background 

MBUSA petitioned the agency on 

behalf of its parent corporation, 

DaimlerChrysler AG.1 The petition 

seeks a temporary exemption from 

S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. In short, 

S5.5.10 specifies that with certain 

exceptions not applicable to this 

petition, all lamps, including stop lamps 

must be wired to be steady-burning.2 In 

order to develop and evaluate an 

innovative brake signaling system in the 

United States, MBUSA seeks a 

temporary exemption from the ‘‘steadyburning’’ requirement as it applies to 

stop lamps. This system is currently 

available in Europe on the S-class, CLclass, and SL-class Mercedes vehicles. 

MBUSA states that the system 

enhances the emergency braking signal 

by flashing three stop lamps required by 

FMVSS No. 108 during strong 

deceleration. In addition, after 

emergency braking, the system 

automatically activates the hazard 

warning lights of the stopped vehicle 

until it starts to move again or the lights 

are manually switched off. The 

petitioner states that this signaling 

system reduces the following drivers’

reaction time by attracting their 

attention, and also enhances visibility of 

the stopped vehicle, thus helping to 

reduce the incidence and severity of 

rear end collisions. 

NHTSA previously denied 

petitioner’s request to permanently 

amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow flashing 

brake signaling systems. Among the 

reasons for the denial was the need for 

additional data on safety benefits of 

flashing brake lamps. The petitioner 

argues that granting this temporary 

exemption would allow them to provide 

the information NHTSA found lacking. 

MBUSA requests a two-year 

exemption period. In accordance with 

the requirements of 49 CFR 

§ 555.6(b)(5), MBUSA will not sell more 

than 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 

twelve-month period within the twoyear exemption period. For addition 

details, please see the MBUSA petition 

at http://dms.dot.gov/search/ 

searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–22653. The following 

(Parts II–VI) summarizes MBUSA’s 

petition in relevant part. 

II. Description of the New Motor 

Vehicle Safety Feature 

The petitioner states that its brake 

signaling system provides two 

innovative safety-enhancing features. 

First, three stop lamps required by 

FMVSS No. 108 flash at a frequency of 

5 Hz in the event of strong deceleration. 

This occurs if the velocity is >50 km/h 

(31 mph) and at least one of the 

following conditions is met: 

1. Deceleration is >7 m/s2; or 

2. The brake assist function is active; 

or 

3. The Electronic Stability Program 

(ESP) control unit detects a panic 

braking operation. 

The petitioner states that the 

activation criteria ensures that the 

enhanced brake signals are only 

activated when truly needed. Thus, the 

brake lights will flash only in severe 

braking situations, and will flash at a 

relatively high frequency that allows for 

fast recognition. Further, using the 

panic brake signal from the ESP control 

unit as a trigger would activate the 

system only when the achievable 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 58787 

3 Driver behavior research is described in 

Attachment A of the petition. 

4The study was conducted by Dr. Joerg Breuer 

and Thomas Unselt. 

5This study is described in greater detail in 

Attachment D of the petition. 

deceleration is substantially smaller 

than the demanded one. Thus, the stop 

lamps would not flash in routine 

situations. 

Second, after emergency braking, the 

system automatically activates the 

hazard warning lights of the stopped 

vehicle until it starts to move again, or 

the lights are manually switched off. 

III. Potential Benefits of the New Motor 

Vehicle Safety Feature 

The petitioner states that the brake 

signaling system provides important 

safety enhancements not found in a 

vehicle equipped with a traditional 

brake signaling system. First, the 

flashing system reduces the following 

driver’s reaction time and encourages 

maximum deceleration of following 

vehicles. The petitioner expects 

especially strong benefits during 

adverse weather conditions and for 

inattentive drivers. Second, the 

activation of hazard warning lamps on 

the stopped vehicle also enhances 

vehicle recognition after it came to a 

complete stop. The petitioner believes 

that together, these features will help to 

reduce rear end collisions and improve 

safety. 

The petitioner is aware of the agency’s 

longstanding restriction on flashing stop 

lamps, in the interest of standardized, 

instantly recognizable lighting 

functions. However, MBUSA believes 

its system will be easily recognizable, 

and would not interfere with NHTSA’s 

objectives. 

IV. The Petitioner’s Research and 

Testing 

The petitioner states that the 

development of the innovative brake 

light system is based on careful research 

and testing. The activation criteria for 

the flashing brake lights were 

established with the help of a driver 

behavior study. The petitioner further 

states that field studies have 

demonstrated that the brake light system 

can significantly reduce driver reaction 

times. 

MBUSA used a driver braking 

behavior study to understand how often 

rapid deceleration braking occurs in the 

United States. The study followed 96 

subjects using 15 Mercedes-Benz 

vehicles equipped with a driver 

behavior and vehicle dynamics 

recorder. The study indicated that one 

emergency braking maneuver occurred 

for every 2291 miles driven. The study 

also suggested that, based on the criteria 

described in the previous section, only 

23 out of 100,000 braking maneuvers 

would activate the flashing stop lamps. 

The petitioner concludes that the 

flashing brake light will occur rarely, 

which will help to avoid ‘‘optical 

pollution’’ and enhance the 

effectiveness of the brake light system.3

MBUSA sponsored additional field 

and driving simulator studies, which 

showed that ‘‘appropriately designed 

flashing brake lights significantly reduce 

drivers’’ reaction times and thus can 

reduce the incidence and severity of 

rear-end collisions.’’ 4 Specifically, the 

study compared reaction times in 

emergency braking situations among 

conventional brake lights, conventional 

brake lights combined with hazard 

warning lights, flashing brake lights 

with a flashing frequency of 4 Hz, and 

flashing brake lights with a flashing 

frequency of 7 Hz. 

The petitioner states that the study 

showed that flashing brake lights reduce 

driver reaction time by an average of 0.2 

seconds, which is a reduction sufficient 

to meaningfully reduce the number and/ 

or severity of rear end collisions. 

MBUSA argues that even higher 

reduction in reaction time would occur 

under real-world driving conditions, 

where drivers are less focused on the 

driving task and subject to more sources 

of distraction. The study also showed 

positive effects from the flashing brake 

light signal under adverse weather 

conditions and in distraction situations. 

Finally, the test subjects expressed a 

preference for flashing brake lights 

when compared to other brake light 

symbols. 

The petitioner states that the Japanese 

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and 

Transportation conducted a study to 

evaluate the validity and operating 

conditions of two types of emergency 

brake light displays, one that flashes 

upon sudden braking, sand one that 

enlarges the lighting area of the brake 

lamps. The study found that flashing 

brake lamps reduced following drivers’

response time in the drivers’ peripheral 

fields of vision. The study also showed 

that shorter flashing intervals are more 

effective. Finally, the study indicated 

that an emergency brake light display 

that enlarges the lighting area is not as 

effective as a flashing brake lamp.5

V. How Will a Temporary Exemption 

Facilitate the Development and Field 

Evaluation of a New Motor Vehicle 

Safety Feature? 

The petitioner states that it intends to 

monitor the exempted vehicles and 

study the effectiveness of the brake 

signaling system. First, MBUSA will 

gather information about rear-end 

collisions of vehicles equipped with the 

system. This information will be 

combined with the parallel results from 

the European fleet and, according to the 

petitioner, may prove to be valuable in 

evaluating the anticipated safety 

benefits of the new brake light system. 

Second, the test fleet may enable 

MBUSA to evaluate acceptance of the 

flashing stop lamps among the 

American public. 

VI. Why Granting the Petition for 

Exemption Is in the Public Interest 

As indicated above, the petitioner 

argues that granting the requested 

exemption from FMVSS 108 would 

enable them to continue developing and 

evaluating its innovative brake signaling 

system, thus contributing substantially 

to ongoing efforts to consider the 

effectiveness of enhanced lighting 

systems in reducing rear-end crashes. 

MBUSA believes that the system will 

help to significantly reduce following 

driver reaction times, thus reducing rear 

end collisions. 

The petitioner also noted that rear end 

collisions are a significant traffic safety 

concern, particularly in dense traffic 

areas, and an important cause of rear 

end collisions is a following driver’s 

failure to detect that a leading vehicle 

has performed an emergency braking 

action. MBUSA believes that an 

enhanced braking signal that alerts 

following drivers to urgent braking 

situations has the potential to 

significantly enhance safety. 

VII. How You May Comment on This 

Petition 

We invite you to submit comments on 

the application described above. You 

may submit comments [identified by 

DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2005–

22653] by any of the following methods: 

• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site by clicking on ‘‘Help and 

Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info.’’

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

58788 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket in 

order to read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal Holidays. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

We shall consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

below. To the extent possible, we shall 

also consider comments filed after the 

closing date. We shall publish a notice 

of final action on the application in the 

Federal Register pursuant to the 

authority indicated below. 

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8) 

Dated: October 4, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–20277 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption from the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji 

Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc. 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the 

petition of Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., 

Inc. (Fuji) for an exemption in 

accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR 

part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard, for the Subaru B9 

Tribeca vehicle line beginning with 

model year (MY) 2006. This petition is 

granted because the agency has 

determined that the antitheft device to 

be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective September 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–

2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated July 19, 2005, Fuji Heavy 

Industries U.S.A., Inc. (Fuji), requested 

an exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 

Subaru B9 Tribeca vehicle line. The 

petition has been filed pursuant to 49 

CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle 

Theft Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for an entire 

vehicle line. Fuji’s submission is 

considered a complete petition as 

required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it 

meets the general requirements 

contained in § 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of § 543.6. Under 

§ 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition 

NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line 

of its vehicle lines per year. 

In its petition, Fuji provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the vehicle line. The antitheft device is 

a passive transponder-based, electronic, 

immobilizer system. The device is 

automatically activated after 30 seconds 

if the ignition is simply moved to the 

‘‘off’’ position or when the engine is 

shut off and the vehicle key is removed 

from the ignition. Fuji will install its 

antitheft device as standard equipment 

on its B9 Tribeca vehicle line beginning 

with MY 2006. 

Fuji stated that the antitheft device 

controls engine ignition, fuel delivery 

and starter motor operation. This device 

prevents the engine from unauthorized 

operation such as ‘‘hot-wiring’’. The 

proposed device will also have an alarm 

feature that will monitor the doors and 

key identification. The visual and audio 

features (and ‘‘panic’’ mode) of the 

standard equipment antitheft device 

will attract attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or move 

the vehicle by sounding the vehicle’s 

horn and illuminating its 4-way flashing 

hazard lamps. 

The immobilization feature of the 

device will prevent the vehicle from 

being driven away under its own engine 

power in the event the ignition lock and 

doors have been manipulated. Fuji 

stated that integration of the antitheft 

device immobilization with the overall 

vehicle Controller Area Network (CAN) 

electrical architecture and control 

modules makes it nearly impossible for 

the immobilization features to be 

disabled or bypassed without also 

disabling all other body and engine 

controls. The engine will not start or run 

unless the ID code registered in the 

ignition key coincides with the code 

registered in the immobilizer engine 

control unit (ECU) of the vehicle. When 

the engine ECU receives a signal that the 

ID code matches, it allows engine fuel 

delivery and ignition. If the codes are 

not received, even with the use of a 

correct mechanical key, the electronic 

immobilization features of the key/ 

vehicle antitheft system interface will 

not be defeated. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Fuji provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of its device. To ensure 

reliability and durability of the device, 

Fuji conducted tests based on its own 

specified standards. Fuji also provided 

a detailed list of the tests conducted and 

believes that the device is reliable and 

durable since the device complied with 

its specified requirements for each test. 

Fuji stated its belief that NHTSA has 

seen a trend in the past that theft rates 

drop dramatically on vehicles when 

electronic immobilization has been 

added to the alarm system. Fuji has 

concluded that the antitheft device 

proposed for its vehicle line is no less 

effective than those devices in the lines 

for which NHTSA has already granted 

full exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Fuji, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Subaru B9 

Tribeca vehicle line is likely to be as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide five of the types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

promoting activation; attracting 

attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or operate 

a vehicle by means other than a key; 

preventing defeat or circumvention of 

the device by unauthorized persons; 

preventing operation of the vehicle by