[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5336-5337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2117]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 90-01; Notice 5]
RIN 2127-AF32
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; School Bus Pedestrian
Safety Devices
agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
action: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: This notice adopts as final the amendments made by an interim
final rule to the flash rate requirement for stop signal arm lamps in
Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. The interim
final rule, which responded to a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Blue Bird Bus Company, removed design restrictive language that had the
effect of prohibiting strobe lamps on stop signal arms.
dates: Effective Date: January 27, 1995.
Petitions for reconsideration: Any petition for reconsideration of
this rule must be received by the agency not later than February 27,
1995.
addresses: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to Docket No. 90-
01; Notice 5 and be submitted to the following: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
for further information contact: Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-0247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 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 an item of school bus
equipment designed to alert motorists that a school bus is stopping or
has stopped. The stop signal arm is patterned after a conventional
``STOP'' sign and attached to the exterior of the driver's side of a
school bus. When the school bus stops, the stop signal arm
automatically extends outward from the bus. The standard specifies
requirements for the stop signal arm's appearance, size, conspicuity,
operation and location. To enhance the conspicuity of a stop signal
arm, Standard No. 131 specifies that the device must be either
reflectorized or be illuminated with flashing lamps.
On February 22, 1994, Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird) petitioned
the agency to amend the flash rate requirements in S6.2.2 of Standard
No. 131 to allow the use of strobe lamps on stop signal arms. At the
time, S6.2.2 stated:
S6.2.2 Flash Rate. The lamps on each side of the stop signal arm,
when operated at the manufacturer's design load, shall flash at a
rate of 60 to 120 flashes per minute with a current ``on'' time of
30 to 75 percent. The total of the percent current ``on'' time for
the two terminals shall be between 90 and 110.
Blue Bird argued that the requirement had the effect of prohibiting
the use of strobe lamps. Citing previous agency notices, Blue Bird
stated its belief that NHTSA had not intended, in issuing its stop
signal arm requirements, to prohibit the use of strobe lamps on stop
signal arms. For instance, it stated that, in the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), the agency had solicited comments about
whether the agency should require strobe lamps.\1\
\1\The agency notes that there was no ANPRM addressing stop
signal arms. The discussion described by Blue Bird was contained in
the NPRM (55 FR 3624, February 2, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Blue Bird, its petition was precipitated by a letter
that it received from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance
addressing an apparent non-compliance of school buses manufactured with
stop signal arms equipped with strobe lamps. Blue Bird stated that the
apparent non-compliance results from the fact that S6.2.2 sets forth
restrictive design requirements based on the operating characteristics
of incandescent lamps instead of more performance-oriented requirements
based on visual effectiveness. The petitioner alleged that the
requirement prevents the use of strobe lamps. Based on these
allegations, Blue Bird stated that the apparent noncompliance results
from a deficiency in the Standard and not a deficiency in its school
buses. Blue Bird requested that the agency amend S6.2.2 to allow the
use of strobe lamps, stating that this would be in the interests of
safety and consistent with the Standard's intent.
Blue Bird also stated that four states (Alaska, New Mexico,
Washington, and West Virginia) as well as some local school districts
require stop signal arms to be equipped with strobe lamps. This
consideration prompted Blue Bird to request that this rulemaking take
effect immediately, claiming that the production and delivery of school
buses with strobe lamp equipped stop signal arms needed to continue
without disruption.
On May 24, 1994, NHTSA published an interim final rule that amended
the flash rate requirements to remove design restrictive language that
acted to prohibit strobe lamps (59 FR 26759). The agency explained
that, in establishing the flash rate requirements, the agency intended
to assure the conspicuity of stop signal arms and did not intend to
prohibit manufacturers from installing strobe lamps on stop signal arms
to provide such conspicuity. The requirements in effect prior to the
interim final rule were based upon filament type lamps, which need an
extended current-on-time of 90 to 110 percent of the total flash cycle
for the two terminals. This time period is needed to allow this type of
lamp to come to full brilliance. In contrast, strobe lamps come to full
brilliance almost immediately and could not meet the current-on-time
requirements for filament type lamps. The interim final rule resolved
this problem by modifying the flash rate requirements to reflect
changes made to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE's) Recommended
Practice J1133, July 1989, School Bus Stop Arms, to allow the use of
strobe lights on stop arms.
NHTSA received comments about the interim final rule from the
National School Transportation Association (NSTA) and Specialty
Manufacturing Company (Specialty) which manufactures stop signal arms.
NSTA stated that the interim final rule should be made permanent.
Specialty also stated that the interim final rule should be made
permanent, provided that the agency adopts an industry practice which
treats a double flash strobe pattern to be a single flash cycle. It
explained that both single and double flash strobe lamps are available,
but that the secondary flash of a double strobe pattern will occur
approximately 0.17 seconds after the initial flash. According to the
commenter, the industry considers this double flash pattern to be a
single flash since they occur in rapid succession.
NHTSA agrees with Specialty that multiple flash patterns that occur
[[Page 5337]] rapidly should be considered to be a single flash. In a
March 29, 1994 interpretation letter to the Connecticut Department of
Motor Vehicles, NHTSA stated that the light emanating from a strobe
lamp that flashes repeatedly in rapid succession will be considered a
single flash of varying intensity and not as multiple flashes, when
determining the flash rate and flash cycle for alternatively flashing
lights required by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment, for school buses. The agency believes that it is
appropriate to apply the same principle to school bus stop arms
equipped with multiple flash strobe lamps on stop arms. Accordingly,
NHTSA considers strobe lamps on school bus stop arms that have multiple
flashes of a single lamp and then remain off while the other lamp
flashes to be a single flash cycle.
Based on the reasons set forth in the interim final rule and those
set forth above, NHTSA has decided to adopt the amendments in the
interim final rule on a permanent basis. NHTSA determined that there is
good cause to establish an immediate effective date for the final rule
to avoid disrupting compliance with the Standard as explained in the
interim final rule.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
This notice was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. 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 are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not
required. Since the amendment imposes no new requirement but simply
allows for an alternative design, any cost impacts will 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 amendments will 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 will not be significantly affected by the slight cost savings
resulting from 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 does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Nevertheless, NHTSA
notes that the laws of various local jurisdictions and four States
(Alaska, New Mexico, Washington, and West Virginia) require stop signal
arms to be equipped with strobe lamps and thus would have been
preempted without this amendment.
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 will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
E. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 49 CFR part 571 which was
published at 59 FR 26759 on May 24, 1994, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166,
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: January 23, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-2117 Filed 1-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M