[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 51 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10556-10557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6131]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Notice of denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice denies the petition by Darrin L. Johnson for the 
issuance of a mandatory order requiring that all motor vehicles be 
equipped with front stop lamps. NHTSA's analysis of the petition 
concludes that requiring front stop lamps on all motor vehicles does 
not further the cause of reducing the risk of motor vehicles related 
fatalities, injuries and accidents. The denial notice concludes that 
the likely consequence of implementing such a system will be higher 
risk behavior by motorists and pedestrians.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth O. Hardie, Safety Performance 
Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. 
Hardie's telephone number is (202) 366-6987.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated September 19, 1995, Darrin 
L. Johnson of North Hollywood, California petitioned the NHTSA to issue 
a rule that would mandate the equipping of all motor vehicles with 
front ``brake lights.'' The petitioner stated that front ``brake 
lights'' will save lives because it is necessary for other drivers and 
pedestrians to know the intended maneuvers of a vehicle, from the front 
of the vehicle as well as the rear. The petitioner stated that it is 
important to know from the front if an approaching driver intends to 
decrease his speed and/or is applying the brakes at certain crucial 
periods. The petitioner would require the front ``brake lights'' to be 
steady burning and red in color. The front ``brake lights'' would light 
simultaneously with the rear stop lamps, when the brake is depressed 
and/or applied. The petitioner estimates that the cost for the front 
``brake light'' system to be as follows:

Production Cost--$35.00
Wholesale Cost--$70.00
Retail Price--$150.00

Analysis of Petition

    The petition contains a number of scenarios that suggest that 
forward-facing stop signals will reduce the risk of fatalities, 
injuries and accidents by minimizing the amount of driver guesswork of 
when to maneuver a vehicle into traffic. The petitioner's rationale for 
mandating a rule requiring all motor vehicles to be equipped with front 
stop lamps is these lamps would communicate an approaching driver's 
intent to brake or decrease speed. Presumably, other drivers or 
pedestrians would have information on the intent of the approaching 
vehicle based upon whether the front stop lamps had been activated. The 
observing individual could then act accordingly or maneuver onto 
traffic.
    The petitioner presents a number of scenarios to support a claim 
that front stop lamps will result in a reduction of accidents involving 
a vehicle that is attempting to enter traffic from a driveway, street, 
or entrance road of a freeway. The petitioner claims that a motorist 
would have additional safety information when attempting to enter 
traffic by monitoring the front stop lamps of an approaching vehicle. 
The petitioner claims that vehicles entering traffic would avoid a 
higher percentage of collisions with oncoming vehicles because the 
driver attempting to enter traffic would know whether the driver with 
the right-of-way was giving up the right-of-way, thus, allowing him/her 
to more safely enter traffic. The petitioner claims that this could be 
done by observing if the approaching vehicle's front stop lamps were 
illuminated, thus, indicating braking or stopping. The assumption of 
the petitioner appears to be that an illuminated front stop lamp means 
that the approaching driver has relinquished the right-of-way.
    It is NHTSA's belief that forward-facing stop lamps might provide 
some useful information to drivers, but that a front stop signal might 
also produce ambiguity and could lead to dangerous driver or pedestrian 
action if it is not interpreted by the viewer in an appropriate manner. 
For example, a driver whose vehicle is not slowing down but who taps 
the brake pedal as a precaution when approaching an intersection could 
find a car pulling out dangerously close in front of him/her, because 
the other drivers assumed that the vehicle would be making a turn or

[[Page 10557]]
relinquishing the right-of-way. There are a number of scenarios that 
could be hypothesized which could cause false signals to be given to 
other drivers. Drivers would need to determine which signals are true 
and which are false. There is little time for such behavior during 
normal driving. The front stop lamp could encourage drivers to violate 
the right-of-way laws that exist in each state.
    Consequently, NHTSA is concerned that illuminated front stop lamps 
could lure drivers who are attempting to enter traffic into high risk 
behavior. This is because the presence of an illuminated front stop 
lamp is not assurance that an approaching driver has relinquished the 
right-of-way to the merging or entering traffic. Making decisions 
regarding when to merge or enter traffic based upon the illumination of 
front stop lamps would be risky behavior. NHTSA does not believe that 
there will be a net positive benefit from a rule that requires front 
stop lamps on all motor vehicles.
    In two scenarios involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian the 
petitioner suggested that front stop lamps should be installed on all 
motor vehicles because they would provide additional information to a 
pedestrian who was preparing to cross the street. The petitioner 
claimed that the potential for disaster would be minimized or 
eliminated because the pedestrian would be able to determine if it were 
safe to enter the street based upon the illumination status of the 
front stop lamps. The agency has concluded that the same problem exists 
with pedestrians as with motorists evaluating whether to enter traffic 
based upon whether front stop lamps are illuminated. The pedestrian 
should never presume that drivers of vehicles will respect the right-
of-way of pedestrians.
    In accordance with CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review 
of the petition. The agency has concluded that front stop lamps do not 
have the promise of producing reductions in fatalities, injuries, or 
accidents. The agency believes that the likely consequence of requiring 
such a system will be higher risk behavior by motorists and 
pedestrians. 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 the petition submitted by Darrin L. Johnson.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30111, 30162; delegations of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on March 11, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-6131 Filed 3-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P