[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 98 (Monday, May 23, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29470-29471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10136]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 57l

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20738; Notice 1]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for 
Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Based on the agency's evaluation, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies a petition for rulemaking from 
Mercedes-Benz to amend the Federal lighting standard to permit the use 
of optional use of stoplamps that would flash under higher levels of 
deceleration. Mercedes-Benz has not demonstrated that this 
manufacturer-installed option would result in reduced crashes. NHTSA is 
denying the petition because it would take away from NHTSA the ability 
to use a potentially valuable rear signal for a higher safety purpose 
sometime in the future. NHTSA concludes that it would require more in-
depth information than provided on the safety benefit of any such 
change before it would initiate a rulemaking on what rear signal lamp 
performance changes are appropriate or necessary to reduce the 
incidence or rear-end crashes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590:
    For Non-legal Issues: Mr. David Hines, Office of Crash Avoidance 
Standards, NVS-121, telephone (202) 366-5275, facsimile (202) 366-7002, 
electronic mail: [email protected].
    For Legal Issues: Mr. George Feygin, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NCC-112, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 108, Lamps reflective devices and associated equipment, establishes 
the wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use, and requires 
that all lamps be wired to be steady burning, unless otherwise stated. 
All stoplamps must be steady burning when in use. Steady means free 
from change or variation. This means that they must not modulate, 
flash, or vary in size, area, intensity or appearance.

Mercedes-Benz Petition

    On April 4, 2003, Mercedes-Benz (MB) submitted a petition for 
rulemaking to revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 
Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment to permit ``flashing 
red brake lights \1\'' to be installed on an optional basis as an 
emergency braking signal on motor vehicles. In support, MB provided 
information indicating that flashing stoplamps provide a non-ambiguous, 
intuitively interpreted signal of an emergency situation and it reduces 
braking reaction times (BRT) by up to 0.2 seconds compared with 
conventional stoplamps. MB believes that this is significant in terms 
of crash avoidance or crash severity reduction. Moreover, MB believes 
an even higher reduction (in BRT) can be expected in real world driving 
conditions, because it stated that its test subjects tended to react 
faster than real world drivers, since subjects who participate in 
experiments in a driving simulator or on a test track are generally 
more focused on the driving task than drivers on the road who are 
subject to many sources of distraction. Thus, MB claims that this 
reduction in BRT is likely to result in a meaningful reduction in the 
number and/or severity of rear end collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MB uses the term, flashing red brake lights for its desired 
device. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment used the term stoplamps. 
Thus, Mercedes-Benz is asking that the Standard be amended to permit 
existing stoplamps to flash on an optional basis for the purpose of 
a high deceleration rate signal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis

    Based on the NHTSA policy statement published in the Federal 
Register, November 4, 1998, Volume 63, Number 213, pages 59482-59492, 
the MB submission, in order to be treated as a petition must have 
substantive data purporting to show positive safety benefits from the 
new idea. MB did provide data showing that BRT would be improved. Thus, 
NHTSA granted the petition and set out to evaluate the data

[[Page 29471]]

to determine if it provides persuasive evidence of a positive safety 
benefit and value to the public.
    In performing that evaluation, we reviewed all known research on 
flashing stoplamps. The only known real-world data in this area 
(NHTSA's large scale field study in 1981) indicates no statistically 
significant differences in rear-crash involvement between flashing 
stoplamps compared to steady-burning stoplamps. The study evaluated 
flashing at a steady rate, flashing at a rate proportional to 
deceleration, and steady-burning stoplamps.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mortimer, Rudolf G., ``Field Test Evaluation of Rear 
Lighting Deceleration Signals, II--Field Test'', DOT HS-806-125, 
October 198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that shortening BRT would allow additional braking time for 
following drivers, but only if the following driver immediately applies 
the brakes fully upon seeing the stoplamps activated without waiting 
for any other cues from the lead stopping vehicle, such as the car 
pitching or the tires and/or brakes squealing. We noted that research 
by Daimler Chrysler AG using a vehicle simulator in Germany found that 
more than 90 percent of drivers do not fully apply the brakes even when 
they have these cues and the lead vehicle's stoplamps are activated. 
The article by Car and Driver Magazine, ``Brake Assist Systems: When 
ABS Isn't Enough'' December 1999, cited research results by Toyota, 
Nissan as well as the above Mercedes-Benz research. These other 
companies found similar results of slow reaction time and weak pedal 
application.
    Taking the values mentioned above, and assuming that 8 percent of 
drivers are attentive enough to respond \3\, and that 10 percent of 
those drivers respond with high braking effort, we achieve 0.8 percent 
of driver responses likely being appropriate for lowering crash risk. 
Taken together with MB's estimate of 5.5 such events per vehicle per 
year, we find that its idea might change the outcome of 0.044 such 
events per vehicle per year, or one event for every 22.7 years of a 
vehicle's life. Even if all vehicles were fitted with a braking force 
assistance device (as MB, Toyota, Nissan and others now do) to improve 
the likelihood of high brake-force application, the value to the public 
would still be small, especially because flashing stoplamps would be 
optional under the suggested amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA report on Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) 
countermeasures to rear end crashes (DOT HS 807 995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our concern in such cases of optional signals is that we would be 
giving away a unique signal in return for a minor benefit, when it is 
possible that the same signal (flashing stoplamps) might be used in the 
future for a far greater benefit. As a matter of policy (see Federal 
Register, November 4, 1998, Volume 63, Number 213, pages 59482-59492), 
NHSTA will not permit optional signals to be used as additions or 
alternatives to existing signals, nor will we quickly permit the use of 
as yet unused signals until it is shown that the signal will afford a 
significant safety benefit.
    With respect to signals for rapid deceleration, there are several 
alternatives to the MB solution that are also being considered. For 
example, upon sudden deceleration, some parties believe that stop lamps 
that get larger in area and more intense depending on the level of 
deceleration is a preferred signal, while others favor flashing the 
amber front and rear turn signal lamps to show sudden deceleration. The 
European Commission has proposed that the MB solution, plus these other 
approaches, all be permitted under the Economic Commission for Europe 
regulations. However, NHTSA is concerned that allowing alternative 
signal configurations violates the basic principle of standardization 
that is necessary to minimize driver confusion and to promote a quick 
and appropriate driver response to the condition that is being 
signaled, which in this case is a slowing lead vehicle. Thus, NHTSA 
believes that choosing the MB solution without evaluating the other 
approaches could either preclude the use of more effective signals or 
lead to a proliferation of competing signals.
    Another reason to carefully consider whether a flashing stoplamp 
should be used as a signal for rapid deceleration is that the flashing 
stoplamp may have greater safety benefits if applied to more frequently 
occurring crash scenarios, such as stopped vehicle warnings. To help 
identify effective rear signal enhancements and when they should be 
activated, NHTSA has been conducting research at the Virginia Tech 
Transportation Institute. Findings to date indicate that some signal 
enhancements may have greater potential than simple flashing brake 
lamps to improve driver performance in the scenarios chosen for the 
study. We are continuing the research to determine whether the findings 
hold up under a broader range of driving scenarios. Additionally, we 
are analyzing crash and close call data from a 100-car naturalistic 
driving study to determine the potential of enhanced rear signaling as 
a means to reduce rear crashes. As such, it is premature at this time 
to permit the use of flashing stop lamps for rapid deceleration.
    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, and after considering the 
allocation of agency resources and agency priorities, NHTSA has decided 
to deny this petition for rulemaking.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)

    Issued on: May 16, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-10136 Filed 5-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M