[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