Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 30324-30326 [07-2693]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
30324
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Rule 33.4 Part 70—Permits—Operational
Flexibility (Adopted 4/10/01)
Rule 33.5 Part 70—Permits—Time frames
for Applications, Review and Issuance
(Adopted 10/12/93)
Rule 33.6 Part 70—Permits—Permit Term
and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/93)
Rule 33.7 Part 70—Permits—Notification
(Adopted 4/10/01)
Rule 33.8 Part 70—Permits—Reopening of
Permits (Adopted 10/12/93)
Rule 33.9 Part 70—Permits—Compliance
Provisions (Adopted 4/10/01)
Rule 33.10 Part 70—Permits—General Part
70—Permits (Adopted 10/12/93)
Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted
3/14/95)
Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Adopted
11/12/96)
Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous
Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/6/98)
Rule 42 Permit Fees (Adopted 4/11/06)
Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee
(Adopted 9/10/96)
Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 6/19/90)
Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted
8/4/92)
Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and
Call-Back Fees (Adopted 6/22/99)
Rule 50 Opacity (Adopted 4/13/04)
Rule 52 Particulate Matter-Concentration
(Adopted 4/13/04)
Rule 53 Particulate Matter-Process Weight
(Adopted 4/13/04)
Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 6/14/
94)
Rule 56 Open Burning (Revised 11/11/03)
Rule 57 Incinerators (Adopted 1/11/05)
Rule 57.1 Particulate Matter Emissions
From Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 1/
11/05)
Rule 62.7 Asbestos—Demolition and
Renovation (Adopted 6/16/92)
Rule 63 Separation and Combination of
Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78)
Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted
4/13/99)
Rule 67 Vacuum Producing Devices
(Adopted 7/5/83)
Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 4/13/
04)
Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic
Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94)
Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and
Separation (Adopted 6/16/92)
Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic
Compound Liquids (Adopted 9/26/89)
Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic
Compound Liquids (Adopted 6/16/92)
Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds,
and Well Cellars (Adopted 6/8/93)
Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/
13/94)
Rule 72 New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) (Adopted 9/13/05)
Rule 73 National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
(Adopted 9/13/05)
Rule 74 Specific Source Standards
(Adopted 7/6/76)
Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/
12/91)
Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Adopted
11/13/01)
Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing
(Revised 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 May 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers
(Adopted 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04)
Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive
Organic Compounds at Petroleum
Refineries and Chemical Plants (Adopted
10/10/95)
Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing
Systems, Waste-water Separators and
Process Turnarounds (Adopted 7/5/83)
Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion
Engines (Adopted 11/8/05)
Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil
Production Facilities and Natural Gas
Production and Processing Facilities
(Adopted 3/10/98)
Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential
Water Heaters—Control of NOX (Adopted
4/9/85)
Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small
Boilers (Adopted 9/14/99)
Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts
and Products (Adopted 11/11/03)
Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and
Process Heaters (Adopted 11/8/94)
Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and
Process Heaters (Adopted 6/13/00)
Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations
(Adopted 1/8/91)
Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants
(Adopted 1/11/05)
Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines
(Adopted 1/08/02)
Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations
(Revised 11/11/03)
Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and
Commercial Boatyard Operations (Adopted
1/08/02)
Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank
Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94)
Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid
Storage Tank Degassing Operations
(Adopted 11/8/94)
Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations
(Adopted 5/10/94)
Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings
(Revised 6/27/06)
Rule 75 Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78)
Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities
(Adopted 5/23/72)
Rule 102 Source Tests (Adopted 4/13/04)
Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems
(Adopted 2/9/99)
Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted
9/17/91)
Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted
9/17/91)
Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted
9/17/91)
Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans (Adopted
9/17/91)
Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures
(Adopted 9/17/91)
Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 5/9/
95)
Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Adopted 11/9/
99)
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–10457 Filed 5–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document responds to a
petition for rulemaking regarding the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
on lighting. Mr. Richard Fairall
petitioned the agency to amend the
standard to incorporate performance
requirements for a ‘‘stroboscopic
lighting system’’ that can be installed on
the front and rear of a motorcycle as a
collision avoidance system. NHTSA is
denying this petition because the
petitioner did not demonstrate or
provide any quantitative data showing
that implementation of his
recommended lighting system would
result in a reduction of death and injury
to motorcyclists or other motorists.
However, notwithstanding the absence
of detailed safety data in Mr. Fairall’s
submission, because NHTSA has a
continued interest in identifying
potential countermeasures to reduce
motorcycle crashes, the agency
conducted a preliminary evaluation of
the petitioner’s recommended auxiliary
‘‘stroboscopic lighting system.’’ The
preliminary evaluation did not persuade
NHTSA that the stroboscopic lighting
system would result in fewer
motorcycle crashes.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590, telephone (202)–366–6987,
facsimile (202)–493–2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Mr. Richard ‘‘Scott’’ Fairall petitioned
NHTSA to amend Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to
incorporate performance requirements
for a flashing front and rear motorcycle
collision avoidance lighting system. Mr.
Fairall devised an auxiliary
‘‘stroboscopic lighting system’’ for
motorcycles to be used by the
motorcyclist with the intent of reducing
the incidences of other motorists
violating the right-of-way of
motorcyclists. The rider of the
motorcycle would activate and
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
deactivate the system (usually when
approaching an intersection) using a
rocker switch.
The forward facing portion of Mr.
Fairall’s system is comprised of two
turn signal housings with clear lenses,
each having a strobe light in it. The
rearward facing portion has red lenses
and is also comprised of two turn signal
housings, each with a strobe inside. The
strobe controller flashes each side’s
strobe twice (at 2 Hz) before alternating
to the other side. The duration that the
lighting system remains activated would
depend on the speed of the motorcycle
and the width of the intersection. Mr.
Fairall stated the maximum length of
time of use for the lighting system
would be approximately four seconds.
Mr. Fairall claimed his auxiliary
‘‘stroboscopic lighting system’’ would
warn motorists of the potential for
collision, and has effectively prevented
accidents involving his motorcycle for
over 11,000 miles. In addition, he also
provided numerous anecdotes regarding
the effectiveness of his and other,
similar, modulating headlamp designs.
In his petition, Mr. Fairall claimed that
his recommended lighting system
would enhance the conspicuity of the
motorcycle and produce a significant
and immediate downward trend in
crashes and injuries to motorcyclists.
Finally, Mr. Fairall cited NHTSA
statistics showing a substantial increase
in motorcycle accidents and fatalities.
FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment,
specifies requirements for original and
replacement lamps, reflective devices,
and associated equipment. The purpose
of the standard is to reduce traffic
collisions, by providing adequate
illumination of the roadway, and by
enhancing the conspicuity of motor
vehicles on the public roads so that
their presence is perceived and their
signals understood, both in daylight and
in darkness or other conditions of
reduced visibility. Among the many
aspects of vehicle lighting that are
covered by FMVSS No. 108 are the
conditions under which lamps on a
vehicle are wired and permitted to flash.
Paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108
states:
The wiring requirements for lighting
equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning
signal lamps, and school bus warning signal
lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may
be wired for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired
to allow either its upper beam or lower beam,
but not both to modulate from a higher
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 May 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
intensity to a lower intensity in accordance
with section S5.6; 1
Steady means free from change or
variation. This means that they must not
modulate, flash, or vary in size, area,
intensity or appearance.
Motorcycle headlamp systems that
modulate, as permitted under S7.9.4 of
FMVSS No. 108, enhance the
conspicuity of motorcycles without
having other negative safety impacts
(e.g., causing confusion with emergency
vehicles). Currently, motorcycle
headlamp modulation systems or other
lighting systems that deviate from these
requirements are not permitted under
FMVSS No. 108 and may not be
installed on new vehicles or sold in the
aftermarket as replacement equipment.
NHTSA notes that based upon the
agency’s policy statements published in
the Federal Register on November 4,
1998 (Volume 63, Number 213, pages
59482–59492) in order to be treated as
a petition, the Fairall submission must
have substantive data purporting to
show positive safety benefits for the
recommended idea. As the NHTSA
policy statement makes clear, NHTSA
has neither the budget nor the time to
sponsor exhaustive research (such as
fleet testing) of most lighting ideas
presented to it. Because Mr. Fairall’s
submission did include some data, we
treated it as a petition. NHTSA is
denying this petition because the
petitioner did not demonstrate or
provide sufficient quantitative data
showing that implementation of his
recommended lighting system would
result in a reduction of death and injury
motorcyclists or other motorists.
Paragraph 5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108
restricts lamps that may flash to certain
ones. The reason for restricting flashing
lamps is to ensure that the signal is
instantly recognized and unambiguous
to drivers, as explained in our
November 4, 1998 Statement of Policy.
There is a positive safety benefit to the
public from clear and unambiguous
signals. Mr. Fairall’s recommended
lamps, which would be considered
auxiliary because they are not required
equipment, are not among those
permitted to flash.
We do not believe Mr. Fairall’s data
are sufficient to show positive safety
benefits from changing our current
standardized requirements. The
petitioner’s primary support for his
contention that his recommended
system is effective in reducing
motorcyclists’ death and injury is to
1 We note that the reference to S5.6 is an error,
and that the reference should point to S7.9.4.
NHTSA will issue a technical amendment to correct
this error shortly.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30325
refer to an ‘‘11,000 mile benchmark
test;’’ i.e., operating the system while he
rode his motorcycle. The petitioner
stated, ‘‘It has been 100 percent effective
in stopping motorist from violating my
right-of-way throughout the testing
period of more than 11,000 miles.’’
Based on statistical considerations,
the 11,000 vehicle-miles-driven is
insufficient to form a valid estimate for
the impact this system might have on
motorcycle safety. Mr. Fairall’s
numerous anecdotal examples of drivers
noticing his lighting system do not
qualify as sufficient data. Moreover, the
petitioner did not provide data to
support his contention that the use of
the ‘‘stroboscopic lighting system’’ was
the reason that motorists did not violate
his right-of-way. Data addressing the
behavior of other motorists who
encountered the lighting system was not
provided.
Additional Data Analysis
NHTSA is aware that since 1999,
motorcycle injuries and fatalities have
continued to rise and the majority of
fatalities are multi-vehicle crashes.
Frequently, crashes are the result of a
right-of-way violation at an intersection,
where the motorcycle is traveling
straight when it collides with another
vehicle that has either turned or pulled
out in front of it. The agency has
ongoing research efforts focusing on
ways to increase motrcycle conspicuity.
One such research effort, a study done
by Calspan Corporation, examines
whether the use of Daytime Running
Lamps (DRLs) on motorcylces would
improve their conspicuity.
Despite the previously stated
consideration of a lack of supporting
data, NHTSA decided to undertake
some additional testing of Mr. Fairall’s
recommended stroboscopic lighting
system on an investigatory basis. The
agency conducted a preliminary
evaluation of the petitioner’s
recommended concept at our Vehicle
Research & Test Center (VRTC) in East
Liberty, Ohio. We made this decision
based upon our continued interest in
identifying potential countermeasures to
reduce motorcycle crashes.
The prevalence of right-of-way
collisions near intersections guided this
research. Researchers have
hypothesized that the majority of frontal
crashes are attributable to either poor
speed-spacing judgment of other
motorists or insufficient front
motorcycle conspicuity. Speed-spacing
judgment refers to the accuracy that a
driver can estimate the distance at
which it is safe to turn left at an
intersection in front of an oncoming
motorcycle. Conspicuity is the extent to
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
30326
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 104 / Thursday, May 31, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
which an object can be distinguished
from its surroundings. Because most
fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving
motorcycles are the result of a right-ofway violation in the proximity of an
intersection, three intersection-type test
scenarios were utilized to examine
potential conspicuity improvements to a
motocycle equipped with the forward
facing portion of the ‘‘stroboscopic
lighting system’’. The test scenarios
included a gap acceptance test that was
initiated with the motorcycle taking a
position in the adjacent, opposing
traveling lane. The other two were right
side and left side peripheral field-ofview scenarios.
Since the majority of motorcycle
fatalities involve other vehicles
impacting the motorcycle from the front,
the agency evaluated the front portion of
Mr. Fairall’s system. This evaluation
involved three intersection-type tests.
The agency did not find any safety
benefits in a speed-spacing judgment
test (gap acceptance test) nor in a
peripheral detectability test involving
motorcyclists at 90° to a stationary
vehicle driver’s line-of-sight. While
potential limited benefits were
associated with the system in a
peripheral detectability test at 45°, it is
unclear whether they would outweigh
safety disbenefits such as the system
providing a false sense of security to
motorcyclists and the impact on the
driving behavior of other drivers who
may react to the strobing light in
unexpected manners. A common
concern with auxiliary lamps and
lighting systems is their potential to
distract other drivers sharing the
roadway from understanding and
responding to the lighting devices
requires by the standard. In order to
initiate rulemaking to allow a system
such as the one identified by Mr. Fairall,
the agency would need clear data
demonstrating safety benefits.
Agency Conclusion
After a thorough review of Mr.
Fairall’s petition, the agency has
decided to deny Mr. Fairall’s petition
for rulemaking. The agency notes that
the limited data the petitioner provided,
consisting of the petitioner’s own
experiences in driving approximately
11,000 miles as well as anecdotal
evidence, are insufficient to support a
rulemaking. Despite the petitioner’s
attempt to demonstrate the effect of the
new lighting system, NHTSA would
require substantially more data
demonstrating the effectiveness of such
a system to initiate a rulemaking.
A ‘‘strooscopic’’ or flasing lighting
system operated by the motorcyclist
near intersections to increase his or her
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 May 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
conspicuity is an interesting concept.
Our preliminary evaluation showed that
the recommended ‘‘stroboscopic
lighting system’’ does not appear to
enhance motorcycle conspicuity if the
driver of the car is directly observing the
motorcycle, or if the motorcycle
approaches the car at 90 degrees or
greater to the driver’s line of sight.
While limited improvements were
found in motorcycle conspicuity when
the motorcyclist approaches a vehicle at
approximately 45 degrees to the driver’s
line of sight, the data are insufficient to
warrant rulemaking activity. Therefore,
the agency is denying the petition.
The agency remains interested in
finding effective ways to increase
motorcycle conspicuity and reduce the
number of crashes involving
motorcycles.
Dated: May 23, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 07–2693 Filed 5–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU48
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Wintering
Population of the Piping Plover
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period, notice of availability
of draft economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment, and
announcement of public hearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the draft economic
analysis and draft environmental
assessment, the reopening of the public
comment period, and a public hearing
on the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat for the wintering
population of the piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We are reopening the
public comment period to allow all
interested parties an opportunity to
comment simultaneously on the
proposed rule and the associated draft
economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment. The draft
economic analysis finds that costs
associated with conservation activities
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for the wintering population of the
piping plover in North Carolina are
forecasted to range from $0 to $12.2
million in lost consumer surplus and $0
to $21.1 million in lost trip
expenditures in undiscounted dollars
over the next 20 years, with an
additional $32,000 to $79,000 in
administrative costs. Discounted
impacts are estimated to range from $0
to $6.2 million in lost consumer surplus
and $0 to $10.6 million in lost trip
expenditures over 20 years using a real
rate of seven percent, with an additional
$17,000 to $42,000 in administrative
costs. This amounts to $0 to $503,000 in
lost consumer surplus and $0 to
$861,000 in lost trip expenditures,
annually. Using a real rate of three
percent, discounted impacts are
estimated at $0 to $8.9 million in lost
consumer surplus and $0 to $15.4
million in lost trip expenditures over
the next 20 years, with an additional
$24,000 to $59,000 in administrative
costs. This amounts to $2,000 to
$600,000 in lost consumer surplus and
$0 to $1.0 million in lost trip
expenditures, annually. The draft
environmental assessment finds that
designation of critical habitat would not
impose any physical alteration of the
physical or biological communities used
by the wintering population of the
piping plover, nor would it alter any
social, cultural, or recreational resources
or the use of such resources beyond
current conditions or existing
management strategies. Comments
previously submitted need not be
resubmitted as they will be incorporated
into the public record and fully
considered in preparation of the final
rule.
DATES: Written comments: We will
accept public comments until July 30,
2007.
Public hearing: We will hold a public
hearing on the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat, and the
draft economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment, from 5 p.m.
to 7 p.m. on June 20, 2007. The public
hearing will be preceded by a public
information session from 4 p.m. to 5
p.m. at the same location (see Public
hearing under ADDRESSES).
ADDRESSES: Written comments: If you
wish to comment, you may submit your
comments and information concerning
this proposal, identified by ‘‘Attn:
Wintering Piping Plover Critical
Habitat,’’ by any one of the following
methods:
1. Mail to Pete Benjamin, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Raleigh Field Office, P.O. Box
33726, Raleigh, NC 27636–3726.
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 104 (Thursday, May 31, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30324-30326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2693]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
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: This document responds to a petition for rulemaking regarding
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Mr. Richard
Fairall petitioned the agency to amend the standard to incorporate
performance requirements for a ``stroboscopic lighting system'' that
can be installed on the front and rear of a motorcycle as a collision
avoidance system. NHTSA is denying this petition because the petitioner
did not demonstrate or provide any quantitative data showing that
implementation of his recommended lighting system would result in a
reduction of death and injury to motorcyclists or other motorists.
However, notwithstanding the absence of detailed safety data in Mr.
Fairall's submission, because NHTSA has a continued interest in
identifying potential countermeasures to reduce motorcycle crashes, the
agency conducted a preliminary evaluation of the petitioner's
recommended auxiliary ``stroboscopic lighting system.'' The preliminary
evaluation did not persuade NHTSA that the stroboscopic lighting system
would result in fewer motorcycle crashes.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590, telephone (202)-366-6987, facsimile (202)-493-2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Mr. Richard ``Scott'' Fairall petitioned NHTSA to amend Federal
motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to incorporate
performance requirements for a flashing front and rear motorcycle
collision avoidance lighting system. Mr. Fairall devised an auxiliary
``stroboscopic lighting system'' for motorcycles to be used by the
motorcyclist with the intent of reducing the incidences of other
motorists violating the right-of-way of motorcyclists. The rider of the
motorcycle would activate and
[[Page 30325]]
deactivate the system (usually when approaching an intersection) using
a rocker switch.
The forward facing portion of Mr. Fairall's system is comprised of
two turn signal housings with clear lenses, each having a strobe light
in it. The rearward facing portion has red lenses and is also comprised
of two turn signal housings, each with a strobe inside. The strobe
controller flashes each side's strobe twice (at 2 Hz) before
alternating to the other side. The duration that the lighting system
remains activated would depend on the speed of the motorcycle and the
width of the intersection. Mr. Fairall stated the maximum length of
time of use for the lighting system would be approximately four
seconds.
Mr. Fairall claimed his auxiliary ``stroboscopic lighting system''
would warn motorists of the potential for collision, and has
effectively prevented accidents involving his motorcycle for over
11,000 miles. In addition, he also provided numerous anecdotes
regarding the effectiveness of his and other, similar, modulating
headlamp designs. In his petition, Mr. Fairall claimed that his
recommended lighting system would enhance the conspicuity of the
motorcycle and produce a significant and immediate downward trend in
crashes and injuries to motorcyclists. Finally, Mr. Fairall cited NHTSA
statistics showing a substantial increase in motorcycle accidents and
fatalities.
FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,
specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment. The purpose of the standard is to
reduce traffic collisions, by providing adequate illumination of the
roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the
public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals
understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of
reduced visibility. Among the many aspects of vehicle lighting that are
covered by FMVSS No. 108 are the conditions under which lamps on a
vehicle are wired and permitted to flash.
Paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 states:
The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school
bus warning signal lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired for signaling
purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper
beam or lower beam, but not both to modulate from a higher intensity
to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We note that the reference to S5.6 is an error, and that the
reference should point to S7.9.4. NHTSA will issue a technical
amendment to correct this error shortly.
Steady means free from change or variation. This means that they
must not modulate, flash, or vary in size, area, intensity or
appearance.
Motorcycle headlamp systems that modulate, as permitted under
S7.9.4 of FMVSS No. 108, enhance the conspicuity of motorcycles without
having other negative safety impacts (e.g., causing confusion with
emergency vehicles). Currently, motorcycle headlamp modulation systems
or other lighting systems that deviate from these requirements are not
permitted under FMVSS No. 108 and may not be installed on new vehicles
or sold in the aftermarket as replacement equipment.
NHTSA notes that based upon the agency's policy statements
published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998 (Volume 63,
Number 213, pages 59482-59492) in order to be treated as a petition,
the Fairall submission must have substantive data purporting to show
positive safety benefits for the recommended idea. As the NHTSA policy
statement makes clear, NHTSA has neither the budget nor the time to
sponsor exhaustive research (such as fleet testing) of most lighting
ideas presented to it. Because Mr. Fairall's submission did include
some data, we treated it as a petition. NHTSA is denying this petition
because the petitioner did not demonstrate or provide sufficient
quantitative data showing that implementation of his recommended
lighting system would result in a reduction of death and injury
motorcyclists or other motorists.
Paragraph 5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 restricts lamps that may flash to
certain ones. The reason for restricting flashing lamps is to ensure
that the signal is instantly recognized and unambiguous to drivers, as
explained in our November 4, 1998 Statement of Policy. There is a
positive safety benefit to the public from clear and unambiguous
signals. Mr. Fairall's recommended lamps, which would be considered
auxiliary because they are not required equipment, are not among those
permitted to flash.
We do not believe Mr. Fairall's data are sufficient to show
positive safety benefits from changing our current standardized
requirements. The petitioner's primary support for his contention that
his recommended system is effective in reducing motorcyclists' death
and injury is to refer to an ``11,000 mile benchmark test;'' i.e.,
operating the system while he rode his motorcycle. The petitioner
stated, ``It has been 100 percent effective in stopping motorist from
violating my right-of-way throughout the testing period of more than
11,000 miles.''
Based on statistical considerations, the 11,000 vehicle-miles-
driven is insufficient to form a valid estimate for the impact this
system might have on motorcycle safety. Mr. Fairall's numerous
anecdotal examples of drivers noticing his lighting system do not
qualify as sufficient data. Moreover, the petitioner did not provide
data to support his contention that the use of the ``stroboscopic
lighting system'' was the reason that motorists did not violate his
right-of-way. Data addressing the behavior of other motorists who
encountered the lighting system was not provided.
Additional Data Analysis
NHTSA is aware that since 1999, motorcycle injuries and fatalities
have continued to rise and the majority of fatalities are multi-vehicle
crashes. Frequently, crashes are the result of a right-of-way violation
at an intersection, where the motorcycle is traveling straight when it
collides with another vehicle that has either turned or pulled out in
front of it. The agency has ongoing research efforts focusing on ways
to increase motrcycle conspicuity. One such research effort, a study
done by Calspan Corporation, examines whether the use of Daytime
Running Lamps (DRLs) on motorcylces would improve their conspicuity.
Despite the previously stated consideration of a lack of supporting
data, NHTSA decided to undertake some additional testing of Mr.
Fairall's recommended stroboscopic lighting system on an investigatory
basis. The agency conducted a preliminary evaluation of the
petitioner's recommended concept at our Vehicle Research & Test Center
(VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio. We made this decision based upon our
continued interest in identifying potential countermeasures to reduce
motorcycle crashes.
The prevalence of right-of-way collisions near intersections guided
this research. Researchers have hypothesized that the majority of
frontal crashes are attributable to either poor speed-spacing judgment
of other motorists or insufficient front motorcycle conspicuity. Speed-
spacing judgment refers to the accuracy that a driver can estimate the
distance at which it is safe to turn left at an intersection in front
of an oncoming motorcycle. Conspicuity is the extent to
[[Page 30326]]
which an object can be distinguished from its surroundings. Because
most fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcycles are the result
of a right-of-way violation in the proximity of an intersection, three
intersection-type test scenarios were utilized to examine potential
conspicuity improvements to a motocycle equipped with the forward
facing portion of the ``stroboscopic lighting system''. The test
scenarios included a gap acceptance test that was initiated with the
motorcycle taking a position in the adjacent, opposing traveling lane.
The other two were right side and left side peripheral field-of-view
scenarios.
Since the majority of motorcycle fatalities involve other vehicles
impacting the motorcycle from the front, the agency evaluated the front
portion of Mr. Fairall's system. This evaluation involved three
intersection-type tests. The agency did not find any safety benefits in
a speed-spacing judgment test (gap acceptance test) nor in a peripheral
detectability test involving motorcyclists at 90[deg] to a stationary
vehicle driver's line-of-sight. While potential limited benefits were
associated with the system in a peripheral detectability test at
45[deg], it is unclear whether they would outweigh safety disbenefits
such as the system providing a false sense of security to motorcyclists
and the impact on the driving behavior of other drivers who may react
to the strobing light in unexpected manners. A common concern with
auxiliary lamps and lighting systems is their potential to distract
other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to
the lighting devices requires by the standard. In order to initiate
rulemaking to allow a system such as the one identified by Mr. Fairall,
the agency would need clear data demonstrating safety benefits.
Agency Conclusion
After a thorough review of Mr. Fairall's petition, the agency has
decided to deny Mr. Fairall's petition for rulemaking. The agency notes
that the limited data the petitioner provided, consisting of the
petitioner's own experiences in driving approximately 11,000 miles as
well as anecdotal evidence, are insufficient to support a rulemaking.
Despite the petitioner's attempt to demonstrate the effect of the new
lighting system, NHTSA would require substantially more data
demonstrating the effectiveness of such a system to initiate a
rulemaking.
A ``strooscopic'' or flasing lighting system operated by the
motorcyclist near intersections to increase his or her conspicuity is
an interesting concept. Our preliminary evaluation showed that the
recommended ``stroboscopic lighting system'' does not appear to enhance
motorcycle conspicuity if the driver of the car is directly observing
the motorcycle, or if the motorcycle approaches the car at 90 degrees
or greater to the driver's line of sight. While limited improvements
were found in motorcycle conspicuity when the motorcyclist approaches a
vehicle at approximately 45 degrees to the driver's line of sight, the
data are insufficient to warrant rulemaking activity. Therefore, the
agency is denying the petition.
The agency remains interested in finding effective ways to increase
motorcycle conspicuity and reduce the number of crashes involving
motorcycles.
Dated: May 23, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 07-2693 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
