Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Heidi R. King
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
26 January 2018
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3667-3670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01403]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamp, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U. S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Mr. William H. Thompson III requesting NHTSA amend Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment. Specifically, Mr. Thompson requested we revise
the activation process for red and amber signal warning lamps on school
buses to require a new intermediate step during which both colors are
activated simultaneously and flash in an alternating pattern and that
we decouple the process by which lamps transition to the red-only
configuration from the opening of the bus entrance door. NHTSA is
denying this petition because Mr. Thompson has not identified a safety
need to justify making changes he requested, and Mr. Thompson did not
provide persuasive quantitative data to show adopting his requested
changes would result in a net benefit to safety.
DATES: The petition is denied as of January 26, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne McKenzie, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-1810; Fax: 202-366-7002) or Mr.
Daniel Koblenz, Office of the Chief Counsel
[[Page 3668]]
(Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax: 202-366-3820). You may mail these officials
at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Petition
On October 28, 2012, NHTSA received a letter from Mr. William H.
Thompson III containing a petition for rulemaking to amend certain
aspects of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108
relating to school buses equipped with red and amber signal warning
lamps.\1\ In his petition, Mr. Thompson requested NHTSA add an
intermediate lamp configuration to the activation process for signal
warning lamps between the existing amber-only and red-only
configurations during which the amber and red lamps are both activated
and alternate flashing. Additionally, he requested the transition from
this intermediate amber-and-red configuration to the red-only
configuration be controlled by a timer rather than by the bus door
opening mechanism. Mr. Thompson stated adding an intermediate amber-
and-red configuration that is activated for a fixed period of time
would improve the effectiveness with warning other drivers when the bus
is stopping for children as compared to the existing system. According
to Mr. Thompson, these changes would reduce confusion regarding the
meaning of signal warning lamps, which could in turn reduce the
frequency with which other drivers engage in unsafe driving behaviors
such as illegally passing school buses while their red signal warning
lamps are activated (so-called ``stop-arm violations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since Mr. Thompson filed his petition, NHTSA issued a final
rule reorganizing almost all aspects of FMVSS No. 108. This final
rule did not make any substantive changes to the standard and did
not affect our analysis of Mr. Thompson's petition. However, it did
rearrange paragraphs within the standard, and as a result, paragraph
numbers Mr. Thompson cited in his petition are no longer accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,
currently requires new school buses be equipped with four red signal
warning lamps and allows for the optional installation of four amber
signal warning lamps. The red lamps must be placed on the front and
rear of the bus cab (two on the front and two on the rear) as high and
as far apart as practicable, with optional amber lamps placed inboard
of red lamps. Under the existing signal warning lamp activation
requirements, a school bus driver manually activates the amber signal
warning lamps by actuating a switch to indicate to other drivers that
the bus is preparing to pick up or drop off children. Amber lamps stay
activated until the driver opens the bus entrance door, at which time
amber lamps automatically deactivate and red lamps automatically
activate to indicate children are in the process of boarding or
offloading the bus.
Mr. Thompson argued, in his petition, the current signal warning
lamp activation process causes uncertainty among other drivers, and
this uncertainty constitutes a safety need that justifies amending
FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, Mr. Thompson claimed current signal
warning lamps do not effectively communicate when the bus will begin
the process of picking up or dropping off children because amber lamps
do not transition to red until the bus door is actually open (i.e.,
until boarding or offloading has begun). According to Mr. Thompson,
this uncertainty among other drivers leads to ``risk factors'' in the
form of unsafe driving behaviors, such as ``passing school buses while
the red signal lamps are flashing and stop arm is extended and being
cited by law enforcement, making a `panic stop' to avoid passing the
school bus as not to break the law and making a sudden stop and having
a following motorist caught unaware.'' These risk factors, in turn,
could lead to injury or death of children and other road users.
To address this perceived safety risk, Mr. Thompson requested NHTSA
amend FMVSS No. 108 to revise activation requirements for school bus
signal warning lamps so they more clearly indicate the status of the
school bus to other drivers. Per his petition, upon approaching a bus
stop, the bus driver would activate amber flashing signal lamps by
actuating a switch as is done under the existing rule. However, as the
bus makes its final approach, the bus driver would actuate the signal
warning lamp switch a second time, which would activate an intermediate
signal warning lamp configuration during which amber and red signal
warning lamps are activated and alternate flashing. This new
configuration would be activated for a fixed period (the petition
suggests approximately 3 seconds) after which the signal warning lamp
system would automatically progress to a red-only configuration and the
stop sign would deploy. The transition to the red-only configuration
signals other drivers to come to a complete stop and indicates to the
bus driver it is safe to open the bus door to pick up or drop off
children. According to Mr. Thompson, a 3 second intermediate step is
sufficiently long to warn other drivers that the bus is preparing to
stop, which will reduce some of risk factors described above.
II. Agency Analysis
We are denying Mr. Thompson's petition on two bases. First, we do
not believe confusion over the meaning of school bus signal warning
lamps is a safety need that must be addressed by amending the lighting
standard. Second, Mr. Thomson has not provided data persuasively
demonstrating changes he proposed would lead to a net benefit for
vehicle safety. We explain our reasoning in more detail below.
a. Mr. Thompson has not demonstrated that uncertainty over the
meaning of signal warning lamps is a safety need that must be
addressed.
Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the ``Safety
Act'') for the purpose of ``reduc[ing] traffic accidents and deaths and
injuries resulting from traffic accidents.'' \2\ To accomplish this,
the Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to promulgate FMVSSs as well as to
engage in other activities such as research and development. Because
NHTSA has limited resources with which to accomplish goals of the
Safety Act, the agency must make choices about how to most effectively
and efficiently allocate resources. Accordingly, we will not take
action under our Safety Act authority if we do not believe doing so
will further interests of vehicle safety. In the context of petitions
for rulemaking filed under 49 CFR part 552, this means we will not
grant a petition to amend an FMVSS unless we believe doing so will
address a traffic-related safety need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 30111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thompson has not shown such a safety need exists in this case.
As noted earlier, Mr. Thompson argued in his petition that confusion
over the meaning of signal warning lamps is a significant safety risk
because it leads to unsafe driving behavior around school buses. To
make his case, Mr. Thompson cited several sources, including two NHTSA
publications (one survey and one guidance document) and two State-
sponsored studies of stop-arm violations.\3\ While we agree with Mr.
[[Page 3669]]
Thompson that these sources support the conclusion that school bus
stop-arm violations are a problem, they do not support Mr. Thompson's
assertion that stop-arm violations and other unsafe driving behavior is
because of uncertainty over signal warning lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In addition to these studies, Mr. Thompson provided other
types of evidence. For example, Mr. Thompson stated ``expert
evidence'' indicates drivers who see amber lamps tend to speed up to
try and ``get past the bus'' before red lamps activate. Mr. Thompson
asserted signal warning lamp systems could potentially be misused
under existing requirements but admitted the sort of misuse he
described is ``probably not a common occurrence.'' However, because
this information is unsourced and anecdotal, we cannot use it as a
basis in our evaluation for concluding a safety risk exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will first address the two NHTSA publications Mr. Thompson
cited. The first NHTSA publication was our 1997 National Survey on
Speeding and Unsafe Driving Attitudes and Behaviors, which contains a
finding that 99 percent of drivers believed stop-arm violations were
the most egregious type of moving violation.\4\ As the title suggests,
this is a survey of public opinion; it does not make any conclusions
based on empirical data about the frequency or cause of stop-arm
violations and does not contain information relevant to evaluating
whether these violations are because of uncertainty regarding the
meaning of signal warning lamps. The other NHTSA publication Mr.
Thompson cited was our 2000 Best Practices Guide on Reducing Illegal
Passing of School Buses.\5\ This publication does not include empirical
data supporting Mr. Thompson's proposal. Moreover, the policy proposal
this document contains focuses on addressing the problem of stop-arm
violations through a combination of educational and enforcement
initiatives, not changes to FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOT HS 809 688, available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/drowsy_driving1/speed_volII_finding/SpeedVolumeIIFindingsFinal.pdf. (Please note that the survey was
updated in 2002, but kept the same DOT HS number).
\5\ Available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/buses/2000schoolbus/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two State-sponsored studies Mr. Thompson cited do not support
Mr. Thompson's proposition that uncertainty over signal warning lamps
is a safety risk. The first study Mr. Thompson cited was conducted by
the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.\6\ That study
documented occurrences of stop-arm violations but does not establish
their underlying causes.\7\ The second study Mr. Thompson cited was
sponsored by the Florida Department of Education.\8\ Unlike the North
Carolina study, the Florida study drew conclusions regarding causes of
stop-arm violations, stating ``while many motorists clearly do not
understand the law as it applies to this situation, many more motorists
are, in fact, intentionally violating the law.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available at http://www.ncbussafety.org/StopArmViolationCamera/.
\7\ In a more recent study conducted in October 2013 by the
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, authors explicitly
stated the question of why stop-arm violations occur must be studied
further, and confusing signal warning lamps are just one of several
possible reasons for this problems. See Pilot Testing of a School
Bus Stop Arm Camera System (October 2013), available at http://www.ncbussafety.org/StopArmViolationCamera/documents/2013%2010%2030%20Final%20ITRE_stoparm_Camera_report.pdf.
\8\ University of South Florida College of Engineering, Center
for Urban Transportation Research, Motorist Comprehension of
Florida's School Bus Stop Law and School Bus Signalization Devices:
Final Report (June 1997), available at https://www.cutr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/school.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the publications Mr. Thompson cited may demonstrate stop-arm
violations are a safety problem, they do not support his conclusion
that uncertainty over the meaning of signal warning lamps constitutes a
safety need that must be addressed through amendments to FMVSS No. 108.
None of the publications he cited link uncertainty regarding the
meaning of signal warning lamps to unsafe driving behaviors in any
significant way, and in fact could be read as supporting the opposite
conclusion--drivers understand the signal warning lamps but (at least
in some instances) are simply choosing to ignore them.
b. Mr. Thompson has not provided us with data showing persuasive
evidence that the change he proposes will provide a positive effect on
safety.
As we explained in our 1998 statement of policy on signal lighting,
when evaluating petitions to add or amend signal lighting requirements,
we look at whether the petitioner has provided data that ``show[s]
persuasive evidence of a positive safety impact.'' \9\ If we cannot
determine the change will positively affect safety, ``NHTSA will not
change its regulations to permit the new signal lighting idea, because
that would negatively affect standardization of signal lighting.'' In
other words, a petitioner requesting an amendment to an existing signal
lighting requirement must provide data persuading us the change will
have a benefit to safety outweighing detriments to safety that will
occur because of reduced standardization of signal lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Statement of Policy, 63 FR 59482 (Nov. 4, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because NHTSA does not have resources to sponsor research on most
of the lighting ideas proposed, we rely on petitioners to provide us
with data to evaluate whether a requested change to signal lighting
requirements will provide a net benefit to vehicle safety. Mr.
Thompson's petition did not provide us with such data. Rather,
information Mr. Thompson provided falls into one of two categories:
Information supporting the general assertion stop-arm violations are a
problem (i.e., the studies described in the previous section), or
information explaining how he developed specific aspects of this
proposal (i.e., he chose a duration of 3 seconds for the intermediate
lamp configuration because that is the duration of the yellow light on
a traffic signal for 25 mile-per-hour traffic). Mr. Thompson's petition
included no clear data demonstrating the changes he proposed would be
beneficial for vehicle safety.
Given that Mr. Thompson did not provide proof of an offsetting
safety benefit, we are concerned the changes he proposed may lead to a
decrease in vehicle safety because they would disrupt signal light
standardization, which could cause driver confusion. As we have
explained repeatedly through years of letters of interpretation,\10\ as
well as our prior responses to other petitions made under Part 552,\11\
the effectiveness of all signal lamps (including school bus signal
warning lamps) is premised on driver familiarity with established
lighting schemes. For decades, the knowledge that flashing amber signal
warning lamps on a school bus indicate a school bus is preparing to
stop and flashing red signal warning lamps indicate children are
boarding or offloading, has been ingrained in the mind of the driving
public. Changing how school bus warning lamps operate by adding Mr.
Thompson's intermediate configuration would disrupt this well-
understood scheme. This could increase driver confusion until such time
all buses use the new lighting scheme and drivers become familiar with
the new lighting scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., letter to James A. Haigh (April 8, 2008),
available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/07-005005as.htm.
\11\ See, e.g., NovaBUS, Inc.: Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Compliance, 67 FR 31862 (May 10, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, we are also concerned about Mr. Thompson's other
proposal to tie the activation of the red-only signal warning lamp
configuration to a 3 second timer rather than to the opening of the bus
entrance door. The current standard requires amber signal warning lamps
deactivate and red signal warning lamps activate automatically upon the
opening of the bus entrance door. Under this system, red lamps are only
ever activated when the bus is in the process of picking up or dropping
off children. By contrast, under Mr. Thompson's scheme, the red-only
configuration necessarily activates before bus doors open. This could
confuse drivers who have learned red signal warning lamps are only
activated when children are in the process of boarding or offloading.
Finally, we note the Florida-sponsored study discussed in the
[[Page 3670]]
previous section found significant driver confusion over the legal
obligations applying to drivers when they encounter a school bus with
flashing signal warning lamps. (This is distinct from the confusion Mr.
Thompson identifies as a safety risk, which is over the meaning of the
signal warning lamps themselves.) Given there is evidence drivers are
already confused about laws relating to stop-arm violations, we do not
think it would be beneficial for safety to make the signal warning lamp
activation sequence more complex than it already is (as would be the
case under Mr. Thompson's request).
For these reasons in accordance with 49 CFR part 552, Mr.
Thompson's October 28, 2012, petition for rulemaking is denied.
Issued on January 12, 2018, in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi R. King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-01403 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P