83 FR 3667 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 18 (January 26, 2018)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 18 (January 26, 2018)
| Page Range | 3667-3670 | |
| FR Document | 2018-01403 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 3667-3670] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 3667
35. Additionally, the Commission has 38. Steps Taken To Minimize authority contained in Sections 1, 2(a),
estimated the number of licensed Significant Impact on Small Entities 4(i), 303(r), 307, 309, and 310 of the
commercial television stations to be and Significant Alternatives Considered. Communications Act of 1934, as
1,378. Of this total, 1,263 stations (or The RFA requires an agency to describe amended the NPRM is adopted.
about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 any significant alternatives that it has 42. It is further ordered that the
million or less, according to considered in reaching its proposed Commission’s Consumer and
Commission staff review of the BIA approach, which may include the Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television following four alternatives (among Information Center, shall send a copy of
Database (BIA) on May 9, 2017, and others): (1) The establishment of this NPRM, including the Initial
therefore these licensees qualify as differing compliance or reporting Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
small entities under the SBA definition. requirements or timetables that take into Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
36. We note, however, that in account the resources available to small Business Administration.
assessing whether a business concern entities; (2) the clarification, Federal Communications Commission.
qualifies as small under the above consolidation, or simplification of
Marlene H. Dortch,
definition, business (control) affiliations compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the Secretary.
must be included. Our estimate,
use of performance, rather than design, [FR Doc. 2018–01404 Filed 1–25–18; 8:45 am]
therefore, likely overstates the number
of small entities that might be affected standards; and (4) an exemption from BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
by our action because the revenue figure coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
on which it is based does not include or for small entities.
aggregate revenues from affiliated 39. The Commission has previously DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
companies. In addition, an element of concluded that the national audience
reach cap is intended to promote its National Highway Traffic Safety
the definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that
public interest goal of localism. We seek Administration
the entity not be dominant in its field
of operation. We are unable at this time comment on whether this rule or any
modified rule is necessary at this time 49 CFR Part 571
to define or quantify the criteria that
would establish whether a specific to serve localism and, if not, whether
any rule is necessary to serve our goals Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
television station is dominant in its field No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices, and
of viewpoint diversity and competition
of operation. Accordingly, the estimate Associated Equipment; Denial of
in the video marketplace or other goals
of small businesses to which rules may Petition for Rulemaking
such as innovation. The NPRM seeks
apply does not exclude any television
comment on the need for, and efficacy AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
station from the definition of a small
of, a national audience reach cap and Safety Administration (NHTSA), U. S.
business on this basis and is therefore
UHF discount or other type of limit in Department of Transportation (DOT).
possibly over-inclusive.
light of significant changes in the video
37. Description of Projected ACTION: Denial of petition for
marketplace since the Commission last
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other reviewed the cap and discount together. rulemaking.
Compliance Requirements. If the Assuming some limit is necessary, the
Commission determines that it should SUMMARY: This document denies a
NPRM seeks comment on whether the petition for rulemaking submitted by
modify or eliminate the current 39 Commission should retain or modify the
percent national audience reach cap or Mr. William H. Thompson III requesting
existing audience reach cap and UHF NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle
permanently eliminate or modify the discount; retain the audience reach cap
UHF discount, this action could require Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
but adopt a different weighting Lamps, reflective devices, and
modification of certain FCC forms and methodology; adopt a limit based on
their instructions, possibly including: associated equipment. Specifically, Mr.
some other measurement of a station Thompson requested we revise the
(1) FCC Form 301, Application for group’s size or influence, such as actual
Construction Permit for Commercial activation process for red and amber
viewership, market share, or advertising signal warning lamps on school buses to
Broadcast Station; (2) FCC Form 314, revenue; or adopt a more flexible
Application for Consent to Assignment require a new intermediate step during
alternative such as a threshold screen which both colors are activated
of Broadcast Station Construction that would trigger a more detailed
Permit or License; and (3) FCC Form simultaneously and flash in an
analysis, an automatic presumption or alternating pattern and that we decouple
315, Application for Consent to Transfer safe harbor, either in lieu of or in
Control of Corporation Holding the process by which lamps transition to
addition to a bright line cap. The NPRM the red-only configuration from the
Broadcast Station Construction Permit invites comment on the effects of any
or License. The Commission may also opening of the bus entrance door.
proposed rule changes on different
have to modify other forms that include NHTSA is denying this petition because
types of broadcasters (e.g., independent
in their instructions the media Mr. Thompson has not identified a
or network-affiliated), the costs and
ownership rules or citations to media safety need to justify making changes he
benefits associated with any proposals,
ownership proceedings, including Form requested, and Mr. Thompson did not
and any potential to have significant
303–S, Application for Renewal License provide persuasive quantitative data to
impact on small entities. The
for AM, FM, TV, Translator, or LPTV show adopting his requested changes
Commission expects to further consider
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Station and Form 323, Ownership would result in a net benefit to safety.
the economic impact on small entities
Report for Commercial Broadcast following its review of comments filed DATES: The petition is denied as of
Station. The impact of these changes in response to the NPRM and this IRFA. January 26, 2018.
will be the same on all entities, and the 40. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Commission does not anticipate that Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Wayne McKenzie, Office of Crash
compliance will require the expenditure Rule. None. Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202–366–
of any additional resources or place 41. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it 1810; Fax: 202–366–7002) or Mr. Daniel
additional burdens on small businesses. is ordered that, pursuant to the Koblenz, Office of the Chief Counsel
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_3685/page/1.svg)
![3668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(Phone: 202–366–2992; Fax: 202–366– warning lamps by actuating a switch to intermediate step is sufficiently long to
3820). You may mail these officials at: indicate to other drivers that the bus is warn other drivers that the bus is
National Highway Traffic Safety preparing to pick up or drop off preparing to stop, which will reduce
Administration, 1200 New Jersey children. Amber lamps stay activated some of risk factors described above.
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. until the driver opens the bus entrance
II. Agency Analysis
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: door, at which time amber lamps
automatically deactivate and red lamps We are denying Mr. Thompson’s
I. The Petition automatically activate to indicate petition on two bases. First, we do not
On October 28, 2012, NHTSA children are in the process of boarding believe confusion over the meaning of
received a letter from Mr. William H. or offloading the bus. school bus signal warning lamps is a
Thompson III containing a petition for Mr. Thompson argued, in his petition, safety need that must be addressed by
rulemaking to amend certain aspects of the current signal warning lamp amending the lighting standard. Second,
Federal motor vehicle safety standard activation process causes uncertainty Mr. Thomson has not provided data
(FMVSS) No. 108 relating to school among other drivers, and this persuasively demonstrating changes he
buses equipped with red and amber uncertainty constitutes a safety need proposed would lead to a net benefit for
signal warning lamps.1 In his petition, that justifies amending FMVSS No. 108. vehicle safety. We explain our reasoning
Mr. Thompson requested NHTSA add Specifically, Mr. Thompson claimed in more detail below.
an intermediate lamp configuration to current signal warning lamps do not a. Mr. Thompson has not
the activation process for signal warning effectively communicate when the bus demonstrated that uncertainty over the
lamps between the existing amber-only will begin the process of picking up or meaning of signal warning lamps is a
and red-only configurations during dropping off children because amber safety need that must be addressed.
lamps do not transition to red until the Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle
which the amber and red lamps are both
bus door is actually open (i.e., until Safety Act of 1966 (the ‘‘Safety Act’’) for
activated and alternate flashing.
boarding or offloading has begun). the purpose of ‘‘reduc[ing] traffic
Additionally, he requested the
According to Mr. Thompson, this accidents and deaths and injuries
transition from this intermediate amber-
uncertainty among other drivers leads to resulting from traffic accidents.’’ 2 To
and-red configuration to the red-only
‘‘risk factors’’ in the form of unsafe accomplish this, the Safety Act
configuration be controlled by a timer
driving behaviors, such as ‘‘passing authorizes NHTSA to promulgate
rather than by the bus door opening
school buses while the red signal lamps FMVSSs as well as to engage in other
mechanism. Mr. Thompson stated
are flashing and stop arm is extended activities such as research and
adding an intermediate amber-and-red
and being cited by law enforcement, development. Because NHTSA has
configuration that is activated for a fixed
making a ‘panic stop’ to avoid passing limited resources with which to
period of time would improve the accomplish goals of the Safety Act, the
effectiveness with warning other drivers the school bus as not to break the law
and making a sudden stop and having agency must make choices about how to
when the bus is stopping for children as most effectively and efficiently allocate
compared to the existing system. a following motorist caught unaware.’’
These risk factors, in turn, could lead to resources. Accordingly, we will not take
According to Mr. Thompson, these action under our Safety Act authority if
changes would reduce confusion injury or death of children and other
road users. we do not believe doing so will further
regarding the meaning of signal warning interests of vehicle safety. In the context
To address this perceived safety risk,
lamps, which could in turn reduce the of petitions for rulemaking filed under
Mr. Thompson requested NHTSA
frequency with which other drivers 49 CFR part 552, this means we will not
amend FMVSS No. 108 to revise
engage in unsafe driving behaviors such grant a petition to amend an FMVSS
activation requirements for school bus
as illegally passing school buses while unless we believe doing so will address
signal warning lamps so they more
their red signal warning lamps are a traffic-related safety need.
clearly indicate the status of the school
activated (so-called ‘‘stop-arm Mr. Thompson has not shown such a
bus to other drivers. Per his petition,
violations’’). safety need exists in this case. As noted
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective upon approaching a bus stop, the bus
driver would activate amber flashing earlier, Mr. Thompson argued in his
devices, and associated equipment, petition that confusion over the
signal lamps by actuating a switch as is
currently requires new school buses be meaning of signal warning lamps is a
done under the existing rule. However,
equipped with four red signal warning significant safety risk because it leads to
as the bus makes its final approach, the
lamps and allows for the optional unsafe driving behavior around school
bus driver would actuate the signal
installation of four amber signal buses. To make his case, Mr. Thompson
warning lamp switch a second time,
warning lamps. The red lamps must be cited several sources, including two
which would activate an intermediate
placed on the front and rear of the bus NHTSA publications (one survey and
signal warning lamp configuration
cab (two on the front and two on the one guidance document) and two State-
during which amber and red signal
rear) as high and as far apart as sponsored studies of stop-arm
warning lamps are activated and
practicable, with optional amber lamps alternate flashing. This new violations.3 While we agree with Mr.
placed inboard of red lamps. Under the configuration would be activated for a
existing signal warning lamp activation fixed period (the petition suggests
2 49 U.S.C. 30111.
requirements, a school bus driver approximately 3 seconds) after which
3 In addition to these studies, Mr. Thompson
manually activates the amber signal provided other types of evidence. For example, Mr.
the signal warning lamp system would Thompson stated ‘‘expert evidence’’ indicates
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Since Mr. Thompson filed his petition, NHTSA
automatically progress to a red-only drivers who see amber lamps tend to speed up to
configuration and the stop sign would try and ‘‘get past the bus’’ before red lamps activate.
issued a final rule reorganizing almost all aspects Mr. Thompson asserted signal warning lamp
of FMVSS No. 108. This final rule did not make any deploy. The transition to the red-only systems could potentially be misused under
substantive changes to the standard and did not configuration signals other drivers to existing requirements but admitted the sort of
affect our analysis of Mr. Thompson’s petition. come to a complete stop and indicates misuse he described is ‘‘probably not a common
However, it did rearrange paragraphs within the occurrence.’’ However, because this information is
standard, and as a result, paragraph numbers Mr.
to the bus driver it is safe to open the unsourced and anecdotal, we cannot use it as a
Thompson cited in his petition are no longer bus door to pick up or drop off children. basis in our evaluation for concluding a safety risk
accurate. According to Mr. Thompson, a 3 second exists.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_3685/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 3669
Thompson that these sources support Unlike the North Carolina study, the the previous section), or information
the conclusion that school bus stop-arm Florida study drew conclusions explaining how he developed specific
violations are a problem, they do not regarding causes of stop-arm violations, aspects of this proposal (i.e., he chose a
support Mr. Thompson’s assertion that stating ‘‘while many motorists clearly duration of 3 seconds for the
stop-arm violations and other unsafe do not understand the law as it applies intermediate lamp configuration
driving behavior is because of to this situation, many more motorists because that is the duration of the
uncertainty over signal warning lamps. are, in fact, intentionally violating the yellow light on a traffic signal for 25
We will first address the two NHTSA law.’’ mile-per-hour traffic). Mr. Thompson’s
publications Mr. Thompson cited. The While the publications Mr. Thompson petition included no clear data
first NHTSA publication was our 1997 cited may demonstrate stop-arm demonstrating the changes he proposed
National Survey on Speeding and violations are a safety problem, they do would be beneficial for vehicle safety.
Unsafe Driving Attitudes and Behaviors, not support his conclusion that Given that Mr. Thompson did not
which contains a finding that 99 percent uncertainty over the meaning of signal provide proof of an offsetting safety
of drivers believed stop-arm violations warning lamps constitutes a safety need benefit, we are concerned the changes
were the most egregious type of moving that must be addressed through he proposed may lead to a decrease in
violation.4 As the title suggests, this is amendments to FMVSS No. 108. None vehicle safety because they would
a survey of public opinion; it does not of the publications he cited link disrupt signal light standardization,
make any conclusions based on uncertainty regarding the meaning of which could cause driver confusion. As
empirical data about the frequency or signal warning lamps to unsafe driving we have explained repeatedly through
cause of stop-arm violations and does behaviors in any significant way, and in years of letters of interpretation,10 as
not contain information relevant to fact could be read as supporting the well as our prior responses to other
evaluating whether these violations are opposite conclusion—drivers petitions made under Part 552,11 the
because of uncertainty regarding the understand the signal warning lamps effectiveness of all signal lamps
meaning of signal warning lamps. The but (at least in some instances) are (including school bus signal warning
other NHTSA publication Mr. simply choosing to ignore them. lamps) is premised on driver familiarity
Thompson cited was our 2000 Best b. Mr. Thompson has not provided us with established lighting schemes. For
Practices Guide on Reducing Illegal with data showing persuasive evidence decades, the knowledge that flashing
Passing of School Buses.5 This that the change he proposes will amber signal warning lamps on a school
publication does not include empirical provide a positive effect on safety. bus indicate a school bus is preparing to
data supporting Mr. Thompson’s As we explained in our 1998 stop and flashing red signal warning
proposal. Moreover, the policy proposal statement of policy on signal lighting, lamps indicate children are boarding or
this document contains focuses on when evaluating petitions to add or offloading, has been ingrained in the
addressing the problem of stop-arm amend signal lighting requirements, we mind of the driving public. Changing
violations through a combination of look at whether the petitioner has how school bus warning lamps operate
educational and enforcement initiatives, provided data that ‘‘show[s] persuasive by adding Mr. Thompson’s intermediate
not changes to FMVSS No. 108. evidence of a positive safety impact.’’ 9 configuration would disrupt this well-
The two State-sponsored studies Mr. If we cannot determine the change will understood scheme. This could increase
Thompson cited do not support Mr. positively affect safety, ‘‘NHTSA will driver confusion until such time all
Thompson’s proposition that not change its regulations to permit the buses use the new lighting scheme and
uncertainty over signal warning lamps new signal lighting idea, because that drivers become familiar with the new
is a safety risk. The first study Mr. would negatively affect standardization lighting scheme.
Thompson cited was conducted by the of signal lighting.’’ In other words, a Relatedly, we are also concerned
North Carolina Department of Public petitioner requesting an amendment to about Mr. Thompson’s other proposal to
Instruction.6 That study documented an existing signal lighting requirement tie the activation of the red-only signal
occurrences of stop-arm violations but must provide data persuading us the warning lamp configuration to a 3
does not establish their underlying change will have a benefit to safety second timer rather than to the opening
causes.7 The second study Mr. outweighing detriments to safety that of the bus entrance door. The current
Thompson cited was sponsored by the will occur because of reduced standard requires amber signal warning
Florida Department of Education.8 standardization of signal lighting. lamps deactivate and red signal warning
Because NHTSA does not have lamps activate automatically upon the
4 DOT HS 809 688, available at https:// resources to sponsor research on most of opening of the bus entrance door. Under
one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/drowsy_driving1/ the lighting ideas proposed, we rely on this system, red lamps are only ever
speed_volII_finding/ petitioners to provide us with data to
SpeedVolumeIIFindingsFinal.pdf. (Please note that
activated when the bus is in the process
the survey was updated in 2002, but kept the same evaluate whether a requested change to of picking up or dropping off children.
DOT HS number). signal lighting requirements will By contrast, under Mr. Thompson’s
5 Available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/ provide a net benefit to vehicle safety. scheme, the red-only configuration
injury/buses/2000schoolbus/index.htm. Mr. Thompson’s petition did not necessarily activates before bus doors
6 Available at http://www.ncbussafety.org/
provide us with such data. Rather, open. This could confuse drivers who
StopArmViolationCamera/.
7 In a more recent study conducted in October information Mr. Thompson provided have learned red signal warning lamps
2013 by the North Carolina Department of Public falls into one of two categories: are only activated when children are in
Instruction, authors explicitly stated the question of Information supporting the general the process of boarding or offloading.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
why stop-arm violations occur must be studied assertion stop-arm violations are a Finally, we note the Florida-
further, and confusing signal warning lamps are just
one of several possible reasons for this problems. problem (i.e., the studies described in sponsored study discussed in the
See Pilot Testing of a School Bus Stop Arm Camera
System (October 2013), available at http:// Research, Motorist Comprehension of Florida’s 10 See, e.g., letter to James A. Haigh (April 8,
www.ncbussafety.org/StopArmViolationCamera/ School Bus Stop Law and School Bus Signalization 2008), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/
documents/2013%2010%2030%20Final%20ITRE_ Devices: Final Report (June 1997), available at 07-005005as.htm.
stoparm_Camera_report.pdf. https://www.cutr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 11 See, e.g., NovaBUS, Inc.: Denial of Application
8 University of South Florida College of 2012/07/school.pdf. for Decision of Inconsequential Compliance, 67 FR
Engineering, Center for Urban Transportation 9 Statement of Policy, 63 FR 59482 (Nov. 4, 1998). 31862 (May 10, 2002).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_3685/page/3.svg)
![3670 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
previous section found significant harvest to assist in ending overfishing, achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY
driver confusion over the legal and to rebuild the greater amberjack from federally managed fish stocks to
obligations applying to drivers when stock in the Gulf, while maximizing ensure that fishery resources are
they encounter a school bus with optimum yield (OY) of the greater managed for the greatest overall benefit
flashing signal warning lamps. (This is amberjack stock in the Gulf. to the nation.
distinct from the confusion Mr. DATES: Written comments must be The greater amberjack resource in the
Thompson identifies as a safety risk, received on or before February 10, 2018. Gulf was declared overfished by NMFS
which is over the meaning of the signal ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on February 9, 2001. The most recent
warning lamps themselves.) Given there on the proposed rule, identified by Southeast Data Assessment and Review
is evidence drivers are already confused ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2017–0149’’ by any of stock assessment was completed in
about laws relating to stop-arm 2016, and indicated the Gulf greater
the following methods:
violations, we do not think it would be • Electronic Submission: Submit all amberjack stock remained overfished,
beneficial for safety to make the signal electronic public comments via the was undergoing overfishing, and would
warning lamp activation sequence more Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to not be rebuilt by 2019, as was
complex than it already is (as would be www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail; previously estimated. In response to the
the case under Mr. Thompson’s D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0149, click the assessment results, the Council
request). established new annual catch limits
‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the
For these reasons in accordance with (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs)
required fields, and enter or attach your
49 CFR part 552, Mr. Thompson’s (codified as quotas) that will be effective
comments.
October 28, 2012, petition for • Mail: Submit written comments to on January 27, 2018 (82 FR 61485;
rulemaking is denied. Kelli O’Donnell, Southeast Regional December 28, 2017). Under these new
Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, harvest levels, NMFS estimates the Gulf
Issued on January 12, 2018, in Washington,
DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 St. Petersburg, FL 33701. greater amberjack stock will be rebuilt
and 501.5. • Instructions: Comments sent by any by 2027. The Council also modified
Heidi R. King, other method, to any other address or recreational fixed closed season from
individual, or received after the end of June through July each year to January
Deputy Administrator.
the comment period, may not be through June. The Council intended this
[FR Doc. 2018–01403 Filed 1–25–18; 8:45 am]
considered by NMFS. All comments change to the fixed closed season to be
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
received are a part of the public record a short-term measure to protect the Gulf
and will generally be posted for public greater amberjack stock during its
viewing on www.regulations.gov spawning season (March through April)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and allow the Council time to develop
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), this current framework action and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric proposed rule to establish two separate
Administration confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information recreational fishing seasons.
50 CFR Part 622 submitted voluntarily by the sender will Management Measures Contained in
be publicly accessible. NMFS will This Proposed Rule
[Docket No. 171017999–8036–01]
accept anonymous comments (enter This proposed rule would revise the
RIN 0648–BH32 ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish recreational fishing year and the
to remain anonymous). recreational closed season for greater
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Electronic copies of the framework
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish amberjack in the Gulf.
action, which includes an
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; environmental assessment, a regulatory Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing
Modifications to Greater Amberjack impact review, and a Regulatory Year
Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be The current Gulf recreational fishing
Closed Season obtained from the Southeast Regional year for greater amberjack is January 1
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa. through December 31 and was
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/ established in the original FMP (49 FR
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reef_fish/2017/GAJ_Fishing%20Year/ 39548; October 9, 1984). This proposed
Commerce. final_action_modify_rec_fishing_yr.pdf. rule would revise the Gulf greater
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: amberjack recreational fishing year to be
comments. Kelli O’Donnell, NMFS SERO, August 1 through July 31. This change
telephone: 727–824–5305, email: would allow for greater amberjack
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement Kelli.ODonnell@noaa.gov. harvest to occur later in the year and
management measures described in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf provide an opportunity to harvest
framework action to the Fishery reef fish fishery, which includes greater greater amberjack when harvest of many
Management Plan for the Reef Fish amberjack, is managed under the FMP. other reef fish species is prohibited due
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), The Council prepared the FMP and to in-season quota closures. Starting the
as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico NMFS implements the FMP under the fishing year in August, when fishing
Fishery Management Council (Council). authority of the Magnuson-Stevens effort is lower, is also expected to result
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
If implemented, this proposed rule Fishery Conservation and Management in enough quota remaining to allow for
would change the recreational fishing Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) through fishing during May of the following
year and modify the recreational fixed regulations at 50 CFR part 622. calendar year.
closed season for greater amberjack in Consistent with the change in the
the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive Background fishing year, this proposed rule would
economic zone (EEZ). The purposes of The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires revise the years associated with the
this proposed rule and the framework NMFS and regional fishery management greater amberjack recreational ACLs and
action are to constrain recreational councils to prevent overfishing and to quotas. Currently, the recreational ACLs
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_3685/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-26 10:06:30
Document Modified: 2018-10-26 10:06:30
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Denial of petition for rulemaking. | |
| Dates | The petition is denied as of January 26, 2018. | |
| 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 (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. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 3667 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR