Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 90-01; Notice 5]

RIN 2127-AF32

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; School Bus Pedestrian

Safety Devices

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

action: Final rule.

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

summary: This notice adopts as final the amendments made by an interim

final rule to the flash rate requirement for stop signal arm lamps in

Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. The interim

final rule, which responded to a petition for rulemaking submitted by

Blue Bird Bus Company, removed design restrictive language that had the

effect of prohibiting strobe lamps on stop signal arms.

dates: Effective Date: January 27, 1995.

Petitions for reconsideration: Any petition for reconsideration of

this rule must be received by the agency not later than February 27,

1995.

addresses: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to Docket No. 90-

01; Notice 5 and be submitted to the following: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

for further information contact: Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-0247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 131, School Bus

Pedestrian Safety Devices, requires each new school bus to be equipped

with a stop signal arm. A stop signal arm is an item of school bus

equipment designed to alert motorists that a school bus is stopping or

has stopped. The stop signal arm is patterned after a conventional

``STOP'' sign and attached to the exterior of the driver's side of a

school bus. When the school bus stops, the stop signal arm

automatically extends outward from the bus. The standard specifies

requirements for the stop signal arm's appearance, size, conspicuity,

operation and location. To enhance the conspicuity of a stop signal

arm, Standard No. 131 specifies that the device must be either

reflectorized or be illuminated with flashing lamps.

On February 22, 1994, Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird) petitioned

the agency to amend the flash rate requirements in S6.2.2 of Standard

No. 131 to allow the use of strobe lamps on stop signal arms. At the

time, S6.2.2 stated:

S6.2.2 Flash Rate. The lamps on each side of the stop signal arm,

when operated at the manufacturer's design load, shall flash at a

rate of 60 to 120 flashes per minute with a current ``on'' time of

30 to 75 percent. The total of the percent current ``on'' time for

the two terminals shall be between 90 and 110.

Blue Bird argued that the requirement had the effect of prohibiting

the use of strobe lamps. Citing previous agency notices, Blue Bird

stated its belief that NHTSA had not intended, in issuing its stop

signal arm requirements, to prohibit the use of strobe lamps on stop

signal arms. For instance, it stated that, in the advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), the agency had solicited comments about

whether the agency should require strobe lamps.\1\

\1\The agency notes that there was no ANPRM addressing stop

signal arms. The discussion described by Blue Bird was contained in

the NPRM (55 FR 3624, February 2, 1990).

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

According to Blue Bird, its petition was precipitated by a letter

that it received from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

addressing an apparent non-compliance of school buses manufactured with

stop signal arms equipped with strobe lamps. Blue Bird stated that the

apparent non-compliance results from the fact that S6.2.2 sets forth

restrictive design requirements based on the operating characteristics

of incandescent lamps instead of more performance-oriented requirements

based on visual effectiveness. The petitioner alleged that the

requirement prevents the use of strobe lamps. Based on these

allegations, Blue Bird stated that the apparent noncompliance results

from a deficiency in the Standard and not a deficiency in its school

buses. Blue Bird requested that the agency amend S6.2.2 to allow the

use of strobe lamps, stating that this would be in the interests of

safety and consistent with the Standard's intent.

Blue Bird also stated that four states (Alaska, New Mexico,

Washington, and West Virginia) as well as some local school districts

require stop signal arms to be equipped with strobe lamps. This

consideration prompted Blue Bird to request that this rulemaking take

effect immediately, claiming that the production and delivery of school

buses with strobe lamp equipped stop signal arms needed to continue

without disruption.

On May 24, 1994, NHTSA published an interim final rule that amended

the flash rate requirements to remove design restrictive language that

acted to prohibit strobe lamps (59 FR 26759). The agency explained

that, in establishing the flash rate requirements, the agency intended

to assure the conspicuity of stop signal arms and did not intend to

prohibit manufacturers from installing strobe lamps on stop signal arms

to provide such conspicuity. The requirements in effect prior to the

interim final rule were based upon filament type lamps, which need an

extended current-on-time of 90 to 110 percent of the total flash cycle

for the two terminals. This time period is needed to allow this type of

lamp to come to full brilliance. In contrast, strobe lamps come to full

brilliance almost immediately and could not meet the current-on-time

requirements for filament type lamps. The interim final rule resolved

this problem by modifying the flash rate requirements to reflect

changes made to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE's) Recommended

Practice J1133, July 1989, School Bus Stop Arms, to allow the use of

strobe lights on stop arms.

NHTSA received comments about the interim final rule from the

National School Transportation Association (NSTA) and Specialty

Manufacturing Company (Specialty) which manufactures stop signal arms.

NSTA stated that the interim final rule should be made permanent.

Specialty also stated that the interim final rule should be made

permanent, provided that the agency adopts an industry practice which

treats a double flash strobe pattern to be a single flash cycle. It

explained that both single and double flash strobe lamps are available,

but that the secondary flash of a double strobe pattern will occur

approximately 0.17 seconds after the initial flash. According to the

commenter, the industry considers this double flash pattern to be a

single flash since they occur in rapid succession.

NHTSA agrees with Specialty that multiple flash patterns that occur

[[Page 5337]] rapidly should be considered to be a single flash. In a

March 29, 1994 interpretation letter to the Connecticut Department of

Motor Vehicles, NHTSA stated that the light emanating from a strobe

lamp that flashes repeatedly in rapid succession will be considered a

single flash of varying intensity and not as multiple flashes, when

determining the flash rate and flash cycle for alternatively flashing

lights required by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and

Associated Equipment, for school buses. The agency believes that it is

appropriate to apply the same principle to school bus stop arms

equipped with multiple flash strobe lamps on stop arms. Accordingly,

NHTSA considers strobe lamps on school bus stop arms that have multiple

flashes of a single lamp and then remain off while the other lamp

flashes to be a single flash cycle.

Based on the reasons set forth in the interim final rule and those

set forth above, NHTSA has decided to adopt the amendments in the

interim final rule on a permanent basis. NHTSA determined that there is

good cause to establish an immediate effective date for the final rule

to avoid disrupting compliance with the Standard as explained in the

interim final rule.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures

This notice was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed

this rulemaking and determined that it is not significant within the

meaning of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures. The agency has determined that the economic effects of the

amendment are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not

required. Since the amendment imposes no new requirement but simply

allows for an alternative design, any cost impacts will be in the

nature of slight, nonquantifiable cost savings.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has

evaluated the effects of this rulemaking on small entities. Based on

this evaluation, I hereby certify that the amendments will not have

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Few of the school bus manufacturers qualify as small entities. In

addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles, small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental units that purchase motor

vehicles will not be significantly affected by the slight cost savings

resulting from the amendments. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility

analysis has not been performed.

C. Federalism Assessment

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has determined that

the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Nevertheless, NHTSA

notes that the laws of various local jurisdictions and four States

(Alaska, New Mexico, Washington, and West Virginia) require stop signal

arms to be equipped with strobe lamps and thus would have been

preempted without this amendment.

D. Environmental Impacts

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this rule. The agency

has determined that this rule will not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a

higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for

the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 49 CFR part 571 which was

published at 59 FR 26759 on May 24, 1994, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166,

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: January 23, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-2117 Filed 1-26-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M