[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7706]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies Mr. John Chevedden's petition for
rulemaking to require only amber bulbs be sold in the aftermarket for
replacement of the front amber turn signal bulbs. NHTSA's analysis of
the petition concludes that this action would have a negligible effect
on reducing crashes or fatalities, and would have significant cost
effects for the redesign of turn signal and stop lamps.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of
Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Van Iderstine's telephone number is: (202)
366-5275. His facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated November 14, 1995, Mr. John
Chevedden of Redondo Beach, California, petitioned the agency to issue
a rule that would ``require only amber light bulbs to be sold in the
aftermarket for replacement of factory amber front turn signal bulbs.''
Mr. Chevedden stated that this is necessary ``to prevent the
aftermarket from nullifying the requirement (since 1963) that front
turn signal lamps be amber.'' He states that the use of clear bulbs on
vehicles with clear lenses on front turn signal lamps nullifies the
amber requirement.
While it is true that front turn signal lamps are required to be
amber on new motor vehicles at the time of their delivery to the first
user, the requirement may be met by either an amber bulb behind a clear
lens, or a clear bulb behind an amber lens. In service, the correct
maintenance of that safety equipment is the responsibility of vehicle
owners. The installation of incorrect bulbs or replacement lenses
represents the failure of the owner to fulfill that responsibility. The
responsibility for inspection of and enforcement for properly operating
safety equipment belongs to the states, and in the petitioner's case,
existing laws in most states require that front turn signal lamps emit
amber light.
The clear bulbs, about which the petitioner is concerned, that may
be used to replace burned-out amber bulbs in front turn signal lamps
with clear lenses, are also used for all existing backup, stop, and
rear red turn signal lamps, as well as for other purposes. These bulbs
would be banned under the Mr. Chevedden's petition. Ultimately, this
would necessitate that new bulbs be designed and marketed that are not
interchangeable between lamp functions. This would have cost impacts on
new and replacement bulbs as well as on the design of new signal lamps.
This also could have significant adverse consequences to safety,
because of the inability of vehicle owners to obtain clear replacement
bulbs for the ones that will burn out on the 150 million vehicles
already in the fleet. Thus, the fleet could have fewer and fewer
functional lamps over time, leading to increases in accidents.
Mr. Chevedden did not provide any support for his petition, such as
the argument that accidents are occurring as a result of the use of
clear turn signal bulbs in lamps with clear lenses. In the absence such
support and in light of the adverse consequences that the agency
foresees for his solution, the agency sees no basis for rulemaking.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
technical review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there
is no reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking
proceeding. After considering all relevant factors, including the need
to allocate and prioritize limited agency resources to best accomplish
the agency's safety mission, the agency has decided to deny the
petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: March 25, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-7706 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
