[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16131-16132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8613]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hawkhill Technologies' (Hawkhill)
petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, to require
programmable turn signaling on all vehicles. The turn signal system
Hawkhill proposed would allow the driver to preset the amount of time a
turn signal remains activated before automatically turning off.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Flanigan, Office of Safety
Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590. Mr. Flanigan's telephone number is: (202) 366-4918. His
facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated November 20, 1996, Hawkhill
petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 108 to require all vehicles to
have programmable turn signaling capability. More specifically, the
turn signal systems would allow drivers to preset the amount of time
their turn signals will remain activated before they turn off
automatically. This would be accomplished by the driver tapping the
turn signal lever. For each time the lever is tapped, the turn signal
would stay activated for 4.5 seconds. Hawkhill's contention is that
this would be a virtually cost-free upgrade for vehicles with turn
signals that are already computer-controlled. The computer-controlled
turn signal system would simply be redesigned to account for the new
system.
Hawkhill believes that drivers are often lax in the way they
operate turn signals. According to Hawkhill, drivers are most lax in
situations where they have to deactivate turn signals, such as merge,
exit, and lane change maneuvers. Hawkhill believes that its system,
which allows drivers to program their turn signals to automatically
shut off after some chosen time interval, would reduce the number of
instances when drivers inadvertently leave their turn signal on after
completing the driving maneuver.
In addition, Hawkhill believes its automatic turn signal shut-off
would reduce the instances when vehicle operators choose not to use
their turn signals to signal maneuvers. It believes that this occurs in
maneuvers where the turn signals are commonly activated using the
``lane change'' feature (where the turn signal lever is pushed just far
enough to activate the turn signal, but is deactivated when the driver
removes his or her hand). In these situations, Hawkhill asserts that
some drivers do not use their signals because they are not able to
concentrate on the other tasks necessary to complete the maneuver while
holding down the lever.
Agency Analysis
NHTSA believes there are two distinct issues involved in these
claims. Hawkhill's latter claim relates to drivers who fail to use
their turn signals because of some perceived difficulty. NHTSA is very
interested in actions that would increase the use of turn signals to
alert other drivers of an impending maneuver. However, Hawkhill
provided
[[Page 16132]]
no data whatsoever to support its assertion that some drivers perceive
a difficulty in utilizing their turn signal system's ``lane-change''
feature and, therefore, fail to signal their maneuver. Absent such
data, NHTSA has no reason to believe that requiring an automatic turn
signal would significantly increase their use.
Hawkhill's other claim is that its system would address situations
when a driver inadvertently leaves the turn signal on after completing
a driving maneuver that does not turn the wheel enough to trigger the
current automatic shut-off feature required in S5.1.1.5 of FMVSS No.
108. Hawkhill's system is designed to address this situation. However,
NHTSA believes this is a much less frequent occurrence than the failure
to signal. We base this on anecdotal evidence and driving experience in
the Washington, DC metropolitan area. In addition, manufacturers have
taken voluntary steps to address this problem with the ``lane-change''
feature discussed previously. For example, General Motors has designed
all its Skylarks with a turn signal reminder chime that gives the
driver an added signal if the turn signal indicator is still on after
one half mile of driving. See 61 FR 56734, November 4, 1996. Further,
because the standard would not preclude the use of Hawkhill's proposed
turn signal system, perhaps manufacturers will voluntarily place this
feature in some of their vehicles as well.
Hawkhill provided no data to indicate the size of the safety
problem that would be addressed by automatically turning off turn
signals in situations not addressed by the current automatic shut-off
requirement. Absent such data, NHTSA has no information indicating this
is a large problem. Most vehicles do not now have computer-controlled
turn signals, nor does the agency have any information indicating that
a significant number of vehicles will be equipped with them in the near
future. If we assume for the sake of discussion that as many as half of
the 16 million light vehicles produced each year will be equipped with
computer-controlled turn signals in the near future, that would still
leave eight million vehicles that would need to be redesigned. At a
cost of $10 per vehicle to redesign the turn signal circuit, that would
translate into an annual cost of $80 million. NHTSA would not consider
imposing costs of this magnitude without some clear and convincing
evidence that it would produce safety benefits commensurate with this
cost. In this case, there are no data or other information suggesting
the safety benefits would be anything more than marginal.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
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.
Accordingly, it denies Hawkhill's petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: March 31, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-8613 Filed 4-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
