[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