[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38135-38136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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 that all manual transmission cars, trucks, and 
sport utility vehicles be manufactured with the ``Hill-Holder'' 
innovation which is found as standard equipment on the Subaru Legacy. 
Mr. Chevedden claims

[[Page 38136]]

that this action will enhance safety by preventing backward travel 
collisions on hills during start-up from a stop sign or signal. Mr. 
Chevedden contends that the ``Hill-Holder'' prevents cars from slipping 
backwards on hills during clutch release and accelerator application. 
He believes this will reduce collisions with vehicles waiting behind. 
NHTSA's analysis of the petition concludes that there is no evidence of 
a significant safety problem that would warrant federal intervention 
and such a mandate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Mr. Medlin's telephone number is: (202) 366-5276. His facsimile 
number is (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated February 6, 1996, Mr. John 
Chevedden of Redondo Beach, California, petitioned the agency to issue 
a rule that would require equipping all manual transmission cars, 
trucks, and sport utility vehicles with a ``Hill-Holder'' device 
(currently found on the Subaru Legacy) to enhance safety by preventing 
backward travel collisions on hills during start-up from a stop sign or 
signal.
    Mr. Chevedden did not provide any support for his suggestion that 
the Hill-Holder will enhance safety. He provided no information 
suggesting that the Hill-Holder would prevent any collisions or that 
the type of collision in question causes any injuries or even causes 
any damage that might lead to injury-causing collisions at a later 
time. The collisions, if any, directly prevented by the Hill-Holder are 
very low speed collisions, too low to have any injury potential. 
Further, they are unlikely to cause any damage of safety significance. 
They are particularly unlikely to cause damage to passenger cars 
because of the protective capability required of passenger car bumpers 
by 49 CFR Part 580. Part 580 requires that passenger car bumpers 
provide protection against property damage in impacts up to 2.5 miles 
per hour. Most cars have bumpers that far exceed the standard.
    The agency notes further that any motorist uncomfortable with 
operating a manual transmission vehicle on hills has ample opportunity 
to buy an automatic transmission vehicle. Over 80 percent of light 
vehicles (i.e., those under 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) 
have automatic transmissions. According to 1995 vehicle production data 
submitted to the agency under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
Program, only 16.7 percent of passenger cars and 21.2 percent of light 
trucks were equipped with manual transmissions.
    The agency has just issued a comprehensive Crash Avoidance 
Implementation Plan listing the agency's priorities for improving the 
pre-crash safety of new vehicles and vehicles-in-use, and the 
interactions of drivers with their vehicles. The agency's limited 
resources for addressing pre-crash safety will be devoted to 
implementing these measures based on their potential contribution to 
safety. Even with additional resources, it would not be possible or 
appropriate for the agency to address every measure believed by a 
petitioner to have a possible connection with pre-crash safety. Given 
that the agency does not believe that the suggested action would 
enhance safety, NHTSA cannot devote its resources to pursuing it.
    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: July 17, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-18692 Filed 7-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P