[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4228-4229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2095]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4229]]
SUMMARY: This document denies Mr. Alan F. Van Horen's petition to amend
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated equipment, to permit an exterior
lamp that would be a visual indicator that the vehicle is in its cruise
control mode. The petition provided no information to support the
petitioner's contention that an exterior lamp showing when a vehicle's
cruise control was engaged would enhance safety, nor does NHTSA's
experience and judgment suggest any safety benefits from such a lamp.
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 September 16, 1996, Mr. Van
Horen petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit an
exterior lamp that would serve as a visual indicator that a vehicle
operator has engaged the vehicle's cruise control. Mr. Van Horen stated
that the indicator would consist of a small green light located in the
driver-side tail light housing and driver-side front parking light
housing. The indicator would be illuminated when the vehicle's cruise
control mode is activated. A silhouette type insignia could be used for
color blind motorists. Mr. Van Horen argued that the indicator would
contribute to highway safety by reducing ``rubbernecking, accidents,
and general traffic gridlock.''
To establish a new vehicle safety specification, the agency
decides, on the basis of data and analyses, that there is a significant
safety problem and that the safety problem would likely be reduced by
adopting that specification. The petitioner asserted that an external
cruise control indicator would reduce ``rubbernecking, accidents, and
general traffic gridlock.'' However, the petitioner did not provide any
information showing that that lack of a cruise control indicator
contributes to crashes, nor is NHTSA aware of any such information from
other sources.
Regarding ``rubbernecking,'' the act of observing nearby activity
while driving, the petitioner provided no information about how this
indicator would reduce crashes occurring as a result of this act.
Absent such information, NHTSA's judgment is that ``rubbernecking''
would not be reduced if vehicle operators were aware that adjacent
vehicle operators had engaged their cruise control.
Regarding crashes, the petitioner did not submit any information
showing how or how many crashes would be prevented if vehicle operators
had this information about cruise control on adjacent vehicles. The
agency's judgment is that crashes would not be reduced.
Finally, regarding the reduction of traffic gridlock, the
petitioner did not submit any information as to how this indicator
would reduce gridlock. The agency fails to see any relationship, let
alone one relating to safety, between gridlock and vehicle operators'
knowledge of whether adjacent vehicle operators have engaged their
cruise control.
The petitioner has submitted no information to support the petition
and the agency's judgment is that this indicator would offer no
discernable safety benefit. At this time, NHTSA does not believe that
changing its agency priorities or allocation of resources to further
investigate these types of lamps would be beneficial to safety.
The agency also notes that the specific solution chosen, a green
lamp in the same housing as a red tail lamp or an amber or white front
parking lamp (or as pictured in the sample illustration provided by the
petitioner, optically combined using a multi-color lens and the same
optical compartment), would not be permissible under Federal rules.
There is a specific provision against any lamp, reflective device, or
other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of
required motor vehicle lighting equipment. The agency believes that the
proximity of the proposed green lamp to the required lamps would impair
the effectiveness of required lamps by altering the perceived color of
emitted light of the required lamp when the auxiliary green lamp is
activated.
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 Mr. Van Horen's petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: January 22, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-2095 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P