[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