[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