Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 11184-11186 [05-4433]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11184
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
estimated CO concentration of 8.93 ppm
at the intersection with the highest
modeled concentration (Third &
Washington). Since the estimated CO
concentration remained below the CO
standard, the dispersion modeling
continues to demonstrate attainment.
We are proposing approval of the
revision in this Federal Register.
V. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation, Administrative Orders
In order to analyze Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corporation, Mead
Works’ contribution to the elevated CO
level described in Section III D, Ecology
used screening and refined modeling
techniques for point source analysis (40
CFR 51 Appendix W, 6.2.d.). Results of
this analysis indicated a maximum total
8-hour modeled concentration of 8.6
ppm on the hilltop to the southeast of
the Kaiser smelter (CO standard is 9
ppm). Therefore, Kaiser, through
enforceable Administrative Order No.
DE 01AQIS–3285 dated October 24,
2001, was only required to verify that
CO exceedances were not occurring on
the hilltop. In December 2000, Kaiser
fully curtailed its primary aluminum
production operations at Mead Works.
Due to the full curtailment of the
facility, Ecology approved a nearby
existing ambient air monitoring location
as being satisfactory for gathering
background ambient CO concentration
levels. On April 9, 2003, Ecology
approved Administrative Order No. DE
01AQIS–3285, Amendment #1 allowing
Kaiser the option to terminate the
collection of data during curtailment
once 2 years of background data was
collected. The Order requires Kaiser
Mead Works to resume monitoring and
reporting of ambient CO concentrations
at a site approved by Ecology if and
when primary aluminum production is
resumed at the site. In this action, EPA
is proposing approval of Kaiser Mead
Works Administrative Order No. DE
01AQIS–3285 and Administrative Order
No. DE 01AQIS–3285, Amendment #1.
VI. Summary of EPA’s Proposal
We are proposing to approve the
following elements of the Spokane CO
Attainment Plan, submitted on
September 20, 2001 and November 22,
2004:
A. Procedural requirements, under
section 110(a)(2) of the Act;
B. Base year emission inventory,
under sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1)
and periodic inventories under 187(a)(5)
of the Act;
C. Attainment demonstration, under
section 187(a)(7) of the Act;
D. The TCM program under 187(b)(2),
182(d)(1) and 108(f)(1)(A) of the Act;
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:31 Mar 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
E. VMT forecasts under section
187(a)(2)(A) of the Act;
F. Contingency measures under
section 187(a)(3) of the Act;
G. The conformity budget under
section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act and
§ 93.118 of the transportation
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart
A).
H. Administrative Order No. DE
01AQIS–3285 and Order No. DE
01AQIS–3285, Amendment #1 relating
to Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation, Mead Works.
We are also proposing to approve a
SIP revision submitted on September
26, 2001, to two sections of 173–422
WAC Motor Vehicle Emission
Inspection, to provide an inspection
schedule for motor vehicles between 5
and 25 years old.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve State law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by State law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental regulations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 1, 2005.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05–4470 Filed 3–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Based on the agency’s
evaluation, NHTSA denies the petition
for rulemaking from Mr. Kazyaka of
TVK Industries, Inc. to amend our safety
standards to require the shift patterns on
vehicles equipped with manual
transmissions to be illuminated and to
indicate the gear selected.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, contact Mr. William D.
Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, phone (202) 366–2272. For
legal issues, contact Dorothy Nakama,
Office of Chief Counsel, phone (202)
366–2992. You may send mail to both
of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
On October 15, 2003, NHTSA
responded to a request for interpretation
from Mr. Thomas V. Kazyaka of TVK
Industries, Inc. regarding Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
102. Mr. Kazyaka expressed the view
that manual transmission shift patterns
are required to be backlit and must
display the shift lever position in order
to comply with S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102.
TVK Industries, Inc. markets the
SureShifter, which is an aftermarket
device that illuminates the shift pattern
and indicates the shift lever position on
manual transmission-equipped vehicles.
NHTSA interpreted S3.2 of FMVSS No.
102 as not requiring manual
transmission shift patterns to have
backlighting or to identify the shift lever
position. The interpretation also stated
that no other FMVSSs require vehicles
with only manual transmissions to have
shift pattern backlighting or to identify
the shift lever position.
On December 9, 2003, NHTSA
responded to another letter from Mr.
Kazyaka, which requested
reconsideration of the October 2003
interpretation. In response, NHTSA
restated the position expressed in its
original interpretation of FMVSS No.
102 to Mr. Kazyaka. Paragraph S3.2 of
FMVSS No. 102 requires the
identification of the shift lever pattern
of manual transmissions, however, it
does not require identification of the
shift lever position nor backlighting.
On March 9, 2004, NHTSA received a
‘‘Petition for Rulemaking, Defect, and
Non-compliance Orders’’ from Mr.
Kazyaka per 49 CFR Part 552. In this
document, Mr. Kazyaka cites several
sections in FMVSS Nos. 101 and 102
and petitions the Administrator to
initiate a proceeding to determine
whether to issue an order concerning
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:31 Mar 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
the notification and remedy of a failure
of motor vehicles equipped with
manually shifted transmissions and
replacement manual shift knob
equipment as specified by FMVSS No.
101 and FMVSS No. 102. This notice
responds to Mr. Kazyaka’s recent
petition.
Petition Response
In his petition, Mr. Kazyaka cites
several sections in FMVSS No. 101 and
claims that these sections require the
shift patterns on manual transmissionequipped vehicles to have backlighting
and to indicate the shift lever position.
The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 is to
ensure the accessibility and visibility of
motor vehicle controls and displays. In
FMVSS No.101, the only place where
manual shift levers are mentioned is
under S5.1 (Location of Hand Operated
Controls). This section requires that the
manual transmission shift lever be in a
location where it is operable by and
visible to the driver when restrained by
crash protection equipment. This
requirement refers strictly to the
location of the manual transmission
shift lever and does not require the lever
or shift pattern to be visible under low
light conditions. There is no other
mention of the manual gearshift lever in
FMVSS No. 101. In S5.3.1, under
illumination requirements, handoperated controls mounted upon the
floor, floor console or steering column
are specifically excluded from
illumination requirements. Since they
are mounted on the floor, manual
transmission gearshift levers are
excluded from FMVSS No. 101
illumination requirements. Therefore,
FMVSS No. 101 does not require the
shift patterns of vehicles equipped with
manual transmissions to have
backlighting or to indicate the shift lever
position.
In the petition, there were also
sections in FMVSS No. 102 cited as
justification for illuminating shift
patterns and indicating shift lever
positions on manual transmissionequipped vehicles. One of the purposes
of FMVSS No. 102 is to reduce the
likelihood of shifting errors. For
automatic transmission-equipped
vehicles, there are requirements for the
shift sequence, the identification of shift
lever positions, the identification of
shift positions in relation to one another
and the identification of the gear
selected. The only requirement for
manual transmission-equipped vehicles
is that the shift lever pattern must be
identified and in view of the driver
when the driver is present in the
driver’s seating position. This
requirement refers strictly to the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11185
location of the shift lever pattern and in
no way refers to illumination of the shift
pattern under low light conditions.
Also, it does not require identification
of the shift lever position.
Mr. Kazyaka interprets FMVSS Nos.
101 and 102 as requiring the
illumination of manual transmission
shift patterns and the identification of
the shift lever position by equating them
incorrectly with automatic transmission
controls. The requirements for manual
and automatic transmission controls are
different because the controls are used
differently. The shift patterns for
automatic transmissions are usually in a
relatively straight line and the shift
positions are close together, which make
it difficult for the driver to distinguish
the position of the lever without looking
at it. Also, automatic transmission shift
levers are usually shifted when the
vehicle is stationary.
The simple shift pattern identification
for manual transmissions enables the
driver to learn the shift positions and
operate the lever. A manual
transmission shift lever sequence
usually has a distinct pattern. Once
drivers learn the pattern, they can
determine what gear their vehicles are
in by feel, without looking at the pattern
and the lever position each time they
shift. A manual transmission shift lever
is shifted very often. If drivers had to
look at the shift lever and pattern each
time they changed gears, this would be
a tremendous distraction. The fact that
the driver does not refer to the shift
pattern after it is learned is evidenced
by the location of the shift pattern on
the majority of vehicles. The shift
pattern is located on the shift lever
knob, which is covered up by the
driver’s hand during shifting.
Mr. Kazyaka also asserts that vehicles
‘‘equipped with automatic/manual
transmissions have taken to display the
gear selection in dash-mounted
indicators,’’ further noting that these
devices are not available for retrofit and
the ‘‘shifting pattern is not displayed.’’
In an interpretation letter of April 3,
1989, to Porsche addressing FMVSS No.
102 issues, NHTSA concluded that
vehicles with dual function (automatic
and manual) transmissions are in fact
automatic transmissions for the
purposes of the FMVSS. Thus, vehicles
with dual function transmissions (even
when the driver selects the ‘‘manual’’
mode) must meet the illumination and
identification of shift lever position
requirements, as well as other
requirements in FMVSS No. 102.
NHTSA further notes that in these dual
function vehicles, the ‘‘manual’’ system
typically does not have gear selections
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
11186
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
in an ‘‘H’’ configuration, but displays
the gear positions in a row.
The petition states that the
consequences of motorist in manual
transmission-equipped vehicles
committing shifting errors while
stopped at pedestrian crosswalks and
railroad crossings may be fatal. It also
states that multiple vehicle operators
encounter various shifting patterns, and
the petition claims they are at risk of
causing property damage and injuries
without shift pattern illumination and
shift lever position identification. The
petition also claims that shift pattern
illumination and the identification of
shift lever position are more important
on vehicles equipped with idle-stop
technology where the engine stops and
starts automatically while the vehicle is
stationary. The agency has searched
both its crash and complaint databases
and has found no indication of a
shifting error problem relative to
manual transmission-equipped vehicles
both with and without the idle-stop
feature. Drivers of manual transmissionequipped vehicles shift and know what
gear they are in by feel. Once drivers
learn their shift patterns, (a process that
is completed very quickly), there is no
need for them to look at the shift pattern
each time they shift or want to know
their gear position.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,
this completes the agency’s technical
review of the petition for rulemaking
from TVK Industries, Inc. NHTSA
believes that Mr. Kazyaka’s
interpretations relative to FMVSS Nos.
101 and 102 are incorrect and the
standards do not require manual
transmission shift patterns to be
illuminated or to indicate the shift lever
position. Also, NHTSA believes that any
suggested amendments to the FMVSSs
that would require manual transmission
shift lever patterns to be illuminated or
indicate the shift lever position would
not change the performance
requirements in a manner that would
result in improved safety. Thus, after
considering the allocation of agency
resources and agency priorities, NHTSA
has decided that the rulemaking
requested by the petitioner is not
warranted. Accordingly, the rulemaking
requested by the petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: March 2, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05–4433 Filed 3–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:31 Mar 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–20028]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document denies a
petition for rulemaking submitted by
Mr. Richard T. Ince of C & J Technology
Inc., to amend provisions of the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS)
for rearview mirrors pertaining to the
test procedure for school bus driving
mirrors.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues: Mr. Charles R. Hott,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
NVS–113, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone (202) 366–0247. Fax: (202)
366–7002.
For legal issues: Eric Stas, Office of
Chief Counsel, NCC–112, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–2992
and fax: (202) 366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 2, 2004, the agency received
a petition from Mr. Richard T. Ince,
C & J Technology Inc., requesting that
the agency review and amend paragraph
S13.3(g) of FMVSS No. 111, ‘‘Rearview
Mirrors,’’ which provides procedures for
the placement of ‘‘cones’’ ‘‘P’’ and ‘‘L’’
in the school bus mirror test procedure
for the driving mirrors. The petitioner
stated that the change is needed
‘‘because the rule as stated provides
unnecessary and dangerous blind spots
in the operator’s field of indirect vision
along the sides of the school bus.’’
The petitioner stated that S9.1 of the
standard requires that exterior driving
mirrors be tested using cones placed in
accordance with the requirements
specified in S13. S13 requires the
placement of 18 cylinders 1 of a
1 It is noted that the petitioner incorrectly implies
that the regulation uses ‘‘cones’’ to measure
compliance with the standard. The standard uses
cylinders that are 0.3048 meters (1 foot) high and
0.0348 meters (1 foot) in diameter. The standard
uses cylinders (not cones) because, as stated in the
December 2, 1992 final rule, the agency believes
0.3048 meter (1 foot) cylinders more accurately
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified height and size at various
locations around the school bus. He said
cylinder P on the passenger side of the
vehicle is placed at 3.6 meters (12 feet)
to the right of the longitudinal vertical
plane tangent at the center of the rear
axle. He said that cylinder L on the
driver side, is placed at 1.8 meters (6
feet) to the left of the longitudinal
vertical plane tangent at the center of
the rear axle. The petitioner asserted
that meeting such requirements ‘‘builds
into the vehicle blind spots along the
sides of the vehicle that are unnecessary
and dangerous,’’ and he illustrated this
with an Exhibit B (Figure 1). C & J
Technology claims that these blind
spots put the operator and any children
along the sides of the vehicle in a
dangerous position as the bus leaves a
stop, because the driver cannot see the
blind spot areas in the rearview mirror
system. The petitioner claims that in
such situations the driver would be
forced to physically look at these areas
before moving the bus forward;
however, if the driver does not, it could
be especially dangerous to children in
these blind spots.
C & J Technology’s recommended
solution is to amend the standard so
that cylinders L and P are moved out
from the center of the rear axle to a
point that would reduce or eliminate the
alleged blind spot problem. The
petitioner stated that with the use of the
‘‘BDS Dead Angle Spot Mirror,’’ the
field of vision could increase to a level
up to 65 percent greater than that
provided by the standard’s current
requirements. The petitioner further
stated that the ‘‘BDS Dead Angle Spot
Mirror’’ is a wide angle glass, and it is
cut in such a manner as to make it
possible to move the cylinders out to
approximately 21.4 meters (70 feet) from
the center of the rear axle, thereby
making ‘‘the entire side of the bus
visible with just a glance in the mirror
by the operator.’’
Analysis of the Petitioner’s Argument
The statement provided by C & J
Technology, which asserts that the test
procedure requirements in the standard
builds into the vehicle dangerous blind
spots, is inaccurate. Currently, all
school buses are required to have two
mirror systems, System A mirrors that
are typically called ‘‘driving mirrors,’’
and System B mirrors which are
pedestrian detection mirrors. The
System A mirrors are used by the
operator to maneuver the school bus
safely in traffic. The System B mirrors
are pedestrian detection mirrors that are
represent a child that is bending over or has fallen
down. (57 FR 57000)
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11184-11186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4433]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11185]]
SUMMARY: Based on the agency's evaluation, NHTSA denies the petition
for rulemaking from Mr. Kazyaka of TVK Industries, Inc. to amend our
safety standards to require the shift patterns on vehicles equipped
with manual transmissions to be illuminated and to indicate the gear
selected.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Mr.
William D. Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, phone (202) 366-
2272. For legal issues, contact Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief
Counsel, phone (202) 366-2992. You may send mail to both of these
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 15, 2003, NHTSA responded to a request for
interpretation from Mr. Thomas V. Kazyaka of TVK Industries, Inc.
regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102. Mr.
Kazyaka expressed the view that manual transmission shift patterns are
required to be backlit and must display the shift lever position in
order to comply with S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102. TVK Industries, Inc.
markets the SureShifter, which is an aftermarket device that
illuminates the shift pattern and indicates the shift lever position on
manual transmission-equipped vehicles. NHTSA interpreted S3.2 of FMVSS
No. 102 as not requiring manual transmission shift patterns to have
backlighting or to identify the shift lever position. The
interpretation also stated that no other FMVSSs require vehicles with
only manual transmissions to have shift pattern backlighting or to
identify the shift lever position.
On December 9, 2003, NHTSA responded to another letter from Mr.
Kazyaka, which requested reconsideration of the October 2003
interpretation. In response, NHTSA restated the position expressed in
its original interpretation of FMVSS No. 102 to Mr. Kazyaka. Paragraph
S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 requires the identification of the shift lever
pattern of manual transmissions, however, it does not require
identification of the shift lever position nor backlighting.
On March 9, 2004, NHTSA received a ``Petition for Rulemaking,
Defect, and Non-compliance Orders'' from Mr. Kazyaka per 49 CFR Part
552. In this document, Mr. Kazyaka cites several sections in FMVSS Nos.
101 and 102 and petitions the Administrator to initiate a proceeding to
determine whether to issue an order concerning the notification and
remedy of a failure of motor vehicles equipped with manually shifted
transmissions and replacement manual shift knob equipment as specified
by FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS No. 102. This notice responds to Mr.
Kazyaka's recent petition.
Petition Response
In his petition, Mr. Kazyaka cites several sections in FMVSS No.
101 and claims that these sections require the shift patterns on manual
transmission-equipped vehicles to have backlighting and to indicate the
shift lever position. The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 is to ensure the
accessibility and visibility of motor vehicle controls and displays. In
FMVSS No.101, the only place where manual shift levers are mentioned is
under S5.1 (Location of Hand Operated Controls). This section requires
that the manual transmission shift lever be in a location where it is
operable by and visible to the driver when restrained by crash
protection equipment. This requirement refers strictly to the location
of the manual transmission shift lever and does not require the lever
or shift pattern to be visible under low light conditions. There is no
other mention of the manual gearshift lever in FMVSS No. 101. In
S5.3.1, under illumination requirements, hand-operated controls mounted
upon the floor, floor console or steering column are specifically
excluded from illumination requirements. Since they are mounted on the
floor, manual transmission gearshift levers are excluded from FMVSS No.
101 illumination requirements. Therefore, FMVSS No. 101 does not
require the shift patterns of vehicles equipped with manual
transmissions to have backlighting or to indicate the shift lever
position.
In the petition, there were also sections in FMVSS No. 102 cited as
justification for illuminating shift patterns and indicating shift
lever positions on manual transmission-equipped vehicles. One of the
purposes of FMVSS No. 102 is to reduce the likelihood of shifting
errors. For automatic transmission-equipped vehicles, there are
requirements for the shift sequence, the identification of shift lever
positions, the identification of shift positions in relation to one
another and the identification of the gear selected. The only
requirement for manual transmission-equipped vehicles is that the shift
lever pattern must be identified and in view of the driver when the
driver is present in the driver's seating position. This requirement
refers strictly to the location of the shift lever pattern and in no
way refers to illumination of the shift pattern under low light
conditions. Also, it does not require identification of the shift lever
position.
Mr. Kazyaka interprets FMVSS Nos. 101 and 102 as requiring the
illumination of manual transmission shift patterns and the
identification of the shift lever position by equating them incorrectly
with automatic transmission controls. The requirements for manual and
automatic transmission controls are different because the controls are
used differently. The shift patterns for automatic transmissions are
usually in a relatively straight line and the shift positions are close
together, which make it difficult for the driver to distinguish the
position of the lever without looking at it. Also, automatic
transmission shift levers are usually shifted when the vehicle is
stationary.
The simple shift pattern identification for manual transmissions
enables the driver to learn the shift positions and operate the lever.
A manual transmission shift lever sequence usually has a distinct
pattern. Once drivers learn the pattern, they can determine what gear
their vehicles are in by feel, without looking at the pattern and the
lever position each time they shift. A manual transmission shift lever
is shifted very often. If drivers had to look at the shift lever and
pattern each time they changed gears, this would be a tremendous
distraction. The fact that the driver does not refer to the shift
pattern after it is learned is evidenced by the location of the shift
pattern on the majority of vehicles. The shift pattern is located on
the shift lever knob, which is covered up by the driver's hand during
shifting.
Mr. Kazyaka also asserts that vehicles ``equipped with automatic/
manual transmissions have taken to display the gear selection in dash-
mounted indicators,'' further noting that these devices are not
available for retrofit and the ``shifting pattern is not displayed.''
In an interpretation letter of April 3, 1989, to Porsche addressing
FMVSS No. 102 issues, NHTSA concluded that vehicles with dual function
(automatic and manual) transmissions are in fact automatic
transmissions for the purposes of the FMVSS. Thus, vehicles with dual
function transmissions (even when the driver selects the ``manual''
mode) must meet the illumination and identification of shift lever
position requirements, as well as other requirements in FMVSS No. 102.
NHTSA further notes that in these dual function vehicles, the
``manual'' system typically does not have gear selections
[[Page 11186]]
in an ``H'' configuration, but displays the gear positions in a row.
The petition states that the consequences of motorist in manual
transmission-equipped vehicles committing shifting errors while stopped
at pedestrian crosswalks and railroad crossings may be fatal. It also
states that multiple vehicle operators encounter various shifting
patterns, and the petition claims they are at risk of causing property
damage and injuries without shift pattern illumination and shift lever
position identification. The petition also claims that shift pattern
illumination and the identification of shift lever position are more
important on vehicles equipped with idle-stop technology where the
engine stops and starts automatically while the vehicle is stationary.
The agency has searched both its crash and complaint databases and has
found no indication of a shifting error problem relative to manual
transmission-equipped vehicles both with and without the idle-stop
feature. Drivers of manual transmission-equipped vehicles shift and
know what gear they are in by feel. Once drivers learn their shift
patterns, (a process that is completed very quickly), there is no need
for them to look at the shift pattern each time they shift or want to
know their gear position.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
technical review of the petition for rulemaking from TVK Industries,
Inc. NHTSA believes that Mr. Kazyaka's interpretations relative to
FMVSS Nos. 101 and 102 are incorrect and the standards do not require
manual transmission shift patterns to be illuminated or to indicate the
shift lever position. Also, NHTSA believes that any suggested
amendments to the FMVSSs that would require manual transmission shift
lever patterns to be illuminated or indicate the shift lever position
would not change the performance requirements in a manner that would
result in improved safety. Thus, after considering the allocation of
agency resources and agency priorities, NHTSA has decided that the
rulemaking requested by the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly,
the rulemaking requested by the petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: March 2, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-4433 Filed 3-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
