Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4124; Notice 1]

RIN 2127-AG86

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Lamps, Reflective Devices,

and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Federal motor vehicle

safety standard on lighting to reduce glare from daytime running lamps

(DRLs). It would do this in three stages. One year after publication of

the final rule, DRLs utilizing the upper headlamp beam would not be

permitted to exceed 3,000 candela at any point, thus becoming subject

to the maximum candela (cd) permitted for DRLs other than headlamps.

This same limit would be applied to the upper half of lower beam DRLs

two years after publication of the final rule. Finally, four years

after publication of the final rule, all DRLs, except lower beam DRLs,

would be subject to a flat 1,500 cd limit. Lower beam DRLs would be

limited to 1500 cd at horizontal or above. This action is intended to

provide the public with all the conspicuity benefits of DRLs while

reducing glare and is based on research that has become available since

the final rule establishing DRLs was published in 1993.

DATES: Comments are due on the proposal September 21, 1998. The

proposed effective date of the final rule is one year after its

publication.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice

number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Docket hours are from

10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere Medlin, Office of Safety

Performance Standards (202-366-5276).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1987, NHTSA opened a docket to receive

comments on a proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to

allow daytime running lamps (DRLs) as optional lighting equipment. This

rulemaking was terminated the following year. In a petition dated

November 19, 1990, General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned the

Agency for rulemaking to permit, but not require, DRLs. GM indicated

that it had three concerns that it felt would best be addressed by a

permissive Federal standard as requested in the petition. These

concerns were as follows:

1. A need to preempt certain state laws that inadvertently

prohibited certain forms of daytime running lamps;

2. A desire for a single national law regarding DRLs, instead of a

patchwork of different state laws on this subject. California had

already enacted its own DRL requirements; and

3. A desire to harmonize any new U.S. requirements for DRLs with

the existing Canadian mandate for new vehicle DRLs.

The petition for rulemaking was granted and a proposed rule was

published on August 12, 1991. The agency agreed that a permissive

Federal standard should be proposed to deal with the first two concerns

expressed in the GM petition (inadvertent prohibition of DRLs and a

patchwork of differing state requirements). However, the agency decided

that its proposal should regulate DRLs only to assure that these new,

optional lamps not detract from existing levels of safety. NHTSA

explained that: ``The two chief considerations in this regard are that

the lamps not create excessive glare, and that their use does not mask

the ability of the front turn signal to send its message.'' Based on

the available agency research, NHTSA proposed to limit DRL intensity to

2600 cd. This proposed limit was well below the 7000 cd maximum

intensity Canada had established, but more than double the 1200 cd

limit then in effect or proposed in some European countries for DRLs.

The intensity limits in the NPRM were very controversial, many

commenters objected to the proposal's failure to harmonize the

permissive U.S. standard for DRLs with other countries' DRL standards.

Domestic manufacturers were particularly concerned that the proposal

was not harmonized with Canada's DRL requirements. In its comment to

the NPRM, GM asserted that 7000 cd DRL are dimmer than 35,000 cd full

intensity lower beams. While 35,000 cd. is certainly a greater

intensity than 7000 cd, NHTSA observed in the preamble to the final

rule that GM had failed to also explain the effects of the different

aim used for the upper beam and lower beam. The bright spot of lower

beam lamps is directed down and to the right one to two degrees. Viewed

straight-on, earlier data indicated that lower beams conforming to

Standard No. 108 are not brighter than 3000 cd with 2200 cd as a

typical intensity at the H-V axis. The bright spot of upper beam lamps

is directed straight out and as far down the road as possible. Viewed

straight-on, the full intensity of the upper beams would be directed at

the H-V axis--up to 7000 cd in the case of DRLs.

GM also commented that the range between the Canadian minimum of

2000 cd for DRLs and NHTSA's proposed maximum of 2600 cd for DRLs was

too narrow for practicability. GM urged NHTSA to set the proposed

maximum brightness for DRLs slightly higher to recognize the

practicability issues.

The comments to the proposal from the Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety and vehicle and equipment manufacturers, with two

exceptions,

[[Page 42349]]

called for the adoption of the Canadian provisions which permit DRL as

bright as 7000 cd. The normal harmonization concerns (existence of

equipment already designed for Canada and the pursuit of free trade)

were given as reasons. Further, the commenters who opposed limiting DRL

brightness below 7000 cd noted that there were almost no glare

complaints in Canada. This remains true in 1998; only a few letters of

complaint have been received by Transport Canada. However, Volkswagen

and General Electric supported the proposed 2600 cd. maximum.

The commenters who supported 7000 cd as the upper intensity limit

for DRLs also noted that this would permit cost savings. The simplest

and least expensive way to add DRLs to a vehicle is simply to wire the

upper beam headlamps in series. This halves the voltage and produces

approximately one tenth the light intensity, which corresponds to about

7000 cd. as a maximum.

Ford Motor Company, GM, Chrysler Corporation, and American

Automobile Manufacturers Association commented that the agency's

research on glare was not sufficiently convincing to be the basis for a

2600 cd limit.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, John Kovrik, and most of the

commenting state agencies expressed concerns about glare and supported

the NHTSA proposal for a 2600 cd maximum intensity for DRLs. Virginia

and Ohio favored 2600 cd; Michigan favored full intensity lower beams

which are roughly equivalent. Minnesota supported the proposed

intensity limits, and asked for other requirements to limit the

mounting height of DRLs, as a further control on glare.

In response to these comments, NHTSA sought to find a middle ground

that would achieve the agency's goals of preventing excessive glare and

masking of turn signals, and accommodating the commenters' desire for

harmonization and the chance to use the simplest DRL system. NHTSA

published a final rule on January 11, 1993 that announced this middle

ground. In the final rule, reduced intensity upper beam DRLs up to 7000

cd were permitted, but only if they were mounted below side mirror and

inside mirror mounting heights (34 inches or 864 mm) to avoid direct

mirror glare from the rear. The final rule explained that the upward

intensity of upper beam lamps ``diminishes rapidly as the angle above

the horizontal increases,'' and that NHTSA's calculations show that no

more than 350 cd would be directed into the rearview mirror of a Honda

Civic CRX by DRLs of 6600 cd on a Ford Taurus trailing one car length

behind. In addition, the agency calculated that the steady intensity of

light in the mirrors of cars being followed by cars with 7000 cd DRLs

would be ``only about one eighth of the level considered to be

discomforting'' and that the driver of a small car would not be exposed

to an intensity greater than 2600 cd unless the mounting height of the

DRL of the vehicle behind exceeded 34 inches. Accordingly, NHTSA

concluded that 7000 cd upper beam DRLs could be permitted, as long as

they were mounted no higher than 34 inches. A 3000 cd intensity limit

was established for other DRLs.

The reader is referred to the previously published notices for

background information on this topic (52 FR 6316, 53 FR 23673, 53 FR

40921, 56 FR 38100, and 58 FR 3500).

The final rule amended the special wiring provisions of Standard

No. 108 by adding paragraph S5.5.11 with appropriate specifications.

Under the rule, an upper limit of 3000 cd at any place in the beam was

established for all DRLs including headlamps. However, as an

alternative, an upper beam headlamp mounted not higher than 864 mm (34

in.) above the road surface and operating as a DRL was limited to a

maximum of 7000 cd at test point H-V. The alternative for a lower beam

headlamp as a DRL is operation at full lower beam voltage or less.

DRLs, permitted since February 10, 1993, have been utilized by

General Motors (GM), Freightliner, Saab, Volkswagen, and Volvo. During

the last two years, the agency has received over 400 complaints from

the public about glare from these lamps, in the form of letters,

telephone calls, and Internet E-mail messages. Most of these

(Congressional letters and responses and other letters to the agency)

have been placed in Docket NHTSA 98-3319. Many of these complained of

the DRLs on Saturn cars.

In response to those complaints, during 1997, agency staff

conducted DRL voltage and intensity testing on a vehicle that was

identified in some of the complaints as particularly offensive, a

Saturn sedan. The vehicle's reduced intensity upper beam DRL was found

to have about 6000 cd with the measured voltage of 7V, half the

measured battery voltage on the running vehicle (because the DRLs are

wired in series). It was noted that the DRL was operating well above

the laboratory test voltage of 6.4V (half the normal laboratory test

value of 12.8V) Later in 1997, laboratory tests made by members of the

agency's safety assurance staff found that Saturn upper beam headlamps

used as half-voltage DRLs (6.4V) achieved 5080, 5160 and 5670 cd. This

voltage was 6.4V because, when installed, the Saturn DRLs are wired in

series. Thus, the laboratory test voltage is one half the specified

laboratory test voltage of 12.8V. These intensity readings were less

than the current specified maximum intensity limit of 7000 cd for DRLs

mounted below 864 mm (34 in.). However, the actual voltage on Saturn

DRLs is higher than the 6.4V specified for the laboratory tests. The

DRL voltages in three Saturn vehicles tested in-house by the agency

ranged from 6.7V to 7.1V. The effect of this higher voltage on DRLs in

service is to increase the intensity. The three DRLs, when tested at

7V, achieved 7040, 7050, and 7790 cd, all above the maximum permissible

intensity. This increase in on-road intensity above laboratory

intensity is one of the reasons for the higher glare that has caused

complaints.

This alone does not account for the number of complaints received

about glare from Saturn DRLs. With most upper beam DRLs operating at 10

percent of their normal upper beam intensity, the performance is

typically 10 percent of an intensity that, when tested in a laboratory,

should be between 40,000 to 70,000 cd or 4000 to 7000 cd for the DRL on

most GM headlamp systems. Thus, vehicles other than Saturn can have

high intensity DRLs. Even on vehicles using lower beam headlamps as

DRLs but which are mounted higher than on typical passenger cars, the

intensities perceived by other drivers can be as high as the reduced

intensity upper beam DRLs.

Research by the University of Michigan Transportation Research

Institute (UMTRI) Industry Affiliates Program for Human Factors in

Transportation Safety, ``Glare and Mounting Height of High Beams Used

as Daytime Running Lamps'' UMTRI-95-40, November 1995, by Sivak,

Flannagan and Aoki, was an analytical study that found that discomfort

glare caused by reduced intensity upper beam headlamps used as DRLs did

not appreciably increase when those lamps were mounted above 34 inches

compared with their mounting below 34 inches. The study compared the

relative effects of mounting height and beam pattern to a 7,000 cd. DRL

that was presumed acceptable when mounted at 34 inches. The value of

this research depends entirely on the premise that the glare from a

7,000 cd. DRL mounted at 34 inches is acceptable. The complaints from

the U.S. public indicate that this premise is probably incorrect, thus

[[Page 42350]]

limiting the value of this research in determining the intensity limits

relative to mounting height of DRLs.

GM has changed its product distribution of DRLs from almost 100

percent of reduced intensity upper beam headlamps in 1994 model year

vehicles to a significant portion of lower beam headlamps, and some

turn signal lamps in its 1997 model year vehicles, nevertheless

retaining DRL on many upper beam headlamps. Many of the lower beam

headlamp DRLs are on vehicles whose headlamps are not subject to the

mounting height/intensity limit. GM could have used the reduced

intensity upper beam headlamps for the DRLs but chose not to do so. The

latest Freightliner aerodynamic tractors use a turn signal DRL. This is

a more expensive approach that may cause more frequent than normal bulb

replacement; however, bulb manufacturers are responding to the need for

longer life turn signal bulbs. It appears that this choice of DRL was

motivated primarily by Freightliner not wanting to cause glare with its

DRLs. These acts by vehicle designers and manufacturers suggests that

they are aware of public concerns about DRL glare.

NHTSA received a September 1997 UMTRI Report (No. 97-37) titled ``A

Market-Weighted Description of Low-Beam Headlighting Patterns in the

U.S.'' by Sivak, Flannagan, Kojima and Traube. The report lists

intensities (in cd.) of 35 lower beam headlamps used on the 23 best-

selling passenger cars, light trucks and vans for model year 1997.

These data allowed the agency to compare intensity levels in potential

glare-causing regions such as along the H-H line and above.

The first table below shows lower beam photometric data for both

cars and trucks of 1997 vintage extracted from Table 3 in UMTRI Report

97-37 and illustrates the potential for lower beam glare problems. The

second table illustrates the glare problem by calculating the intensity

that will be seen by other drivers when the same full voltage lower

beam headlamps are used as DRLs at typical real world operating

voltages of 13.5V or 14V. These intensities are from 1.2 to 1.35 times

more intense than the values in the first table because higher voltage

caused the intensity to increase disproportionately. The third table is

the reduced intensity lower beam operated at 11.78V (about 92 percent

of the required laboratory voltage of 12.8V). The fourth table is this

same reduced intensity lower beam operating at real world voltages of

13.5 and 14V.

Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter than 3000 cd at Laboratory Voltage

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

Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R

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

12.8.............................. 25th.................. ....... ....... 5040 5720 4211 .......

50th.................. ....... 5414 6838 6992 5445 .......

75th.................. 4907 7405 8142 8386 7548 6164

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

Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter Than 3000 cd When Operated as Full Voltage DRLs at Real World Voltages

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

Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R

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

13.5.............................. 25th.................. ....... ....... 5987 6795 5003 .......

50th.................. ....... 6431 8123 8306 6489 .......

75th.................. 5829 8797 9673 9962 8967 7322

14.0.............................. 25th.................. ....... ....... 6804 7722 5685 .......

50th.................. ....... 7309 9231 9439 7351 .......

75th.................. 6624 9997 10992 11321 10190 8321

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

Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter Than 3000 cd at Reduced Voltage

[DRL voltage=92 percent of Laboratory Voltage]

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

Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R

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

12.8 red. to 11.78................ 25th.................. ....... ....... 3782 4290 3158 .......

50th.................. ....... 4061 5129 5244 4083 .......

75th.................. 3675 5554 6107 6290 5661 4623

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

Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter Than 3000 cd When Operated as Reduced Voltage

[DRLs Using Real World Voltages]

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

Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R

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

13.5 red. to 12.42................ 25th.................. ....... ....... 4550 5164 3802 .......

50th.................. ....... 4888 6173 6313 4932 .......

75th.................. 4430 6686 7351 7571 6815 5565

14.0 red. to 12.88................ 25th.................. ....... ....... 5171 5869 4321 .......

50th.................. ....... 5554 7016 7174 5587 .......

75th.................. 5034 7598 8354 8604 7744 6324

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

As stated above, the basis of these calculations is the information

from UMTRI Report 97-37. The current market headlamp performance is

markedly more intense than the headlamp performance from the 1985-

[[Page 42351]]

1990 vintage headlamps used by NHTSA as a basis to decide on the

intensity levels in the 1993 final rule on DRLs. Because this basic

headlamp performance increase continues to be an influence on DRL

intensity, today's DRLs have a far higher intensity than expected by

NHTSA in 1993. Thus, a 50th percentile lower beam intensity at one

degree to the right of center along the horizontal axis of a beam

(point H-1R), is about 6400 cd at 13.5V and 7300 at 14V. Half of the

lamps have greater intensity than this. On those vehicles with higher

mounted lamps, such as pick-ups, vans and sport utility vehicles, this

could be substantially glaring based on past NHTSA research about DRL

glare intensities.

The National Motorists Association of Waunakee, Wisconsin,

(``NMA'') opposes the use of DRLs in response to continuing and

increasing complaints by its members. The member complaints can be

summarized as follows: increased glare, obscuration of turn signal

lights, increased visual clutter, masking other roadway users,

reduction in the conspicuity of motorcycles, distortion of distance

perception, reduction of detectability of emergency vehicles, and

failure to use the normal headlighting system at night.

NMA petitioned for rulemaking in August 1997 to:

1. Amend Standard No. 108 to prohibit hard wired DRLs on all

vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States;

2. Require retrofit of all vehicles currently equipped with DRLs

with a switch that permits the DRLs to be turned off or on at the

discretion of the vehicle operator;

3. Amend Standard No. 108 to prohibit the use of high beam

headlamps as a component of a DRL system; and

4. Recall, disconnect, or convert to lower beam any DRL system that

currently uses the upper beam.

The agency also received a petition for rulemaking in September

1997 from JCW Consulting of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This petition objects

to the ``excessive'' glare from current DRLs. It requests the following

actions:

1. Amend Standard No. 108 so that no new DRL lamps with a power of

more than 1200 cd are allowed, regardless of mounting location,

effective with the 1999 model year;

2. Amend Standard No. 108 so that no DRL lamps may use upper beam

components;

3. Order the recall of all existing upper beam based DRL systems,

and require that they be either entirely dismantled, or converted to

lower beam or turn signal components, with a maximum output of 1200 cd;

and

4. Order that all existing vehicles currently equipped with DRLs

based on lower beam or turn signal components, and which emit more than

1200 cd, be recalled and equipped with a switch that permits the

vehicle owner to have the systems on or off as desired (with the

default position of ``off''). Alternatively, the manufacturer could

reduce the output to a maximum of 1200 cd, and leave the automatic

functions operative.

These petitions indicate public concern about excessive DRL

intensity and the resulting glare. NHTSA had become aware of public

concern and began to study the issue before receiving these petitions.

NHTSA is granting them, to the extent that it is proposing to reduce

the intensity levels of DRLs with the intent of reducing glare

complaints.

One of NHTSA's stated goals when it permitted DRLs as optional

lamps was that they should not create excessive glare. To achieve this

goal, NHTSA established carefully considered, but higher than proposed,

limits on DRL intensity. NHTSA believed that the compromise intensity

limits established in the January 1993 final rule would assure that

DRLs would not cause excessive glare. However, the widespread voluntary

introduction of DRLs since 1993 has demonstrated real-world experience

with many varieties of DRLs. This real-world experience indicates that

the glare problems are substantially greater than was anticipated in

1993. NHTSA's goal of no undue glare was not accomplished. In response

to this problem, NHTSA has developed a three-step approach to address

DRL glare, which would be phased in over four years after publication

of the final rule.

Phase One: Eliminate the Special Provision Allowing Upper Beam

Headlamp DRLs to Have a 7000 cd Maximum Intensity

NHTSA proposes that the provision in Standard No. 108 permitting

upper beam headlamps to be used at intensities up to 7000 cd, at H-V,

when mounted below 864 mm. be deleted, effective one year after

issuance of the final rule. The consequence of this will be that upper

beam headlamps operating at reduced voltage will be required to have a

beam intensity limit of no more than 3000 cd at any point in the beam.

Commenters may argue, as GM did previously, that the lower beam is

permitted to be much more intense than the current 7000 cd maximum for

upper beam DRLs. As explained in justification of the existing rule,

correctly aimed lower beam headlamps at lower mounting heights do not

pose the upward glare problem that correctly aimed upper beam headlamp

DRLs do. A check of photometric data on 71 lower beam headlamps of

vintage 1985-1990 showed that they were not brighter than 3,000 cd at

the H-V (center) test point. Data collected by UMTRI for NHTSA (DTNH22-

88-C-07011, ``Development of a Headlight System Performance Evaluation

Tool'') indicated that 2200 cd was a typical intensity at the H-V test

point. This is the original basis for the existing 3000 cd intensity

limits for upper beam DRLs when they are mounted above 34 inches. The

intent was to constrain the intensity to that similar to a lower beam

headlamp when viewed from straight ahead. The 1997 UMTRI data

referenced and discussed above show current headlamps are substantially

more intense than the earlier headlamps. When used as reduced intensity

DRLs, the lamps will be more intense than the 3000 cd deemed to be the

acceptable limit in 1993.

In addition, drivers seem to accept more glare from headlamps at

night than from DRLs during daylight because of their willingness to

trade off some glare for increases in critically needed seeing distance

visibility. Headlamps are intended to allow the driver to see at night

and to allow the vehicle to be seen by other drivers. Thus, a headlamp

designer must make a trade off between nighttime visibility for the

driver of the vehicle and glare for other drivers. Reasonable people

may make that trade off at very different places. Consider, for

example, the very different lower beam pattern in European headlamps

with a sharp cutoff of light above the horizontal (to prevent glare for

other drivers) and the U.S. requirement for substantially more light

above the horizontal (to assure visibility of signs and other roadside

objects for the driver).

DRLs, on the other hand, have only one function--to improve vehicle

conspicuity during daylight. The only consideration is to assure that

the DRL is sufficiently intense to achieve this purpose. More intense

DRLs do not offset the problems of glare with any significant increase

in conspicuity. Because there is no tradeoff, the agency should be less

tolerant of glare from DRLs than it is for headlamps. Thus, Phase Two

is proposed.

[[Page 42352]]

Phase Two: Reduce the Intensity for any DRL to 3000 cd at

Horizontal and Above

The September 1997 UMTRI Report (UMTRI-97-37) titled ``A Market-

Weighted Description of Lower-Beam Headlighting Patterns in the U. S.''

provides photometric test data on a sample of 35 lower-beam headlamps

manufactured for use on the 23 best selling passenger cars, light

trucks, and vans for model year 1997. This new sales-weighted data

reveal 50th percentile lower beam intensity (at 12.8V--not 14V, and

1.35 times the laboratory intensity possible in the actual on-road

scenario) for cars, light trucks, and vans is 2615 cd at H-V, 4015 cd

at H-0.5R, 5414 cd at H-1R, 6838 cd at H-2R, 2111 cd at H-0.5L, and

1724 cd at H-1L (See Fig. 1). The corresponding values on the 1985-90

headlamps were 2215, 3198, 4173, 5239, 1579, and 1235 cd at 12.8V,

respectively. In all instances light levels have markedly increased and

thus glare potential has increased for the headlamps on 1997 cars,

light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles. The problem is even

more significant, because the real world voltage on the lamps can be

13.5 to 14V, giving intensity increases of 35 percent or more.

The earlier UMTRI tests of 71 vintage 1985-1990 lower beams showed

that they were not brighter than 3000 cd at H-V, and furthermore, 2215

cd was the mean value. The 5239 cd value found at 2R on the new

headlamps means that they are far more likely to cause glare problems

for other drivers than the less intense 1985-1990 lamps, even at the

reduced voltage (92 percent voltage and approximately 75 percent

intensity) used for Canada. Thus, it is likely that complaints about

DRL glare from lower beam headlamps will supplant complaints about DRL

glare from reduced intensity upper beam headlamps when manufacturers

shift from a preponderance of upper to a greater number of lower beam

DRLs if nothing is done to establish maximum intensity limits for lower

beam DRLs.

In the current DRL specifications in Standard No. 108, lower beam

DRLs are the only type of DRL not subject to any maximum intensity

limit. Given the 1997 UMTRI information on the intensity of current

lower beams, it seems appropriate now to include a maximum intensity

limit for lower beam DRLs to ensure that glare from those DRLs is also

limited. The maximum value already in place for all other types of DRLs

is 3000 cd, and there is no information suggesting that a higher

intensity value for lower beam DRLs will not produce glare for other

drivers. Accordingly, the agency is proposing to adopt a 3000 cd. limit

for lower beam DRLs, to be effective one year after that limit is

extended to upper beam DRLs, that is to say, two years after

publication of the final rule.

However, one difference is needed for the maximum intensity limit

for lower beam DRLs compared with that for all other DRLs, which are

limited to no more than 3000 cd at any point in the beam. Because lower

beam headlamps can have hot spot intensities (usually around 2D-2R) of

more than 35,000 cd, the agency is concerned that limiting these lamps

to 3000 cd anywhere in the beam would in effect preclude the use of

lower beams as DRLs. NHTSA does not want to do this; it simply wants to

establish performance criteria that will assure that the public is not

bothered by excessive glare from DRLs, and allow vehicle manufacturers

to decide how to design complying non-glare DRLs. In this case, the

agency has tentatively concluded that it can prevent excessive glare

from lower beam DRLs by proposing that they have no test point that is

more intense that 3000 cd at horizontal or above. More intense points

in the beam pattern below horizontal should not produce significant

glare complaints for other drivers, unless the beam projects near or

above the eye height of passenger car drivers. To address this last

issue about mounting height and glare, the agency is proposing Phase

Three.

Phase Three: Final Glare Reduction

After adequate lead time has elapsed, which the agency has

tentatively decided should be four years after issuance of the final

rule, NHTSA believes that lower beam DRLs should be limited to a

maximum intensity of 1500 cd at horizontal or above and any other DRL

be limited to a maximum intensity of 1500 cd anywhere in the beam, when

measured at 12.8V. This action will lower the intensity on the

brightest DRLs on cars operating on public roads to about 2020 cd at

14V (near the real-world worst case DRL glare condition).

Requiring lower intensity by reducing intensities to 1500 cd at

12.8V is important in ensuring that glare is limited under typical and

reasonable real-world conditions. In determining this limit, the agency

seeks a level which is a balance between the need to make DRLs bright

enough to be conspicuous and effective in reducing crashes, the need to

minimize glare problems, and the desire for a practical/cost effective

system. By providing a long lead time, the agency believes that

practical and low cost solutions can be achieved that permit

manufacturers to modify their DRL modules, and use more turn signal

lamps as DRLs.

The challenge in determining a maximum intensity limit arises

because the glare response of the eye to light intensity and the

ability of the vision system to detect objects depends on the ambient

illumination. As the sky and roadway background become brighter, DRLs

appear less glaring to an observer. But in order to make a light source

more detectable against brighter backgrounds, it has to have higher

intensities, which will increase the glare when it is seen under lower

ambient light levels. If future technical advances lead to the

development of DRLs which automatically adjust their intensity in

response to changing ambient light levels, the balance between glare

and conspicuity could be optimized. However, with the current fixed

intensity lighting technology, a maximum value needs to be selected

which strikes a compromise between providing potential safety benefits

and minimizing the glare achieved.

The balance between glare and effectiveness is illustrated in

Figure 2 from a 1990 Dutch Study by Hagenzieker, titled, ``Visual

Perception and Daytime Running Lights.'' Figure 2 has been placed in

Docket No. NHTSA 98-4124 and is available for public inspection.

That report described a model of how DRL intensity and drivers'

visual adaptation level interact to determine the degree of discomfort

glare and detectability of DRL. Figure 2 plots data from DRL research

showing results from glare and visual performance studies. The data for

glare represent conditions under which discomfort did or did not occur.

The data for visual performance represent conditions under which DRL

improved conspicuity performance compared to a no-DRL baseline. The

area above the top broken line shows the conditions causing increased

discomfort glare. The area above the lower broken line shows the

conditions leading to increased visual conspicuity performance compared

to performance without DRL.

The area between the two broken lines illustrates the conditions

where conspicuity performance improves without causing discomfort

glare. The difference between the two lines shows how there is always a

tradeoff between glare and detectability at any level of DRL intensity.

For example, if DRL intensity is 2000 cd glare will not be a

significant problem in daylight but may cause some discomfort in

twilight.

[[Page 42353]]

Vehicle detection will be improved in twilight and overcast conditions,

but may not increase under bright daytime conditions. If DRL intensity

is increased to 3000 cd, glare becomes a concern at even brighter

ambient light levels, but vehicle contrast and detection will be

improved. Thus, to determine the maximum DRL intensity, the glare

levels acceptable under twilight conditions needs to be balanced

against the intensity levels required for increased vehicle

detectability under daytime light conditions.

NHTSA-sponsored research quantified how drivers react to the glare

from different DRL intensities. Kirkpatrick et al. assessed the

response of 32 subjects to DRL glare from a following car at 6 m behind

the subjects (``Evaluation of Glare From Daytime Running Lights,'' DOT

HS 807 502, 1989). Subjects were asked to look into the rear view

mirror and rate the glare discomfort. The ratings were based on a 9-

point scale, with 1 being the most disturbing and 9 being just

noticeable glare. Discomfort was also measured in terms of the desire

of the subjects to switch the mirror to the low reflectance, night

position. The experiment was run during a time period from two hours

before sunset to one half hour after sunset during the months of

January and February. The illumination on the road surface varied from

4 to 30,000 lux. Below 7000 lux corresponds to dusk light levels. The

higher light levels are typical of heavy overcast daytime conditions.

The discomfort rating scale results are described below in Figure 3

extracted from the report, in terms of the cumulative percent of

subject responses equal to or less than a particular rating scale.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 42354]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU98.016

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 42355]]

These data can be used to determine maximum intensity levels that

are associated with specified percentages of the responses made by

subjects. For example, the graph in Figure 3 shows that only 500 and

1000 cd levels are rated no worse than ``just acceptable'' in 80

percent of the responses. These results mean that if a DRL is 1000 cd,

only 20 per cent of the ratings will find the intensity to be at some

degree of unacceptable glare. At 2000 cd, the glare was rated as no

worse than ``just unacceptable'' in 80 percent of the responses. At

4000 cd, the glare was rated as no worse than ``disturbing'' in 80

percent of the responses. The corresponding results for the interior

mirror dimming probability show that at 4000 cd, mirrors would be

dimmed about 70 percent of the time; at 2000 cd the dimming probability

is about 40 percent; at 1000 cd the dimming probability is about 10

percent. Dimming the mirror in daytime would reduce the utility of the

mirror because its dimmed reflectance is about 4 percent. Drivers would

have their eyes adapted to brighter daytime light levels and would not

be able to see objects in the low reflectance, dark mirror.

The data discussed above show the problems of glare from DRL viewed

in rearview mirrors. The Society of Automotive Engineers Lighting

Committee conducted several tests of DRL glare from oncoming vehicles.

Their tests were conducted to obtain the subjective reactions of

committee members to different intensities, and were reported in a

memorandum on SAE J2087 Daytime Running Lamps on Motor Vehicles, dated

April 9, 1991, from D.W. Moore to John Krueger, SAE. Its test in

October 1982 in Ottawa found that under dusk conditions, 12 percent of

the observers reported that 1000 cd caused glare at a distance of 400m

and 39 percent reported that it caused glare at 50m.

While glare reduction is important to driver acceptance of DRL,

NHTSA also wants to assure that the potential effectiveness of DRL in

improving safety is not severely compromised. The extent to which DRL

effectiveness may be reduced by reducing intensity can not be predicted

with certainty, but data regarding the improved detectability of

vehicles provides some guidance. The ambient light level affects the

detectability of a DRL-equipped vehicle. The difference in

detectability of a vehicle with DRL versus one without DRL, when

observed at higher light levels, is smaller than the difference at

lower light levels. This was shown in NHTSA sponsored research on the

conspicuity of DRL. (W. Burger, R. Smith, and K. Ziedman. ``Evaluation

of the Conspicuity of Daytime Running Lights.'' DOT HS 807 609, April

1990) The research evaluated the relationship between DRL intensity and

detection distance, and how detection distance is influenced by ambient

light level, which was measured in terms of the illuminance measured on

a horizontal surface. Twenty three subjects were asked to detect a

vehicle driving toward them in their peripheral visual field. The

subjects were asked to perform a task to keep their attention away from

the approaching car and had to press a switch as soon as they became

aware of the test vehicle in their peripheral vision. The DRL intensity

on the test vehicle varied from 0 to 1,600 cd. The results showed that

the mean improvement in detection distance with 1600 cd DRLs is about

200 feet for low ambient conditions, but only about 80 feet for high

ambient conditions.

Thus, under the low ambient conditions in this test, intensities

below approximately 2000 cd can be effective in improving vehicle

detectability, even at a peripheral viewing angle. Under high ambient

light conditions, a 1600 cd DRL shows some effectiveness in catching

drivers' attention when they are not directly looking at the light.

With direct viewing of a vehicle, lower intensities should be

effective in increasing detectability. This finding was supported by

the results of numerous tests conducted by the SAE Lighting Committee

to subjectively determine what DRL intensities were needed to make a

vehicle more noticeable under daytime conditions. For example, in a

1982 SAE daytime test of DRLs in Ottawa, observers rated a vehicle with

a 100 cd DRL to be more noticeable than a car with no lamps or parking

lamps. A 1984 test in Detroit found that 80 percent of observers could

clearly see a vehicle with 600 cd DRL at 0.5 mile. A 1985 SAE test in

Mesa, Arizona evaluated the effectiveness of DRL signal intensities as

determined by observers looking at an approaching vehicle. During

daytime, 80 percent of the observers judged 1500 cd to be effective at

150 feet. In 1985, a test in Indianapolis found that an amber turn

signal was effective at 600 cd. In 1988, a test in Kansas City found

that 500 cd was considered effective by more than 70 percent of the

observers. In September 1989, SAE conducted a test in Washington, D.C.

All intensities tested (from 200 cd to 7000 cd) were judged effective

by more than 80 percent of the observers. What all of these SAE tests

show is that on the basis of subjective ratings, DRLs below 2000 cd are

consistently judged effective in enhancing vehicle conspicuity in

situations where the observers look in the direction of the vehicle.

In summary, NHTSA believes that based on glare considerations

alone, the research data strongly point to the need to keep the maximum

intensity level somewhere between 1000 and 2000 cd so that the majority

of drivers are not discomforted under overcast and twilight conditions.

NHTSA believes that, if a 2000 cd level is prescribed as the upper

limit, the actual intensities on the road will likely be within the

1000 to 2000 cd range and thus, acceptable to most drivers under most

driving conditions. Past testing indicates that DRLs at these levels

still have the ability to enhance vehicle detectability in bright

daytime conditions. Under low ambient conditions, where detectability

of some vehicles without DRLs may be marginal, low intensity DRLs can

boost detection distances more significantly.

The question then becomes what level should be specified in a

Standard No. 108 test to achieve a DRL intensity of no more than 2000

cd in the real world, under actual operating conditions. The 12.8V used

in NHTSA testing represented typical vehicle voltages in 1968, but

typical vehicle voltages in 1997 have increased. A typical voltage in

current vehicles is about 13.5V, with some vehicles running at 14.0V.

Using the conversion table shown below, 2000 cd at 13.5V corresponds to

1660 cd. at 12.8V (2,000 x 0.83), while 2000 cd at 14.0V corresponds

to 1480 cd at 12.8V (2,000 x 0.74). Because the demand by vehicle

designers for greater voltages in the vehicle electric systems responds

to the increase in electric features on vehicles, there is no reason to

expect this will abate in the near future. Thus, it seems likely that

today's worst-case (14.0V) could become the typical voltage in the next

five or ten years. To respond to this, NHTSA proposes to specify a

maximum candela limit that assumes many vehicles will operate with

14.0V, and round the 1480 cd up to 1500 cd in the standard. It should

also be noted that the recommended 1500 cd limit is identical to ECE

requirements for maximum DRL intensity (1200 cd tested at 12.0V is 1500

cd tested at 12.8V).

[[Page 42356]]

Test Voltage and Intensity Multiplication Factors

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

Multiplication Factor to Use to Get Candela at--

Candela specified at-- --------------------------------------------------------------

12.0 v 12.42 v 12.8 v 12.88 v 13.2 v 13.5 v 14.0 v

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

12.0 v........................................... 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.28 1.37 1.50 1.68

12.42 v.......................................... 0.89 1.00 1.11 1.13 1.21 1.33 1.49

12.8 v........................................... 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.02 1.10 1.20 1.34

12.88 v.......................................... 0.78 0.88 0.98 1.00 1.07 1.18 1.32

13.2 v........................................... 0.73 0.82 0.90 0.93 1.00 1.07 1.23

13.5 v........................................... 0.67 0.76 0.83 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.12

14.0 v........................................... 0.60 0.67 0.74 0.76 0.81 0.88 1.00

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

As may be seen from this chart, lamp intensity increases

disproportionately with voltage increase. The consequence for headlamps

is the same as for DRLs--they get brighter. In a rulemaking separate

from this one, NHTSA will ask whether it should consider a change from

the standardized test voltage of 12.8V direct current(VDC) to a new

standard such as 13.5 VDC or 14 VDC or consider some other solution

such as requiring the voltage at headlamps in real vehicles to be 12.8

VDC. If the voltage were increased, a question is raised as to how the

photometric performance should be changed to assure that performance on

the road is what researchers, lighting test observers, and Federal

regulators determined meets the need for safety and is not brighter and

not dimmer than necessary or expected.

Another issue related to DRLs and voltage is that of lower voltage.

To date, DRLs that have been based on the use of headlamps have been

using full voltage, 75 percent voltage and 50 percent voltage, and it

has been presumed that their life as normal headlamps was relatively

unaffected. If voltages other than these are used because it is

necessary to make the lamps dimmer, will there be any different or

additional consequence to lamp life when the lamps are used as normal

headlamps? Because DRL installation is voluntary at this time, it could

be argued that there would be no burden on manufacturers as a result of

changing the DRL requirements because DRL installation is at the

manufacturers' discretion. However, NHTSA does not want to discourage

the installation of DRLs. Research indicates that DRLs do improve

vehicle conspicuity and experience and intuition indicate that enhanced

conspicuity should translate into fewer crashes. But there are no data

at this time to show DRLs result in fewer crashes in the United States.

The agency is awaiting completion of its National Center for Statistics

and Analysis study of DRL-equipped GM vehicles. Canada's initial data

suggest an 8 percent reduction in two-vehicle, opposing-direction,

daytime crashes. More recent Canadian studies show a 5.3 percent

reduction in combined data of opposing and angled crashes. For these

reasons, the agency wants to carefully consider the burdens associated

with this proposal.

For a number of reasons, manufacturers now offer DRLs on many of

their vehicles and will continue to do so. Those manufacturers have

chosen a variety of DRL implementations, and currently use low voltage

lower beams, full voltage lower beams, high intensity turn signals,

dedicated DRL lamps, and reduced intensity upper beam headlamps. Most

companies use multiple options already, so no large technology burden

should occur if changes are proposed to limit maximum DRL intensity to

reduce glare. With the proposed intensity limit, those manufacturers

that currently use the least expensive DRLs (series wired upper beam

headlamps) might not be able to do so. Instead, the choice for such

vehicles will be between continuing to use the upper beam DRLs, but

replacing series wiring currently used with voltage/current reduction

electronics typically used with current reduced intensity lower beam

headlamp DRLs, or to use different lamps for the DRLs. It should be

noted that using voltage/current reduction electronics for upper beam

DRLs is an expensive choice that would produce poor-performing DRLs

with little angle/peripheral detection safety value.

This shift in DRL mechanization will affect manufacturers that

continue to offer DRLs as standard equipment. Available information

indicates the costs for changing from the least expensive type of DRL

to others would result in, from a savings of $2.32 to an additional

cost of $16.95 (when converting from low voltage upper beam to bright

turn signal DRLs) per vehicle based on revised Canadian cost estimates

for its law (see ``Preliminary Economic Evaluation of the Costs &

Benefits of Daytime Running Lights Regulation'' Transport Canada report

TP12517E) and GM 1997 model year production of 4,364,300 cars and

trucks less than 8500 pounds GVWR and intended for sale in the U.S. The

agency has updated the Canadian cost data (expressed in 1993 Canadian

Dollars) converted to 1996 U.S. Dollar costs. The new data are found

below. The reader should note the relatively small cost increases

associated with this rulemaking.

Costs of DRL Change for GM

[Based on 1997 Model Year Production of Cars and Trucks Under 8500 Lbs. GVWR intended for Sale in the U. S. [4,364,300 units] and 1996 U.S. Dollars,

Using Converted 1993 Canadian DRL Cost Data]

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

Vehicle cost of DRL 1997 1997 fleet DRL cost, 2003 2003 fleet cost, $M

system (dollars) fleet $M fleet in 1997 US$

---------------------- (percent) ---------------------- estimate ---------------------

Existing type of DRL system ----------- (percent)

Low High Low High ----------- Low High

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

Reduced Intensity Upper Beam.................................... 2.83 9.98 53.6 6.62 23.34 0 0 0

Reduced Intensity Lower Beam.................................... 15.44 21.99 39.3 26.48 37.71 50 33.69 47.99

Turn Signals.................................................... 7.66 19.78 7.1 2.37 6.13 50 16.72 43.16

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

[[Page 42357]]

Total....................................................... ......... ......... ......... 35.47 67.18 ......... 50.41 91.15

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

This gives an increased cost of about $3.42 to $5.49 per vehicle.

The costs could be substantially less should GM choose to install turn

signal-based DRLs. Then the cost would be from a savings of $.47 to a

cost of $5.65 per vehicle.

From a lighting safety perspective, the use of front turn signals

as DRLs is desirable, because it eliminates all possibility of turn-

signal masking by other DRLs, increases the angles at which the DRL can

be seen (visible at 45 degrees) which should increase the benefit at

intersections, virtually eliminates glare to other motorists, prevents

incidents where drivers forget to turn on full headlamps (with

taillamps) in inclement weather or at twilight because the headlamp

DRLs provide so much light; and allows motorcycles to keep a unique

conspicuity signature. Additional, non-safety benefits are that turn

signal DRLs offer a fuel economy benefit of up to 0.5 m.p.g. compared

to headlamp DRLs (according to 1990 test data), lower cost of

replacement bulbs (compared with replacement costs for headlamps or

headlamp bulbs), and lower costs than the reduced intensity lower beam

headlamp according to the 1995 Economic Evaluation of DRLs performed by

Transport Canada. In addition, turn signals that conform to Federal

requirements when mounted closer than 100mm from a lower beam headlamp

or an upper beam DRL already meet DRL minimum requirements.

NHTSA realizes that some turn signal lamps would have to be

redesigned for this use, because some present lamps could not withstand

the heat load from continuous operation or would need to become more

intense than 500 cd. However, GM already has at least nine vehicle

models with this option, and Chrysler uses turn signals as DRLs on some

of its Canadian models.

NHTSA does not believe that it would be wise to immediately

prohibit the higher intensity headlamp DRLs and thus terminate the

majority of DRL installations on new vehicles. However, the glare

limits in this proposed amendment may well move manufacturers to choose

turn signal lamps or dedicated DRL lamps as the preferred DRL option.

Because the data available to date indicate that there may well be

safety benefits from using DRLs, the issue of glare must be seriously

addressed. One could argue that the use of glare-producing DRLs should

cease as soon as possible because there are no quantified

countervailing benefits the public receives along with this glare.

However, the intuitive conspicuity benefits of DRLs are appealing and

may translate into significant crash avoidance safety benefits. The

costs and burdens discussed above could be tempered if manufacturers

are given a modest lead time to make any necessary changes to DRLs, and

the public would be assured that its glare complaints are being acted

upon.

As stated above, NHTSA proposes to allow one year following the

publication of the final rule to make the initial change for upper beam

DRL from 7000 cd at H-V to 3000 cd. This would give the public near-

term relief from the upper beam DRLs that are the subject of many of

the DRL glare complaints. While this would require relatively quick

corrective action on the part of the vehicle manufacturers, changing

the mechanization of DRLs to other DRL designs they already use would

not seem to pose any undue technical design or manufacturing

challenges.

Two years after the final rule, and one year after the new

requirements for upper beam DRLs go into effect, lower beam DRLs would

be limited to no more than 3000 cd at any point on the horizontal or

above. There are two types of lower beam DRLs currently offered. One is

a full intensity lower beam; in essence, the headlamps come on whenever

the car is started. The other is a reduced intensity lower beam, which

is accomplished by using voltage/current reduction electronics. Most

lower beam DRLs already use reduced intensity, because this prolongs

bulb life and increases customer satisfaction. All full intensity lower

beam DRLs would have to be modified to use reduced intensity. However,

this technology is already in place. Most reduced intensity lower beams

will have to have the intensity reduced further to comply with this new

3000 cd limit. This is simply a question of adjusting the voltage/

current reduction electronics that are already in place to a lower

level. An additional year of leadtime should allow plenty of time to

make these changes to lower beam DRLs.

Four years after the final rule, and three years after the new

requirements for upper beam DRLs go into effect, lower beam DRLS would

be limited to no more than 1500 cd at any point on horizontal or above

and all other DRLs would be limited to no more than 1500 cd at any

point in the beam. This requirement can be met by using turn signal

lamps as DRLs, as 7 percent of GM's 1997 vehicles already do, or by

further reducing the intensity of lower beam DRLs. The proposed

leadtime is intended to give manufacturers time to decide which choice

is appropriate for the DRLs on their vehicles and to design and test

the changed DRLS as well as making any necessary changes in the

manufacturing process.

NHTSA recognizes that this proposed action has an impact on the

agency's efforts to harmonize the Federal motor vehicle safety

standards with other countries' safety standards. As has been stated,

Canada requires DRLs on new vehicles and requires a minimum of 2000 cd

for upper beams and permits a maximum intensity of 7000 cd for upper

beam DRLs. Canada also permits full or reduced intensity lower beam

headlamps, turn signals, fog lamps and separate DRL lamps. The existing

DRL provisions in Standard No. 108 permit DRLs to be installed and

allow upper beam headlamp DRLs with a maximum intensity of 7000 cd when

mounted at or below 864mm, and with a 3000 cd maximum intensity for

other DRLs that do not use lower beam headlamps. Essentially, DRLs that

comply with the Canadian requirements except fog lamp DRLs and higher

mounted upper beam DRLs would also comply with the existing U.S.

requirements. The existing requirements in Standard No. 108 explicitly

prohibit fog lamp DRLs in

[[Page 42358]]

response to states' concern about enforcement issues.

However, the proposed rule would move the performance requirements

for DRLs in the U.S. and Canada further apart. As noted above, Canada

requires upper beams to have a minimum intensity of 2000 cd, while

NHTSA proposes a maximum intensity for upper beam DRLs of 1500 cd in

four years. Thus, upper beam DRLs would not be able to comply with both

the U.S. and the present Canadian requirements when run at the same

voltage. It is also unlikely that lower beam DRLs will be able to

simultaneously comply with U.S. and Canadian requirements. This is

because Canada requires that lower beam DRLs operate at not less than

75 percent of the normal operating voltage. Voltage reductions below

that level will very likely be required on many lower beam lamps to

comply with the proposed specifications. Turn signal DRLs and separate

DRL lamps would be able to comply simultaneously with the Canadian

requirements and the proposed changes to Standard No. 108. In addition,

both upper and lower beam DRLs can use voltage/current reduction

electronics to achieve the reduced intensity. It would be possible to

use the same electronics package in U.S. and Canadian vehicles, but set

the U.S. vehicles at 50 percent voltage and the Canadian vehicles at 75

percent voltage for example. Thus, there would still be a window of

harmonization between the two countries' DRL standards, but that window

would be much smaller.

NHTSA has discussed DRL glare with a representative of Transport

Canada, who indicated interest in reducing DRL glare. But there are

almost no public complaints in Canada about DRL glare. As part of the

glare reduction, Transport Canada was concerned that lower beams not be

precluded from being viable DRLs. The agency's proposal addresses that

concern by measuring the intensity limit only at horizontal or above.

Transport Canada was also concerned that the wide angle performance of

DRLs not be reduced substantially, because that would lessen the

peripheral illumination of these lamps and their value as conspicuity

enhancement at intersections. In layman's terms, lamps at design

intensity typically cast a wide cone of light, but as one decreases the

intensity of the lamps, the width of the cone of noticeable light

narrows dramatically.

NHTSA has carefully considered this latter point. It agrees with

Transport Canada that the intensity reductions needed for lower beam

lamps to be used as DRLs will reduce wide angle performance of those

DRLs if the reductions are solely from voltage reductions without

attendant improvements in beam pattern width and intensity. The need

for peripheral performance is demonstrated by the recent Canadian study

by Tufflemire and Whitehead, ``An Evaluation of the Impact of Daytime

running Lights on Traffic Safety in Canada'' Journal of Safety

Research, Winter 1997, where a general reduction of 2.5 percent in

angular crashes was found. Thus, while small, this benefit of

peripheral detection means that DRL performance should not be so

constrained that it loses its wide angle intensity. For DRLs that are

intended to comply with Canadian rules, the beam pattern of lower beam

headlamps would likely need to be wider and more intense below the

horizontal to accommodate the above horizontal intensity reduction

proposed for glare reduction. Additionally, NHTSA notes that DRLs that

use turn signal lamps, lamps intentionally designed to provide wide

angle conspicuity, would address Canada's concern for assuring the

maintenance of DRL peripheral detection benefits. Nonetheless, given

that the reductions in glare may come at the expense of peripheral

performance, NHTSA asks whether it should regulate the minimum

intensity performance of DRLs to assure such peripheral performance.

Proposed Changes to Standard No. 108 and Their Effective Dates

On the basis of the discussion above, NHTSA is proposing an

amendment to paragraph S5.5.11(a) of Standard No. 108 which would

become effective one year after publication of the final rule. Within

this amendment are differing performance specifications based upon the

date of a vehicle's manufacture. Proposed paragraph S5.5.11(a)(1) would

apply to vehicles manufactured from the date one year after the

publication of the final rule to the date two years after the final

rule; it would reduce the maximum permissible intensity for upper beam

DRLs from 7000 cd to 3000 cd, and remove specifications that applied

before October 1, 1995. Proposed paragraph S5.5.11(a)(2) would apply to

vehicles manufactured from two to four years after publication of the

final rule; it would limit intensity in a lower beam DRL to a maximum

of 3000 candela at any test point at or above the horizontal. Proposed

paragraph S5.5.11(a)(3) would apply to vehicles manufactured beginning

four years after publication of the final rule; this would limit

intensity in a lower beam DRL to a maximum of 1500 cd at any test point

at or above the horizontal and limit intensity in any other DRL to 1500

candela at any test point.

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.

It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven

copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been

deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting for the

information specified in the agency's confidential business information

regulation, 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the docket at the above address

both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too

late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered

as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal

will be available to inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to

file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after

the closing date and it is recommended that interested persons continue

to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped

postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The Office of Management and Budget has informed NHTSA that it will

not review this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866. It has

been

[[Page 42359]]

determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under

Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The

effect of the rulemaking action would be to adopt terminology more

suitable to new technologies, and it would not impose any additional

burden upon any person. Impacts of the proposed rule are, therefore, so

minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking

action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that

this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic effect

upon a substantial number of small entities. Motor vehicle and lighting

equipment manufacturers are generally not small businesses within the

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further, small organizations

and governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected as

the price of new motor vehicles should not be impacted. Accordingly, no

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 on ``Federalism.'' It has

been determined that the rulemaking action does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act. The rulemaking action would not have

a significant effect upon the environment as it does not affect the

present method of manufacturing motor vehicle lighting equipment.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under section

103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C.

1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable

to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal

standard. Section 105 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a

procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not

require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part

571 be amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.108 would be amended by revising paragraph

S5.5.11(a) to read as follows:

Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and

associated equipment.

* * * * *

S5.5.11(a) Any pair of lamps on the front of a passenger car,

multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, whether or not required

by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps, may be wired

to be automatically activated, as determined by the manufacturer of the

vehicle, in a steady burning state as daytime running lamps (DRLs) and

to be automatically deactivated when the headlamp control is in any

``on'' position, and as otherwise determined by the manufacturer of the

vehicle, provided that each such lamp:

(1) On a vehicle manufactured on or after [one year after

publication of the final rule] and before [two years after publication

of the final rule]:

(i) Has a luminous intensity not less than 500 candela at test

point H-V, nor more than 3,000 candela at any location in the beam,

when tested in accordance with S11 of this standard, unless it is a

lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL at full voltage, or at

a voltage lower than used to operate it as a lower beam headlamp;

(ii) Is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less

than 3 mm high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp;

(iii) Is designed to provide the same color as the other lamp in

the pair, and that it is one of the following colors as defined in SAE

Standard J578 MAY88: White, white to yellow, white to selective yellow,

selective yellow, or yellow;

(iv) If not optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is located

so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the

nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm. unless:

(A) The luminous intensity of the DRL is not more than 2,600 cd. at

any location in the beam and the turn signal meets the requirements of

S5.3.1.7; or

(B) The DRL is optically combined with the headlamp and the turn

signal lamp meets the requirements of S5.3.1.7; or

(C) The DRL signal is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard

warning signal lamp is activated;

(v) If optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is automatically

deactivated as a DRL when the turn signal lamp or hazard warning lamp

is activated, and automatically reactivated as a DRL when the turn

signal lamp or hazard warning lamp is activated;

(2) On a vehicle manufactured between [two years after publication

of the final rule] and [four years after publication of the final

rule]:

(i) Has a luminous intensity not less than 500 candela at test

point H-V, nor more than 3,000 candela at any location in the beam,

when tested in accordance with S11 of this standard, unless it is a

lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL in which case it shall

have a luminous intensity of not less than 500 candela at test point H-

V and not more than 3,000 candela at any point on the H-H line or

above;

(ii) Is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less

than 3 mm high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp;

(iii) Is designed to provide the same color as the other lamp in

the pair, and that it is one of the following colors as defined in SAE

Standard J578 MAY88: White, white to yellow, white to selective yellow,

selective yellow, or yellow;

(iv) If not optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is located

so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the

nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm. unless:

(A) The luminous intensity of the DRL is not more than 2,600 cd. at

any location in the beam and the turn signal meets the requirements of

S5.3.1.7; or

(B) The DRL is optically combined with the headlamp and the turn

signal lamp meets the requirements of S5.3.1.7; or

(C) The DRL signal is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard

warning signal lamp is activated;

(v) If optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is automatically

deactivated as a DRL when the turn signal lamp or hazard warning lamp

is activated, and automatically reactivated as a DRL when the turn

signal lamp or hazard warning lamp is activated;

[[Page 42360]]

(3) On a vehicle manufactured on or after [four years after

publication of the final rule]:

(i) Has a luminous intensity not less than 500 candela at test

point H-V, nor more than 1,500 candela at any location in the beam,

when tested in accordance with S11 of this standard, unless it is a

lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL, in which case it

shall have a luminous intensity of not less than 500 candela at test

point H-V and not more than 1,500 candela at any point on the H-H line

or above;

(ii) Is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less

than 3 mm high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp;

(iii) Is designed to provide the same color as the other lamp in

the pair, and that it is one of the following colors as defined in SAE

Standard J578 MAY88: White, white to yellow, white to selective yellow,

selective yellow, or yellow;

(iv) If not optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is located

so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the

nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm. unless:

(A) The DRL is optically combined with the headlamp and the turn

signal lamp meets the requirements of S5.3.1.7; or

(B) The DRL signal is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard

warning signal lamp is activated;

(v) If optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is automatically

deactivated as a DRL when the turn signal lamp or hazard warning lamp

is activated, and automatically reactivated as a DRL when the turn

signal lamp or hazard warning lamp is activated.

* * * * *

Issued on: July 31, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98-20918 Filed 8-6-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P