[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 130 (Friday, July 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35373-35374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16687]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition from Mr. Charles Smyth for 
rulemaking to require the use of Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) on all 
vehicles in America. The agency does not have the authority to require 
retrofitting of vehicles in use, and the issue of mandatory DRLs on new 
motor vehicles has been considered by the agency on numerous occasions 
and is still under consideration. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108; ``Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment,'' was 
amended in 1993 to permit new vehicles to be equipped with DRLs and to 
assure that if used, they cause no safety problems. Canada mandated 
DRLs on all new passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, buses and trucks 
manufactured for sale after December 1, 1989. General Motors (GM), 
SAAB, Volvo, and Volkswagen have begun to market DRL equipped vehicles 
in the United States (U.S.). NHTSA is monitoring Canadian U.S. crash 
data to evaluate the benefit of DRL use in the U.S. Should the safety 
experience demonstrate that DRLs are cost-effective safety devices, 
NHTSA would consider mandating them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, 
NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Medlin's 
telephone numbers are: (202) 366-5276; FAX (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a letter dated February 17, 1995, Mr. 
Charles Smyth petitioned the agency to require the use of DRLs on all 
cars in America. Mr. Smyth stated that SAAB cars have had DRLs since 
1968 and that Sweden made them mandatory in 1977. He also stated that 
Volvo had made DRLs standard on its 1995 cars. Mr. Smyth stated that 
Transport Canada had just completed a study that showed an 8.3% 
reduction of two-vehicle, opposing-direction, daytime collisions by 
comparing the crash experience of vehicle model years before and after 
the DRL legislation (mandate) in Canada. Mr. Smyth claims other studies 
have shown reductions in crashes among vehicles where DRLs have been 
used and that the growing support for DRLs is overwhelming. However, 
Mr. Smyth did not provide any analysis of the potential benefits of 
DRLs in U.S. driving situations in his petition nor did he consider the 
cost to the public of such a decision.
    NHTSA has investigated the use of ``lamps on'' to improve highway 
safety. The use of DRLs, headlamps or other lamps on the front of the 
vehicle during the daytime makes vehicles more visible. NHTSA has 
tested DRLs, in white and amber colors, with intensities ranging from 
as bright as turn signal lamps to brighter than lower beam headlamps. 
These lamps operate automatically with the ignition switch, with no 
other lamps being illuminated. NHTSA has carefully analyzed DRL studies 
from around the world for the effectiveness of automotive DRLs in 
reducing crashes. The agency has not yet found any studies that have 
shown conclusively that DRLs would be effective in reducing the number 
of crashes in the U.S.
    A 1990 study by the Netherlands TNO Institute for Perception titled 
``Daytime Running Lights: A Review of Theoritical Issues and Evaluation 
Studies'' concluded that there is no unequivocal evidence of an effect 
of DRL on accident rates. Most of these former DRL studies had 
statistical or methodological shortcomings such that their value to 
NHTSA in evaluating DRL use in the U.S. was limited. Michael Perel 
reviewed previous DRL studies in ``Evaluation of the Conspicuity of 
Daytime Running Lights,'' Auto & Traffic Safety, Summer 1991, Vol. 1 
No. 1, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Document No. DOT-
HS-807-755. Perel found that flaws such as collecting data only during 
twilight-viewing conditions, too few subjects for statistical validity, 
unintended bias introduced by failure to randomize DRL application 
between study groups, comparing non-comparable groups, and subjective 
measurement/observer bias influences, existed in these studies. Perel 
noted that the Netherlands postponed a planned regulation of DRLs 
because of criticism of past studies. Additionally, Perel stated that 
whether flawed or not, many 

[[Page 35374]]
of the studies were limited because of their low relevance to the U.S. 
regarding the driving environment, including ambient light level 
differences, greater proportions of pedestrian and cyclist crashes in 
the study countries, and effects voluntary usage.
    NHTSA has received the Transport Canada DRL report and the agency 
is still analyzing it. It provides a positive look at a narrow range of 
crashes that are susceptible to the DRL solution. More information is 
expected from Canada which will provide a view of DRL effect on all 
types of crashes. When recieved, it may provide a valuable resource for 
determining the value of DRLs in the U.S.
    Because NHTSA has not yet been able to show a national safety 
benefit from the use of DRLs, a regulation mandating the installation 
and activation of any type of daytime lamp is not appropriate at this 
time. The agency does know, however, that DRLs improve a vehicle's 
frontal conspicuity in low to moderate ambient daylight illumination 
typical of more northern latitudes than those of the U.S. In 1990, GM 
petitioned the agency to change the lighting safety standards to 
explicitly permit but not mandate DRLs. As a result of GM's petition, 
Standard No. 108 was changed to permit certain kinds of DRLs which do 
not exhibit disbeneficial performance such as turn signal masking or 
glare in mirrors. GM has decided to provide DRLs on the 1995 Geo Metro, 
Chevrolet S10 pickup and the Corsica and Beretta intended for the U.S. 
market and plans to increase model coverage over the next few years. 
VW's Jetta III, Golf III and GTI car lines also have DRLs as standard 
equipment. SAAB and Volvo have DRLs available, but installation and use 
are optional depending on the models. The agency hopes to be able to 
monitor the safety experience of those vehicles with full model year 
DRLs installations to determine whether the mandatory installation and 
activation of DRLs in the U.S. would be cost beneficial to the public.
    In evaluating whether to mandate DRLs, the agency must consider 
both potential benefits and costs. The costs of mandatory installation 
and activation of DRLs would be decreased fuel economy and increased 
vehicle purchase cost from the added wiring and switching devices. 
Additionally, depending on the manner in which the DRLs are 
implemented, headlamp burnout could increase. The benefits could 
include a decrease in the number of crashes, with accompanying 
reductions in casualties and crash repair costs. While the agency 
continues its analysis of this issue, it is inappropriate to commence a 
rulemaking proceeding. Should the analysis indicate significant safety 
benefits at a reasonable cost, the agency could initiate rulemaking at 
that time.
    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's 
technical review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there 
is no reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the 
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of the rulemaking 
proceeding undertaken at this time. Accordingly, it denies Mr. Smyth's 
petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: June 30, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-16687 Filed 7-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P