[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42348-42360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20918]


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

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