[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28864-28866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13536]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4008; Notice 2]


Grant of Application for A Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108--Lamps, 
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

    General Motors Corporation (GM) determined that certain 1998 GMC 
Sonoma pickup trucks, GMC Jimmy and Oldsmobile Bravada sport utility 
vehicles are equipped with daytime running lights (DRLs) that fail to 
meet the spacing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 108--Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. 
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, GM applied to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for a decision that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM submitted 
a 49 CFR Part 573 noncompliance notification to the agency in 
accordance with 49 CFR 556.4(b)(6).
    A notice of receipt of application was published in the Federal 
Register (63 FR 40781) on July 20, 1998. Opportunity was afforded for 
comments until September 21, 1998. One comment was received, from JCW 
Consulting (JCW). The comment opposed granting the petition.
    GM stated that DRLs on the subject vehicles utilize the upper beam 
headlamps operating at reduced intensity, with a maximum intensity of 
approximately 6,700 candela per lamp. FMVSS No. 108 requires these DRLs 
to be located so that the distance from their lighted edge to the 
optical center of the nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm, 
with four exceptions that do not apply to these GM vehicles. However, 
one of the exceptions permitted vehicles manufactured before October 1, 
1995 that used an upper beam headlamp as a DRL to have a spacing of 
less than 100 mm from the turn signal lamp if the turn signal were 
sufficiently bright that it could have been spaced less than 100 mm 
from a lower beam headlamp.
    GM stated that 122,455 vehicles involved provide less than 100 mm 
clearance between the DRL and the turn signal and that as a result, 
they fail to meet FMVSS No. 108 requirements. GM believes that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the 
following reasons:
    1. The subject vehicles meet the requirements of CMVSS No. 108 (the

[[Page 28865]]

Canadian requirement) and the DRL requirements in FMVSS No. 108 for 
vehicles manufactured before October 1, 1995.
    2. CMVSS No. 108 requires turn signals that are located less than 
100 mm from a DRL to have increased intensities of 2\1/2\ times the 
minimum photometric values to help assure that the turn signals are 
readily visible. The subject vehicles have turn signals that are much 
brighter. When photometered, the subject turn signals were more than 
four times brighter than the minimum required intensities. This 
increased brightness helps in preventing turn signal masking by the 
DRL.
    3. The method for determining the optical center of the turn signal 
is open to some interpretation. Traditionally, automobile manufacturers 
have used the filament axes as the determining factor. Transport Canada 
has supported this methodology. More recently some manufacturers have 
used the centroid of the lamp as the optical center. Depending on the 
method used, the turn signal of the subject vehicles is either 71mm 
(using the centroid) or 85 mm (using the filament axes) away from the 
DRL. Therefore the subject condition is within 15%, or using the more 
conservative figure, within 30% of the requirement. (Note: GM used the 
centroid method in this petition.)
    4. Regardless of whether the distance is within 15% or 30% of the 
100 mm requirement, the turn signal and the DRL are diagonal to each 
other. Therefore the closest lighted edge of the DRL is the corner of 
the lamp. (Note: Sketches submitted by GM are found in the petition 
which is filed in the docket). This portion of the lamp does not 
significantly contribute to the DRL beam pattern, and therefore does 
not have a significant potential to mask the turn signal.
    5. Photometric values of the turn signal 71 mm from the subject DRL 
are not significantly different than a turn signal 100 mm from the 
subject DRL. To demonstrate this, on-vehicle evaluations of the turn 
signal output were made using a video-based photometer (digital CCD 
camera system). First, the photometric output of the turn signal was 
measured with the subject DRL activated. Then a portion of the DRL was 
blocked (to simulate the necessary spacing) at the corner nearest the 
turn signal (Note: a sketch illustrating this was included in the GM 
petition and is available in the public docket). The output of the turn 
signal was re-measured with the modified DRL activated. The zonal 
values of the turn signal changed an average of just 12.7%. The largest 
difference in turn signal output was found in zone 5, closest to the 
DRL and it only changed 17.5%.
    6. Subjective evaluations were run using GM personnel whose jobs do 
not involve vehicle lighting. They were asked to rate the relative 
visibility of turn signals on the subject vehicles and other vehicles 
that meet the FMVSS No. 108 spacing requirement. The results shown in 
the bar graph in Figure 3 of the petition (which can be found in the 
docket) indicate that the visibility of the subject turn signals is 
substantially better than vehicles that just meet the minimum 
requirement. In addition the subject turn signals are rated nearly 
identical to vehicles modified to be fully compliant to the 
requirements, and rated only slightly lower than turn signals on the 
Chevrolet Blazer (which is a similar vehicle whose turn signal/DRL 
spacing meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 108).
    7. The turn signals on the subject vehicles are 116 sq. cm., larger 
than typical turn signals found on similar vehicles. FMVSS No. 108 
requires the functional lighted area of a front turn signal lamp on 
these vehicles to be a minimum of 22 sq. cm. Therefore, the subject 
turn signals provide 5.3 times the minimum area to meet the 
requirement. The larger size of the turn signal helps to minimize any 
potential for masking by the DRL.
    GM believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety, and petitioned that it be exempted from the 
notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act for this specific 
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108.
    JCW Consulting (JCW), the lone commenter, opposed the grant of the 
petition. JCW stated that these vehicles use the DRL design with the 
``most objectionable'' levels of glare (low voltage upper beam 
headlamps). JCW asserted that critical turn signal or hazard warning 
flasher recognition could be masked by these DRLs if the oncoming 
driver is very glare-sensitive. However, JCW presented no data to 
substantiate its opinion that turn signal masking will be a problem on 
these vehicles.
    NHTSA has been sensitive to the need to prevent DRLs from masking 
turn signals. The agency conducted research specifically designed to 
investigate possible turn signal masking by DRLs (DOT HS 808 221, 
Daytime Running Lights and Turn Signal Masking). The agency used older 
drivers to represent the drivers most likely to be susceptible to turn 
signal masking by DRLs. One of the findings of this research was that 
it is possible to reduce turn signal masking by increasing turn signal 
intensity regardless of separation distance. Equivalent detection was 
found for turn signals separated from DRLs by only 50 mm with that of 
turn signals separated from DRLs by 100 mm, if the intensity of the 50 
mm turn signal was increased to three times that of the 100 mm turn 
signal. Side-by-side and above-and-below headlamp and turn signal 
configurations were studied. For both configurations, larger headlamps 
and turn signals result in less masking than smaller headlamps and turn 
signals.
    In this case, the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the turn 
signals on these GM vehicles are larger than most and provide 5.3 times 
the minimum required area. In addition, GM has measured the turn 
signals and found them to be four times brighter than the minimum 
required intensity. This is significant because NHTSA's research showed 
high turn signal intensity to be very important in preventing masking. 
GM's subjective evaluation tests also confirmed the effectiveness of 
higher turn signal intensity in preventing masking. Based on the 
evidence presented by GM, the agency does not deem this specific 
noncompliance on these vehicles to have a consequential effect on 
safety .
    NHTSA wants to make clear that the issue in this proceeding is the 
adverse safety consequences from possible turn signal masking by this 
particular DRL-turn signal combination, not the glare levels from upper 
beam headlamp DRLs. NHTSA has an open rulemaking proposal to 
substantially reduce glare from DRLs. The notice of proposed rulemaking 
was published on August 7, 1998 (63 FR 42348). The agency will address 
the concerns expressed in JCW's comment about the high intensity and 
the high mounting height of the GM DRLs in that rulemaking.
    In addition, NHTSA would like to provide some information in 
response to the statement in GM's petition regarding uncertainty as to 
how one determines the optical center of a turn signal. There should be 
no such uncertainty. The agency has answered a letter specifically 
asking whether the optical center of the turn signal lamp is the same 
as the filament position when measuring the spacing relationship 
between a turn signal lamp and a DRL (Caire, March 14, 1996). NHTSA's 
interpretation explains:
    ``To determine the optical center of the turn signal lamp, we must 
refer for an answer to SAE J588 NOV84, Turn Signal Lamps For Use on 
Motor Vehicles Less than 2032MM in Overall Width. The answer depends on 
the design of the turn signal lamp. If the lamp primarily employs a 
reflector (for

[[Page 28866]]

example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens, spacing 
is measured from the geometric centroid of the front turn signal 
function lighted area to the lighted edge of the lower beam headlamp 
(paragraph 5.1.5.4.2, SAE J588 NOV84). The ``geometric centroid'' is 
the ``optical center'' for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the front 
turn signal is a direct light source type design, that is a lamp that 
is primarily employing a lens and not a reflector to meet photometric 
requirements, spacing is measured from the light source to the lighted 
edge of the DRL. The filament center of the light source is the 
``optical center'' for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the distance is 
less than 100 mm, the requirements of S5.3.1.7 apply and the minimum 
intensity of the turn signal must be at least 2.5 times that normally 
required.''
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
described above is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, its application is granted, and the applicant is exempted 
from providing the notification of the noncompliance required by 49 
U.S.C. 30118, and remedy, required by 49 CFR 30120.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: May 24, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-13536 Filed 5-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P