[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48231-48232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4430; Notice 2]


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

    General Motors Corporation (GM), determined that approximately 
15,300 1998 GMC Sonoma and Chevrolet S-10 pickup trucks, and GMC Jimmy 
and Chevrolet Blazer sport utility vehicles, equipped with the ``ZR2'' 
option package, fail to meet a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108--Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated 
Equipment. Specifically, these vehicles are equipped with daytime 
running lamps (DRLs) mounted higher than the maximum height allowed by 
S5.5.11(a)(1)(ii) of FMVSS 108. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, 
GM has applied to us, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) for a decision that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM also submitted a 49 CFR 
part 573 noncompliance notification to the agency in accordance with 49 
CFR 556.4(b)(6).
    We published a notice of receipt of the application in the Federal 
Register (64 FR 27032) on May 18, 1999. Opportunity was afforded for 
comments until June 17, 1999. No comments were received.
    The DRLs on the noncompliant vehicles are provided by the upper 
beam headlamps operating at reduced intensity, with a maximum output of 
approximately 6,700 candela per lamp (according to GM). As such, FMVSS 
108 requires the DRL be mounted not higher than 34 inches (864 mm) from 
the road surface. Base-level GMC Sonomas and Jimmys and Chevrolet S-10 
pickups and Blazers comply with the DRL height limitation of FMVSS 108. 
However, the ZR2 option package gives the vehicles a stiffer suspension 
and larger tires, which results in an overall increase in the height of 
the vehicle, including the DRL mounting height. The mean mounting 
height of DRLs on the noncompliant vehicles is 36 inches above the 
ground, with a maximum height of 37 inches. As a result, they fail to 
meet S5.5.11(a)(1)(ii) of FMVSS 108.
    GM believes that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicles safety for the following reasons:
    1. Research conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation

[[Page 48232]]

Research Institute (UMTRI) on the changes in glare caused by varying 
mounting height of high beam DRLs confirms that the DRLs on the subject 
vehicles do not produce significantly more glare than compliant DRLs.
    2. In addition to the UMTRI research, GM conducted subjective 
evaluations that confirmed that the DRLs on the noncomplying vehicles 
do not cause a consequential increase in glare relative to complying 
vehicles with lamps at or just below the maximum permitted mounting 
height.
    3. The driver of a preceding vehicle will not see more light in the 
rearview mirror than NHTSA intended when it adopted the DRL 
requirements in January, 1993. GM evaluated light from the noncomplying 
vehicles with the DRL mounted at 37 inches, which is in the most 
extreme build condition and worst case, for purposes of this analysis. 
The light from this condition striking a mirror mounted 44 inches above 
the ground and 20 feet in front of the DRL, would be below the 2,600 
candela limit established by the agency in the final DRL rule.
    4. The mounting height of the DRLs on the noncomplying vehicles 
complies with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(CMVSS) 108.
    5. GM has not identified any accidents, injuries or warranty 
reports that are associated with this condition on the noncomplying 
vehicles.
    For all of the above reasons, GM argued that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and applied for a decision 
that it be exempted from the notification and remedy provisions of 49 
U.S.C 30118 and 30120.
    We have received hundreds of letters from citizens about excessive 
glare from headlamp-derived DRLs and particularly upper beam-derived 
DRLs. Partially in response to those complaints, on August 7, 1998, we 
issued a proposed amendment to FMVSS 108 to reduce the intensity 
permitted for DRLs, starting with the upper beam DRLs such as the ones 
found on these vehicles (63 FR 42348). As we stated in the proposed 
amendment, we found that the actual intensities of some of these 
headlamp DRLs on vehicles were as much as 1.35 times the intensities 
measured when the lamps are photometrically tested in the laboratory--
because vehicle voltages up to 14 volts are found on some vehicles 
(compared to the 12.8 volt lab test voltage). This may help explain why 
there are so many reports by the public of glare from DRLs.
    GM submitted this application after we had issued the 1998 proposed 
amendments to reduce glare from DRLs and was aware that we consider 
glare from DRLs, even at legal mounting heights, to be a problem. We 
recognize that the noncompliance here is due to a small height 
increase, resulting in relatively small increases in glare, as reported 
by the test subjects GM used. However, real world experience reflecting 
potential safety concerns, demonstrates that an unprecedented number of 
citizens are complaining of glare from DRLs. We believe therefore, that 
manufacturers should be held to the existing location requirements so 
as not to exacerbate the problem of glare. The DRL intensity 
requirements in existence since February 10, 1993, were a significant 
relaxation (i.e., increase in intensity) from that originally proposed 
on August 12, 1991 (56 FR 38100). Even then, DRL glare was an important 
issue. Today, public concerns have caused NHTSA to re-examine the 
intensity limits for DRLs. Given these circumstances, we cannot find 
that a noncompliance that increases DRL glare is inconsequential to 
safety. This application is therefore denied.

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

    Issued on August 30, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-22938 Filed 9-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P