[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 54 (Friday, March 19, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13011-13012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6208]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-17243]
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 withdrawal of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) that would have amended the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard on lighting to reduce glare from daytime running lamps (DRLs). 
In late 2001, General Motors (GM) submitted a petition for rulemaking 
that asked NHTSA to mandate DRLs on new vehicles. We have decided that 
the issue addressed in the 1998 NPRM, just one of a number of 
interrelated issues surrounding DRLs, would best be resolved in the 
context of responding to the GM petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the NHTSA, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Richard VanIderstine, Office 
of Crash Avoidance Standards (Telephone: 202-366-2720) (Fax: 202-366-
7002).
    For legal issues, you may call Mr. Eric Stas, Office of Chief 
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, establishes lighting 
requirements for motor vehicles. Although the standard does not require 
DRLs, it does specify requirements that they must meet if a vehicle 
manufacturer voluntarily decides to provide them (see 49 CFR 571.108, 
S5.5.11).
    In proposing to permit vehicles to be equipped with DRLs, we stated 
that limits on the intensity of DRLs were needed to prevent glare and 
to ensure that DRLs do not mask the vehicle's turn and hazard warning 
signals (56 FR 38100, August 12, 1991). In the final rule published on 
January 11, 1993, we adopted the following limitations on DRL 
intensity: (1) 3,000 cd for lamps other than headlamps, and (2) 7,000 
cd for upper beam headlamps used as DRLs at test point H-V, if mounted 
not higher than 864 mm above the road surface (see 58 FR 3500). No 
limitation was provided for lower beam headlamps used as DRLs.
    Since that time, the number of DRL-equipped vehicles has increased 
significantly, and NHTSA has received numerous complaints regarding DRL 
glare. Further, in 1997, the National Motorists Association (NMA) and 
JCW Consulting submitted petitions for rulemaking that, among other 
things, asked NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 108 to reduce DRL intensity and 
resulting glare.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NMA petition (submitted in August 1997) and the JCW 
Consulting petition (submitted in September 1997) are discussed in 
detail in NHTSA's August 7, 1998 Federal Register notice (see 63 FR 
42348, 42351). The NMA petition is available under Docket No. NHTSA-
1998-3319-21, and the JCW Consulting petition is available under 
Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3319-22. Both were originally incorporated in 
Docket submissions No. NHTSA-1998-3319-1 and -2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 1998 to amend 
FMVSS No. 108 to reduce glare from DRLs (63 FR 42348, August 7, 1998). 
Such reduction would have been accomplished in three stages. The NPRM 
proposed that one year after publication of the final rule, DRLs 
utilizing the upper headlight beam would not be permitted to exceed 
3,000 cd at any point, thereby becoming subject to the maximum candela 
permitted for DRLs other than headlamps. Two years after publication of 
the final rule, that same limitation would have applied to the upper 
half of lower beam DRLs. Finally, four years after publication of the 
final rule, all DRLs, except lower beam DRLs, would have been subject 
to a flat 1,500 cd limit. (Lower beam DRLs would have been limited to 
1,500 cd at horizontal or above.) NHTSA anticipated that its proposed 
approach would have provided the public with all of the conspicuity 
benefits of DRLs, while reducing the glare from these light sources.
    Approximately 700 comments have been submitted since the NPRM was 
published in 1998. Many commenters did not want DRLs, regarding them to 
be of little value and requesting that they be prohibited. Other 
commenters represented the opposite opinion, stating that DRLs are 
effective and should be mandatory. Still other commenters supported the 
proposal to reduce glare from DRLs.
    In the intervening period, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking 
from General Motors (GM) asking the agency to mandate DRLs on new 
vehicles.\2\ In support of its December 20, 2001 petition, GM submitted 
various studies designed to demonstrate the efficacy of DRLs in 
preventing deaths and injuries associated with daytime crashes. In 
addition, information was provided on the costs of DRLs. During this 
time, NHTSA also has studied the impact of DRLs in terms of crash 
avoidance on U.S. highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Reason for Withdrawal

    After reviewing the comments submitted pursuant to the 1998 NPRM, 
NHTSA has concluded that there are a number of interrelated issues 
surrounding DRLs that may best be evaluated in a comprehensive fashion. 
These issues include: whether DRLs should be optional or mandatory, how 
to balance the competing goals of conspicuity and prevention of glare 
when setting intensity levels, what are the levels of cost and benefits 
associated with DRLs, whether DRLs may reduce the conspicuity of 
motorcycles or emergency vehicles, whether DRLs mask turn signals or 
other roadway users, and the extent to which they may distort distance 
perception or result in failure to use the vehicle's normal 
headlighting system at night.
    Moreover, both the GM studies and NHTSA's own studies suggest that 
DRLs have the positive potential to reduce crashes. We believe that 
further research and analysis may provide a better understanding of 
potential safety benefits of DRLs and optimum performance requirements 
for those devices. As one example of our ongoing research, NHTSA 
currently has a study underway on the effect of DRLs on motorcycle 
conspicuity, that could assist in assessing the safety benefit of DRLs, 
once completed.
    In seeking to address DRL issues on a more comprehensive basis, 
NHTSA also plans to conduct further deliberations with Transport 
Canada, particularly regarding its comments to the docket on DRL 
intensity reduction and on its follow-up comments regarding switching 
and other issues. Such consultations would promote harmonization of DRL 
regulation in the North American market.
    Accordingly, for all of the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is 
withdrawing the 1998 NPRM for DRL

[[Page 13012]]

intensity reduction. We believe that the issue raised in the NPRM would 
best be resolved in a future comprehensive evaluation of DRL issues 
that we plan to undertake in response to the petition from GM.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued: March 16, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-6208 Filed 3-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P