42348 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ultimately adopted by the Commission.

An attempt has been made to streamline

compliance requirements. For example,

we have sought comment on

streamlining the must carry complaint

process for digital television station

carriage.

120. Federal Rules Which Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict with the

Commission’s Proposals. None.

121. Report to Congress. The

Commission will send a copy of the

NPRM, including this IRFA, in a report

to be sent to Congress pursuant to the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the

Commission will send a copy of the

NPRM, including IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

122. It is ordered that, pursuant to

Sections 1, 4 (i) and (j), 325, 336, 614,

and 615 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i)

and (j), 325, 336, 534, and 535, notice

is hereby given of proposed

amendments to part 76, in accordance

with the proposals, discussions and

statements of issues in this NPRM, and

that comment is sought regarding such

proposals, discussions and statements of

issues.

123. It is further ordered that the

Commission’s Office of Public Affairs,

Reference Operations Division, shall

send a copy of this NPRM, including the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–21085 Filed 8–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–10–U

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,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 Email 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
42350 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 LowBeam 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 .............

50th .............

75th .............

............

............

3675

............

4061

5554

3782

5129

6107

4290

5244

6290

3158

4083

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 .............

50th .............

75th .............

............

............

4430

............

4888

6686

4550

6173

7351

5164

6313

7571

3802

4932

6815

............

............

5565

14.0 red. to 12.88 .................................................................................... 25th .............

50th .............

75th .............

............

............

5034

............

5554

7598

5171

7016

8354

5869

7174

8604

4321

5587

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–
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 realworld 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.
42352 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 MarketWeighted 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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
42354 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 × 0.83), while 2000 cd at

14.0V corresponds to 1480 cd at 12.8V

(2,000 × 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).
42356 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TEST VOLTAGE AND INTENSITY MULTIPLICATION FACTORS

Candela specified at—

Multiplication Factor to Use to Get Candela 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 poorperforming 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]

Existing type of DRL system

Vehicle cost of DRL

system

(dollars)

1997 fleet

(percent)

1997 fleet DRL cost,

$M

2003 fleet

estimate

(percent)

2003 fleet cost, $M

in 1997 US$

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 42357

COSTS OF DRL CHANGE FOR GM—Continued

[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]

Existing type of DRL system

Vehicle cost of DRL

system

(dollars)

1997 fleet

(percent)

1997 fleet DRL cost,

$M

2003 fleet

estimate

(percent)

2003 fleet cost, $M

in 1997 US$

Low High Low High Low High

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, nonsafety 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 glareproducing 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
42358 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 selfaddressed 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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:

§ 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;
42360 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(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