[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42348-42360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20918]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4124; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG86
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Federal motor vehicle
safety standard on lighting to reduce glare from daytime running lamps
(DRLs). It would do this in three stages. One year after publication of
the final rule, DRLs utilizing the upper headlamp beam would not be
permitted to exceed 3,000 candela at any point, thus becoming subject
to the maximum candela (cd) permitted for DRLs other than headlamps.
This same limit would be applied to the upper half of lower beam DRLs
two years after publication of the final rule. Finally, four years
after publication of the final rule, all DRLs, except lower beam DRLs,
would be subject to a flat 1,500 cd limit. Lower beam DRLs would be
limited to 1500 cd at horizontal or above. This action is intended to
provide the public with all the conspicuity benefits of DRLs while
reducing glare and is based on research that has become available since
the final rule establishing DRLs was published in 1993.
DATES: Comments are due on the proposal September 21, 1998. The
proposed effective date of the final rule is one year after its
publication.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Docket hours are from
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere Medlin, Office of Safety
Performance Standards (202-366-5276).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1987, NHTSA opened a docket to receive
comments on a proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to
allow daytime running lamps (DRLs) as optional lighting equipment. This
rulemaking was terminated the following year. In a petition dated
November 19, 1990, General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned the
Agency for rulemaking to permit, but not require, DRLs. GM indicated
that it had three concerns that it felt would best be addressed by a
permissive Federal standard as requested in the petition. These
concerns were as follows:
1. A need to preempt certain state laws that inadvertently
prohibited certain forms of daytime running lamps;
2. A desire for a single national law regarding DRLs, instead of a
patchwork of different state laws on this subject. California had
already enacted its own DRL requirements; and
3. A desire to harmonize any new U.S. requirements for DRLs with
the existing Canadian mandate for new vehicle DRLs.
The petition for rulemaking was granted and a proposed rule was
published on August 12, 1991. The agency agreed that a permissive
Federal standard should be proposed to deal with the first two concerns
expressed in the GM petition (inadvertent prohibition of DRLs and a
patchwork of differing state requirements). However, the agency decided
that its proposal should regulate DRLs only to assure that these new,
optional lamps not detract from existing levels of safety. NHTSA
explained that: ``The two chief considerations in this regard are that
the lamps not create excessive glare, and that their use does not mask
the ability of the front turn signal to send its message.'' Based on
the available agency research, NHTSA proposed to limit DRL intensity to
2600 cd. This proposed limit was well below the 7000 cd maximum
intensity Canada had established, but more than double the 1200 cd
limit then in effect or proposed in some European countries for DRLs.
The intensity limits in the NPRM were very controversial, many
commenters objected to the proposal's failure to harmonize the
permissive U.S. standard for DRLs with other countries' DRL standards.
Domestic manufacturers were particularly concerned that the proposal
was not harmonized with Canada's DRL requirements. In its comment to
the NPRM, GM asserted that 7000 cd DRL are dimmer than 35,000 cd full
intensity lower beams. While 35,000 cd. is certainly a greater
intensity than 7000 cd, NHTSA observed in the preamble to the final
rule that GM had failed to also explain the effects of the different
aim used for the upper beam and lower beam. The bright spot of lower
beam lamps is directed down and to the right one to two degrees. Viewed
straight-on, earlier data indicated that lower beams conforming to
Standard No. 108 are not brighter than 3000 cd with 2200 cd as a
typical intensity at the H-V axis. The bright spot of upper beam lamps
is directed straight out and as far down the road as possible. Viewed
straight-on, the full intensity of the upper beams would be directed at
the H-V axis--up to 7000 cd in the case of DRLs.
GM also commented that the range between the Canadian minimum of
2000 cd for DRLs and NHTSA's proposed maximum of 2600 cd for DRLs was
too narrow for practicability. GM urged NHTSA to set the proposed
maximum brightness for DRLs slightly higher to recognize the
practicability issues.
The comments to the proposal from the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety and vehicle and equipment manufacturers, with two
exceptions,
[[Page 42349]]
called for the adoption of the Canadian provisions which permit DRL as
bright as 7000 cd. The normal harmonization concerns (existence of
equipment already designed for Canada and the pursuit of free trade)
were given as reasons. Further, the commenters who opposed limiting DRL
brightness below 7000 cd noted that there were almost no glare
complaints in Canada. This remains true in 1998; only a few letters of
complaint have been received by Transport Canada. However, Volkswagen
and General Electric supported the proposed 2600 cd. maximum.
The commenters who supported 7000 cd as the upper intensity limit
for DRLs also noted that this would permit cost savings. The simplest
and least expensive way to add DRLs to a vehicle is simply to wire the
upper beam headlamps in series. This halves the voltage and produces
approximately one tenth the light intensity, which corresponds to about
7000 cd. as a maximum.
Ford Motor Company, GM, Chrysler Corporation, and American
Automobile Manufacturers Association commented that the agency's
research on glare was not sufficiently convincing to be the basis for a
2600 cd limit.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, John Kovrik, and most of the
commenting state agencies expressed concerns about glare and supported
the NHTSA proposal for a 2600 cd maximum intensity for DRLs. Virginia
and Ohio favored 2600 cd; Michigan favored full intensity lower beams
which are roughly equivalent. Minnesota supported the proposed
intensity limits, and asked for other requirements to limit the
mounting height of DRLs, as a further control on glare.
In response to these comments, NHTSA sought to find a middle ground
that would achieve the agency's goals of preventing excessive glare and
masking of turn signals, and accommodating the commenters' desire for
harmonization and the chance to use the simplest DRL system. NHTSA
published a final rule on January 11, 1993 that announced this middle
ground. In the final rule, reduced intensity upper beam DRLs up to 7000
cd were permitted, but only if they were mounted below side mirror and
inside mirror mounting heights (34 inches or 864 mm) to avoid direct
mirror glare from the rear. The final rule explained that the upward
intensity of upper beam lamps ``diminishes rapidly as the angle above
the horizontal increases,'' and that NHTSA's calculations show that no
more than 350 cd would be directed into the rearview mirror of a Honda
Civic CRX by DRLs of 6600 cd on a Ford Taurus trailing one car length
behind. In addition, the agency calculated that the steady intensity of
light in the mirrors of cars being followed by cars with 7000 cd DRLs
would be ``only about one eighth of the level considered to be
discomforting'' and that the driver of a small car would not be exposed
to an intensity greater than 2600 cd unless the mounting height of the
DRL of the vehicle behind exceeded 34 inches. Accordingly, NHTSA
concluded that 7000 cd upper beam DRLs could be permitted, as long as
they were mounted no higher than 34 inches. A 3000 cd intensity limit
was established for other DRLs.
The reader is referred to the previously published notices for
background information on this topic (52 FR 6316, 53 FR 23673, 53 FR
40921, 56 FR 38100, and 58 FR 3500).
The final rule amended the special wiring provisions of Standard
No. 108 by adding paragraph S5.5.11 with appropriate specifications.
Under the rule, an upper limit of 3000 cd at any place in the beam was
established for all DRLs including headlamps. However, as an
alternative, an upper beam headlamp mounted not higher than 864 mm (34
in.) above the road surface and operating as a DRL was limited to a
maximum of 7000 cd at test point H-V. The alternative for a lower beam
headlamp as a DRL is operation at full lower beam voltage or less.
DRLs, permitted since February 10, 1993, have been utilized by
General Motors (GM), Freightliner, Saab, Volkswagen, and Volvo. During
the last two years, the agency has received over 400 complaints from
the public about glare from these lamps, in the form of letters,
telephone calls, and Internet E-mail messages. Most of these
(Congressional letters and responses and other letters to the agency)
have been placed in Docket NHTSA 98-3319. Many of these complained of
the DRLs on Saturn cars.
In response to those complaints, during 1997, agency staff
conducted DRL voltage and intensity testing on a vehicle that was
identified in some of the complaints as particularly offensive, a
Saturn sedan. The vehicle's reduced intensity upper beam DRL was found
to have about 6000 cd with the measured voltage of 7V, half the
measured battery voltage on the running vehicle (because the DRLs are
wired in series). It was noted that the DRL was operating well above
the laboratory test voltage of 6.4V (half the normal laboratory test
value of 12.8V) Later in 1997, laboratory tests made by members of the
agency's safety assurance staff found that Saturn upper beam headlamps
used as half-voltage DRLs (6.4V) achieved 5080, 5160 and 5670 cd. This
voltage was 6.4V because, when installed, the Saturn DRLs are wired in
series. Thus, the laboratory test voltage is one half the specified
laboratory test voltage of 12.8V. These intensity readings were less
than the current specified maximum intensity limit of 7000 cd for DRLs
mounted below 864 mm (34 in.). However, the actual voltage on Saturn
DRLs is higher than the 6.4V specified for the laboratory tests. The
DRL voltages in three Saturn vehicles tested in-house by the agency
ranged from 6.7V to 7.1V. The effect of this higher voltage on DRLs in
service is to increase the intensity. The three DRLs, when tested at
7V, achieved 7040, 7050, and 7790 cd, all above the maximum permissible
intensity. This increase in on-road intensity above laboratory
intensity is one of the reasons for the higher glare that has caused
complaints.
This alone does not account for the number of complaints received
about glare from Saturn DRLs. With most upper beam DRLs operating at 10
percent of their normal upper beam intensity, the performance is
typically 10 percent of an intensity that, when tested in a laboratory,
should be between 40,000 to 70,000 cd or 4000 to 7000 cd for the DRL on
most GM headlamp systems. Thus, vehicles other than Saturn can have
high intensity DRLs. Even on vehicles using lower beam headlamps as
DRLs but which are mounted higher than on typical passenger cars, the
intensities perceived by other drivers can be as high as the reduced
intensity upper beam DRLs.
Research by the University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) Industry Affiliates Program for Human Factors in
Transportation Safety, ``Glare and Mounting Height of High Beams Used
as Daytime Running Lamps'' UMTRI-95-40, November 1995, by Sivak,
Flannagan and Aoki, was an analytical study that found that discomfort
glare caused by reduced intensity upper beam headlamps used as DRLs did
not appreciably increase when those lamps were mounted above 34 inches
compared with their mounting below 34 inches. The study compared the
relative effects of mounting height and beam pattern to a 7,000 cd. DRL
that was presumed acceptable when mounted at 34 inches. The value of
this research depends entirely on the premise that the glare from a
7,000 cd. DRL mounted at 34 inches is acceptable. The complaints from
the U.S. public indicate that this premise is probably incorrect, thus
[[Page 42350]]
limiting the value of this research in determining the intensity limits
relative to mounting height of DRLs.
GM has changed its product distribution of DRLs from almost 100
percent of reduced intensity upper beam headlamps in 1994 model year
vehicles to a significant portion of lower beam headlamps, and some
turn signal lamps in its 1997 model year vehicles, nevertheless
retaining DRL on many upper beam headlamps. Many of the lower beam
headlamp DRLs are on vehicles whose headlamps are not subject to the
mounting height/intensity limit. GM could have used the reduced
intensity upper beam headlamps for the DRLs but chose not to do so. The
latest Freightliner aerodynamic tractors use a turn signal DRL. This is
a more expensive approach that may cause more frequent than normal bulb
replacement; however, bulb manufacturers are responding to the need for
longer life turn signal bulbs. It appears that this choice of DRL was
motivated primarily by Freightliner not wanting to cause glare with its
DRLs. These acts by vehicle designers and manufacturers suggests that
they are aware of public concerns about DRL glare.
NHTSA received a September 1997 UMTRI Report (No. 97-37) titled ``A
Market-Weighted Description of Low-Beam Headlighting Patterns in the
U.S.'' by Sivak, Flannagan, Kojima and Traube. The report lists
intensities (in cd.) of 35 lower beam headlamps used on the 23 best-
selling passenger cars, light trucks and vans for model year 1997.
These data allowed the agency to compare intensity levels in potential
glare-causing regions such as along the H-H line and above.
The first table below shows lower beam photometric data for both
cars and trucks of 1997 vintage extracted from Table 3 in UMTRI Report
97-37 and illustrates the potential for lower beam glare problems. The
second table illustrates the glare problem by calculating the intensity
that will be seen by other drivers when the same full voltage lower
beam headlamps are used as DRLs at typical real world operating
voltages of 13.5V or 14V. These intensities are from 1.2 to 1.35 times
more intense than the values in the first table because higher voltage
caused the intensity to increase disproportionately. The third table is
the reduced intensity lower beam operated at 11.78V (about 92 percent
of the required laboratory voltage of 12.8V). The fourth table is this
same reduced intensity lower beam operating at real world voltages of
13.5 and 14V.
Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter than 3000 cd at Laboratory Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.8.............................. 25th.................. ....... ....... 5040 5720 4211 .......
50th.................. ....... 5414 6838 6992 5445 .......
75th.................. 4907 7405 8142 8386 7548 6164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter Than 3000 cd When Operated as Full Voltage DRLs at Real World Voltages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.5.............................. 25th.................. ....... ....... 5987 6795 5003 .......
50th.................. ....... 6431 8123 8306 6489 .......
75th.................. 5829 8797 9673 9962 8967 7322
14.0.............................. 25th.................. ....... ....... 6804 7722 5685 .......
50th.................. ....... 7309 9231 9439 7351 .......
75th.................. 6624 9997 10992 11321 10190 8321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter Than 3000 cd at Reduced Voltage
[DRL voltage=92 percent of Laboratory Voltage]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.8 red. to 11.78................ 25th.................. ....... ....... 3782 4290 3158 .......
50th.................. ....... 4061 5129 5244 4083 .......
75th.................. 3675 5554 6107 6290 5661 4623
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Beam H-H Test Points (cd.) Brighter Than 3000 cd When Operated as Reduced Voltage
[DRLs Using Real World Voltages]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volts Percentile H-V H-1R H-2R H-3R H-4R H-5R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.5 red. to 12.42................ 25th.................. ....... ....... 4550 5164 3802 .......
50th.................. ....... 4888 6173 6313 4932 .......
75th.................. 4430 6686 7351 7571 6815 5565
14.0 red. to 12.88................ 25th.................. ....... ....... 5171 5869 4321 .......
50th.................. ....... 5554 7016 7174 5587 .......
75th.................. 5034 7598 8354 8604 7744 6324
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, the basis of these calculations is the information
from UMTRI Report 97-37. The current market headlamp performance is
markedly more intense than the headlamp performance from the 1985-
[[Page 42351]]
1990 vintage headlamps used by NHTSA as a basis to decide on the
intensity levels in the 1993 final rule on DRLs. Because this basic
headlamp performance increase continues to be an influence on DRL
intensity, today's DRLs have a far higher intensity than expected by
NHTSA in 1993. Thus, a 50th percentile lower beam intensity at one
degree to the right of center along the horizontal axis of a beam
(point H-1R), is about 6400 cd at 13.5V and 7300 at 14V. Half of the
lamps have greater intensity than this. On those vehicles with higher
mounted lamps, such as pick-ups, vans and sport utility vehicles, this
could be substantially glaring based on past NHTSA research about DRL
glare intensities.
The National Motorists Association of Waunakee, Wisconsin,
(``NMA'') opposes the use of DRLs in response to continuing and
increasing complaints by its members. The member complaints can be
summarized as follows: increased glare, obscuration of turn signal
lights, increased visual clutter, masking other roadway users,
reduction in the conspicuity of motorcycles, distortion of distance
perception, reduction of detectability of emergency vehicles, and
failure to use the normal headlighting system at night.
NMA petitioned for rulemaking in August 1997 to:
1. Amend Standard No. 108 to prohibit hard wired DRLs on all
vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States;
2. Require retrofit of all vehicles currently equipped with DRLs
with a switch that permits the DRLs to be turned off or on at the
discretion of the vehicle operator;
3. Amend Standard No. 108 to prohibit the use of high beam
headlamps as a component of a DRL system; and
4. Recall, disconnect, or convert to lower beam any DRL system that
currently uses the upper beam.
The agency also received a petition for rulemaking in September
1997 from JCW Consulting of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This petition objects
to the ``excessive'' glare from current DRLs. It requests the following
actions:
1. Amend Standard No. 108 so that no new DRL lamps with a power of
more than 1200 cd are allowed, regardless of mounting location,
effective with the 1999 model year;
2. Amend Standard No. 108 so that no DRL lamps may use upper beam
components;
3. Order the recall of all existing upper beam based DRL systems,
and require that they be either entirely dismantled, or converted to
lower beam or turn signal components, with a maximum output of 1200 cd;
and
4. Order that all existing vehicles currently equipped with DRLs
based on lower beam or turn signal components, and which emit more than
1200 cd, be recalled and equipped with a switch that permits the
vehicle owner to have the systems on or off as desired (with the
default position of ``off''). Alternatively, the manufacturer could
reduce the output to a maximum of 1200 cd, and leave the automatic
functions operative.
These petitions indicate public concern about excessive DRL
intensity and the resulting glare. NHTSA had become aware of public
concern and began to study the issue before receiving these petitions.
NHTSA is granting them, to the extent that it is proposing to reduce
the intensity levels of DRLs with the intent of reducing glare
complaints.
One of NHTSA's stated goals when it permitted DRLs as optional
lamps was that they should not create excessive glare. To achieve this
goal, NHTSA established carefully considered, but higher than proposed,
limits on DRL intensity. NHTSA believed that the compromise intensity
limits established in the January 1993 final rule would assure that
DRLs would not cause excessive glare. However, the widespread voluntary
introduction of DRLs since 1993 has demonstrated real-world experience
with many varieties of DRLs. This real-world experience indicates that
the glare problems are substantially greater than was anticipated in
1993. NHTSA's goal of no undue glare was not accomplished. In response
to this problem, NHTSA has developed a three-step approach to address
DRL glare, which would be phased in over four years after publication
of the final rule.
Phase One: Eliminate the Special Provision Allowing Upper Beam
Headlamp DRLs to Have a 7000 cd Maximum Intensity
NHTSA proposes that the provision in Standard No. 108 permitting
upper beam headlamps to be used at intensities up to 7000 cd, at H-V,
when mounted below 864 mm. be deleted, effective one year after
issuance of the final rule. The consequence of this will be that upper
beam headlamps operating at reduced voltage will be required to have a
beam intensity limit of no more than 3000 cd at any point in the beam.
Commenters may argue, as GM did previously, that the lower beam is
permitted to be much more intense than the current 7000 cd maximum for
upper beam DRLs. As explained in justification of the existing rule,
correctly aimed lower beam headlamps at lower mounting heights do not
pose the upward glare problem that correctly aimed upper beam headlamp
DRLs do. A check of photometric data on 71 lower beam headlamps of
vintage 1985-1990 showed that they were not brighter than 3,000 cd at
the H-V (center) test point. Data collected by UMTRI for NHTSA (DTNH22-
88-C-07011, ``Development of a Headlight System Performance Evaluation
Tool'') indicated that 2200 cd was a typical intensity at the H-V test
point. This is the original basis for the existing 3000 cd intensity
limits for upper beam DRLs when they are mounted above 34 inches. The
intent was to constrain the intensity to that similar to a lower beam
headlamp when viewed from straight ahead. The 1997 UMTRI data
referenced and discussed above show current headlamps are substantially
more intense than the earlier headlamps. When used as reduced intensity
DRLs, the lamps will be more intense than the 3000 cd deemed to be the
acceptable limit in 1993.
In addition, drivers seem to accept more glare from headlamps at
night than from DRLs during daylight because of their willingness to
trade off some glare for increases in critically needed seeing distance
visibility. Headlamps are intended to allow the driver to see at night
and to allow the vehicle to be seen by other drivers. Thus, a headlamp
designer must make a trade off between nighttime visibility for the
driver of the vehicle and glare for other drivers. Reasonable people
may make that trade off at very different places. Consider, for
example, the very different lower beam pattern in European headlamps
with a sharp cutoff of light above the horizontal (to prevent glare for
other drivers) and the U.S. requirement for substantially more light
above the horizontal (to assure visibility of signs and other roadside
objects for the driver).
DRLs, on the other hand, have only one function--to improve vehicle
conspicuity during daylight. The only consideration is to assure that
the DRL is sufficiently intense to achieve this purpose. More intense
DRLs do not offset the problems of glare with any significant increase
in conspicuity. Because there is no tradeoff, the agency should be less
tolerant of glare from DRLs than it is for headlamps. Thus, Phase Two
is proposed.
[[Page 42352]]
Phase Two: Reduce the Intensity for any DRL to 3000 cd at
Horizontal and Above
The September 1997 UMTRI Report (UMTRI-97-37) titled ``A Market-
Weighted Description of Lower-Beam Headlighting Patterns in the U. S.''
provides photometric test data on a sample of 35 lower-beam headlamps
manufactured for use on the 23 best selling passenger cars, light
trucks, and vans for model year 1997. This new sales-weighted data
reveal 50th percentile lower beam intensity (at 12.8V--not 14V, and
1.35 times the laboratory intensity possible in the actual on-road
scenario) for cars, light trucks, and vans is 2615 cd at H-V, 4015 cd
at H-0.5R, 5414 cd at H-1R, 6838 cd at H-2R, 2111 cd at H-0.5L, and
1724 cd at H-1L (See Fig. 1). The corresponding values on the 1985-90
headlamps were 2215, 3198, 4173, 5239, 1579, and 1235 cd at 12.8V,
respectively. In all instances light levels have markedly increased and
thus glare potential has increased for the headlamps on 1997 cars,
light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles. The problem is even
more significant, because the real world voltage on the lamps can be
13.5 to 14V, giving intensity increases of 35 percent or more.
The earlier UMTRI tests of 71 vintage 1985-1990 lower beams showed
that they were not brighter than 3000 cd at H-V, and furthermore, 2215
cd was the mean value. The 5239 cd value found at 2R on the new
headlamps means that they are far more likely to cause glare problems
for other drivers than the less intense 1985-1990 lamps, even at the
reduced voltage (92 percent voltage and approximately 75 percent
intensity) used for Canada. Thus, it is likely that complaints about
DRL glare from lower beam headlamps will supplant complaints about DRL
glare from reduced intensity upper beam headlamps when manufacturers
shift from a preponderance of upper to a greater number of lower beam
DRLs if nothing is done to establish maximum intensity limits for lower
beam DRLs.
In the current DRL specifications in Standard No. 108, lower beam
DRLs are the only type of DRL not subject to any maximum intensity
limit. Given the 1997 UMTRI information on the intensity of current
lower beams, it seems appropriate now to include a maximum intensity
limit for lower beam DRLs to ensure that glare from those DRLs is also
limited. The maximum value already in place for all other types of DRLs
is 3000 cd, and there is no information suggesting that a higher
intensity value for lower beam DRLs will not produce glare for other
drivers. Accordingly, the agency is proposing to adopt a 3000 cd. limit
for lower beam DRLs, to be effective one year after that limit is
extended to upper beam DRLs, that is to say, two years after
publication of the final rule.
However, one difference is needed for the maximum intensity limit
for lower beam DRLs compared with that for all other DRLs, which are
limited to no more than 3000 cd at any point in the beam. Because lower
beam headlamps can have hot spot intensities (usually around 2D-2R) of
more than 35,000 cd, the agency is concerned that limiting these lamps
to 3000 cd anywhere in the beam would in effect preclude the use of
lower beams as DRLs. NHTSA does not want to do this; it simply wants to
establish performance criteria that will assure that the public is not
bothered by excessive glare from DRLs, and allow vehicle manufacturers
to decide how to design complying non-glare DRLs. In this case, the
agency has tentatively concluded that it can prevent excessive glare
from lower beam DRLs by proposing that they have no test point that is
more intense that 3000 cd at horizontal or above. More intense points
in the beam pattern below horizontal should not produce significant
glare complaints for other drivers, unless the beam projects near or
above the eye height of passenger car drivers. To address this last
issue about mounting height and glare, the agency is proposing Phase
Three.
Phase Three: Final Glare Reduction
After adequate lead time has elapsed, which the agency has
tentatively decided should be four years after issuance of the final
rule, NHTSA believes that lower beam DRLs should be limited to a
maximum intensity of 1500 cd at horizontal or above and any other DRL
be limited to a maximum intensity of 1500 cd anywhere in the beam, when
measured at 12.8V. This action will lower the intensity on the
brightest DRLs on cars operating on public roads to about 2020 cd at
14V (near the real-world worst case DRL glare condition).
Requiring lower intensity by reducing intensities to 1500 cd at
12.8V is important in ensuring that glare is limited under typical and
reasonable real-world conditions. In determining this limit, the agency
seeks a level which is a balance between the need to make DRLs bright
enough to be conspicuous and effective in reducing crashes, the need to
minimize glare problems, and the desire for a practical/cost effective
system. By providing a long lead time, the agency believes that
practical and low cost solutions can be achieved that permit
manufacturers to modify their DRL modules, and use more turn signal
lamps as DRLs.
The challenge in determining a maximum intensity limit arises
because the glare response of the eye to light intensity and the
ability of the vision system to detect objects depends on the ambient
illumination. As the sky and roadway background become brighter, DRLs
appear less glaring to an observer. But in order to make a light source
more detectable against brighter backgrounds, it has to have higher
intensities, which will increase the glare when it is seen under lower
ambient light levels. If future technical advances lead to the
development of DRLs which automatically adjust their intensity in
response to changing ambient light levels, the balance between glare
and conspicuity could be optimized. However, with the current fixed
intensity lighting technology, a maximum value needs to be selected
which strikes a compromise between providing potential safety benefits
and minimizing the glare achieved.
The balance between glare and effectiveness is illustrated in
Figure 2 from a 1990 Dutch Study by Hagenzieker, titled, ``Visual
Perception and Daytime Running Lights.'' Figure 2 has been placed in
Docket No. NHTSA 98-4124 and is available for public inspection.
That report described a model of how DRL intensity and drivers'
visual adaptation level interact to determine the degree of discomfort
glare and detectability of DRL. Figure 2 plots data from DRL research
showing results from glare and visual performance studies. The data for
glare represent conditions under which discomfort did or did not occur.
The data for visual performance represent conditions under which DRL
improved conspicuity performance compared to a no-DRL baseline. The
area above the top broken line shows the conditions causing increased
discomfort glare. The area above the lower broken line shows the
conditions leading to increased visual conspicuity performance compared
to performance without DRL.
The area between the two broken lines illustrates the conditions
where conspicuity performance improves without causing discomfort
glare. The difference between the two lines shows how there is always a
tradeoff between glare and detectability at any level of DRL intensity.
For example, if DRL intensity is 2000 cd glare will not be a
significant problem in daylight but may cause some discomfort in
twilight.
[[Page 42353]]
Vehicle detection will be improved in twilight and overcast conditions,
but may not increase under bright daytime conditions. If DRL intensity
is increased to 3000 cd, glare becomes a concern at even brighter
ambient light levels, but vehicle contrast and detection will be
improved. Thus, to determine the maximum DRL intensity, the glare
levels acceptable under twilight conditions needs to be balanced
against the intensity levels required for increased vehicle
detectability under daytime light conditions.
NHTSA-sponsored research quantified how drivers react to the glare
from different DRL intensities. Kirkpatrick et al. assessed the
response of 32 subjects to DRL glare from a following car at 6 m behind
the subjects (``Evaluation of Glare From Daytime Running Lights,'' DOT
HS 807 502, 1989). Subjects were asked to look into the rear view
mirror and rate the glare discomfort. The ratings were based on a 9-
point scale, with 1 being the most disturbing and 9 being just
noticeable glare. Discomfort was also measured in terms of the desire
of the subjects to switch the mirror to the low reflectance, night
position. The experiment was run during a time period from two hours
before sunset to one half hour after sunset during the months of
January and February. The illumination on the road surface varied from
4 to 30,000 lux. Below 7000 lux corresponds to dusk light levels. The
higher light levels are typical of heavy overcast daytime conditions.
The discomfort rating scale results are described below in Figure 3
extracted from the report, in terms of the cumulative percent of
subject responses equal to or less than a particular rating scale.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 42354]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AU98.016
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 42355]]
These data can be used to determine maximum intensity levels that
are associated with specified percentages of the responses made by
subjects. For example, the graph in Figure 3 shows that only 500 and
1000 cd levels are rated no worse than ``just acceptable'' in 80
percent of the responses. These results mean that if a DRL is 1000 cd,
only 20 per cent of the ratings will find the intensity to be at some
degree of unacceptable glare. At 2000 cd, the glare was rated as no
worse than ``just unacceptable'' in 80 percent of the responses. At
4000 cd, the glare was rated as no worse than ``disturbing'' in 80
percent of the responses. The corresponding results for the interior
mirror dimming probability show that at 4000 cd, mirrors would be
dimmed about 70 percent of the time; at 2000 cd the dimming probability
is about 40 percent; at 1000 cd the dimming probability is about 10
percent. Dimming the mirror in daytime would reduce the utility of the
mirror because its dimmed reflectance is about 4 percent. Drivers would
have their eyes adapted to brighter daytime light levels and would not
be able to see objects in the low reflectance, dark mirror.
The data discussed above show the problems of glare from DRL viewed
in rearview mirrors. The Society of Automotive Engineers Lighting
Committee conducted several tests of DRL glare from oncoming vehicles.
Their tests were conducted to obtain the subjective reactions of
committee members to different intensities, and were reported in a
memorandum on SAE J2087 Daytime Running Lamps on Motor Vehicles, dated
April 9, 1991, from D.W. Moore to John Krueger, SAE. Its test in
October 1982 in Ottawa found that under dusk conditions, 12 percent of
the observers reported that 1000 cd caused glare at a distance of 400m
and 39 percent reported that it caused glare at 50m.
While glare reduction is important to driver acceptance of DRL,
NHTSA also wants to assure that the potential effectiveness of DRL in
improving safety is not severely compromised. The extent to which DRL
effectiveness may be reduced by reducing intensity can not be predicted
with certainty, but data regarding the improved detectability of
vehicles provides some guidance. The ambient light level affects the
detectability of a DRL-equipped vehicle. The difference in
detectability of a vehicle with DRL versus one without DRL, when
observed at higher light levels, is smaller than the difference at
lower light levels. This was shown in NHTSA sponsored research on the
conspicuity of DRL. (W. Burger, R. Smith, and K. Ziedman. ``Evaluation
of the Conspicuity of Daytime Running Lights.'' DOT HS 807 609, April
1990) The research evaluated the relationship between DRL intensity and
detection distance, and how detection distance is influenced by ambient
light level, which was measured in terms of the illuminance measured on
a horizontal surface. Twenty three subjects were asked to detect a
vehicle driving toward them in their peripheral visual field. The
subjects were asked to perform a task to keep their attention away from
the approaching car and had to press a switch as soon as they became
aware of the test vehicle in their peripheral vision. The DRL intensity
on the test vehicle varied from 0 to 1,600 cd. The results showed that
the mean improvement in detection distance with 1600 cd DRLs is about
200 feet for low ambient conditions, but only about 80 feet for high
ambient conditions.
Thus, under the low ambient conditions in this test, intensities
below approximately 2000 cd can be effective in improving vehicle
detectability, even at a peripheral viewing angle. Under high ambient
light conditions, a 1600 cd DRL shows some effectiveness in catching
drivers' attention when they are not directly looking at the light.
With direct viewing of a vehicle, lower intensities should be
effective in increasing detectability. This finding was supported by
the results of numerous tests conducted by the SAE Lighting Committee
to subjectively determine what DRL intensities were needed to make a
vehicle more noticeable under daytime conditions. For example, in a
1982 SAE daytime test of DRLs in Ottawa, observers rated a vehicle with
a 100 cd DRL to be more noticeable than a car with no lamps or parking
lamps. A 1984 test in Detroit found that 80 percent of observers could
clearly see a vehicle with 600 cd DRL at 0.5 mile. A 1985 SAE test in
Mesa, Arizona evaluated the effectiveness of DRL signal intensities as
determined by observers looking at an approaching vehicle. During
daytime, 80 percent of the observers judged 1500 cd to be effective at
150 feet. In 1985, a test in Indianapolis found that an amber turn
signal was effective at 600 cd. In 1988, a test in Kansas City found
that 500 cd was considered effective by more than 70 percent of the
observers. In September 1989, SAE conducted a test in Washington, D.C.
All intensities tested (from 200 cd to 7000 cd) were judged effective
by more than 80 percent of the observers. What all of these SAE tests
show is that on the basis of subjective ratings, DRLs below 2000 cd are
consistently judged effective in enhancing vehicle conspicuity in
situations where the observers look in the direction of the vehicle.
In summary, NHTSA believes that based on glare considerations
alone, the research data strongly point to the need to keep the maximum
intensity level somewhere between 1000 and 2000 cd so that the majority
of drivers are not discomforted under overcast and twilight conditions.
NHTSA believes that, if a 2000 cd level is prescribed as the upper
limit, the actual intensities on the road will likely be within the
1000 to 2000 cd range and thus, acceptable to most drivers under most
driving conditions. Past testing indicates that DRLs at these levels
still have the ability to enhance vehicle detectability in bright
daytime conditions. Under low ambient conditions, where detectability
of some vehicles without DRLs may be marginal, low intensity DRLs can
boost detection distances more significantly.
The question then becomes what level should be specified in a
Standard No. 108 test to achieve a DRL intensity of no more than 2000
cd in the real world, under actual operating conditions. The 12.8V used
in NHTSA testing represented typical vehicle voltages in 1968, but
typical vehicle voltages in 1997 have increased. A typical voltage in
current vehicles is about 13.5V, with some vehicles running at 14.0V.
Using the conversion table shown below, 2000 cd at 13.5V corresponds to
1660 cd. at 12.8V (2,000 x 0.83), while 2000 cd at 14.0V corresponds
to 1480 cd at 12.8V (2,000 x 0.74). Because the demand by vehicle
designers for greater voltages in the vehicle electric systems responds
to the increase in electric features on vehicles, there is no reason to
expect this will abate in the near future. Thus, it seems likely that
today's worst-case (14.0V) could become the typical voltage in the next
five or ten years. To respond to this, NHTSA proposes to specify a
maximum candela limit that assumes many vehicles will operate with
14.0V, and round the 1480 cd up to 1500 cd in the standard. It should
also be noted that the recommended 1500 cd limit is identical to ECE
requirements for maximum DRL intensity (1200 cd tested at 12.0V is 1500
cd tested at 12.8V).
[[Page 42356]]
Test Voltage and Intensity Multiplication Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplication Factor to Use to Get Candela at--
Candela specified at-- --------------------------------------------------------------
12.0 v 12.42 v 12.8 v 12.88 v 13.2 v 13.5 v 14.0 v
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.0 v........................................... 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.28 1.37 1.50 1.68
12.42 v.......................................... 0.89 1.00 1.11 1.13 1.21 1.33 1.49
12.8 v........................................... 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.02 1.10 1.20 1.34
12.88 v.......................................... 0.78 0.88 0.98 1.00 1.07 1.18 1.32
13.2 v........................................... 0.73 0.82 0.90 0.93 1.00 1.07 1.23
13.5 v........................................... 0.67 0.76 0.83 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.12
14.0 v........................................... 0.60 0.67 0.74 0.76 0.81 0.88 1.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As may be seen from this chart, lamp intensity increases
disproportionately with voltage increase. The consequence for headlamps
is the same as for DRLs--they get brighter. In a rulemaking separate
from this one, NHTSA will ask whether it should consider a change from
the standardized test voltage of 12.8V direct current(VDC) to a new
standard such as 13.5 VDC or 14 VDC or consider some other solution
such as requiring the voltage at headlamps in real vehicles to be 12.8
VDC. If the voltage were increased, a question is raised as to how the
photometric performance should be changed to assure that performance on
the road is what researchers, lighting test observers, and Federal
regulators determined meets the need for safety and is not brighter and
not dimmer than necessary or expected.
Another issue related to DRLs and voltage is that of lower voltage.
To date, DRLs that have been based on the use of headlamps have been
using full voltage, 75 percent voltage and 50 percent voltage, and it
has been presumed that their life as normal headlamps was relatively
unaffected. If voltages other than these are used because it is
necessary to make the lamps dimmer, will there be any different or
additional consequence to lamp life when the lamps are used as normal
headlamps? Because DRL installation is voluntary at this time, it could
be argued that there would be no burden on manufacturers as a result of
changing the DRL requirements because DRL installation is at the
manufacturers' discretion. However, NHTSA does not want to discourage
the installation of DRLs. Research indicates that DRLs do improve
vehicle conspicuity and experience and intuition indicate that enhanced
conspicuity should translate into fewer crashes. But there are no data
at this time to show DRLs result in fewer crashes in the United States.
The agency is awaiting completion of its National Center for Statistics
and Analysis study of DRL-equipped GM vehicles. Canada's initial data
suggest an 8 percent reduction in two-vehicle, opposing-direction,
daytime crashes. More recent Canadian studies show a 5.3 percent
reduction in combined data of opposing and angled crashes. For these
reasons, the agency wants to carefully consider the burdens associated
with this proposal.
For a number of reasons, manufacturers now offer DRLs on many of
their vehicles and will continue to do so. Those manufacturers have
chosen a variety of DRL implementations, and currently use low voltage
lower beams, full voltage lower beams, high intensity turn signals,
dedicated DRL lamps, and reduced intensity upper beam headlamps. Most
companies use multiple options already, so no large technology burden
should occur if changes are proposed to limit maximum DRL intensity to
reduce glare. With the proposed intensity limit, those manufacturers
that currently use the least expensive DRLs (series wired upper beam
headlamps) might not be able to do so. Instead, the choice for such
vehicles will be between continuing to use the upper beam DRLs, but
replacing series wiring currently used with voltage/current reduction
electronics typically used with current reduced intensity lower beam
headlamp DRLs, or to use different lamps for the DRLs. It should be
noted that using voltage/current reduction electronics for upper beam
DRLs is an expensive choice that would produce poor-performing DRLs
with little angle/peripheral detection safety value.
This shift in DRL mechanization will affect manufacturers that
continue to offer DRLs as standard equipment. Available information
indicates the costs for changing from the least expensive type of DRL
to others would result in, from a savings of $2.32 to an additional
cost of $16.95 (when converting from low voltage upper beam to bright
turn signal DRLs) per vehicle based on revised Canadian cost estimates
for its law (see ``Preliminary Economic Evaluation of the Costs &
Benefits of Daytime Running Lights Regulation'' Transport Canada report
TP12517E) and GM 1997 model year production of 4,364,300 cars and
trucks less than 8500 pounds GVWR and intended for sale in the U.S. The
agency has updated the Canadian cost data (expressed in 1993 Canadian
Dollars) converted to 1996 U.S. Dollar costs. The new data are found
below. The reader should note the relatively small cost increases
associated with this rulemaking.
Costs of DRL Change for GM
[Based on 1997 Model Year Production of Cars and Trucks Under 8500 Lbs. GVWR intended for Sale in the U. S. [4,364,300 units] and 1996 U.S. Dollars,
Using Converted 1993 Canadian DRL Cost Data]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle cost of DRL 1997 1997 fleet DRL cost, 2003 2003 fleet cost, $M
system (dollars) fleet $M fleet in 1997 US$
---------------------- (percent) ---------------------- estimate ---------------------
Existing type of DRL system ----------- (percent)
Low High Low High ----------- Low High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Intensity Upper Beam.................................... 2.83 9.98 53.6 6.62 23.34 0 0 0
Reduced Intensity Lower Beam.................................... 15.44 21.99 39.3 26.48 37.71 50 33.69 47.99
Turn Signals.................................................... 7.66 19.78 7.1 2.37 6.13 50 16.72 43.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42357]]
Total....................................................... ......... ......... ......... 35.47 67.18 ......... 50.41 91.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This gives an increased cost of about $3.42 to $5.49 per vehicle.
The costs could be substantially less should GM choose to install turn
signal-based DRLs. Then the cost would be from a savings of $.47 to a
cost of $5.65 per vehicle.
From a lighting safety perspective, the use of front turn signals
as DRLs is desirable, because it eliminates all possibility of turn-
signal masking by other DRLs, increases the angles at which the DRL can
be seen (visible at 45 degrees) which should increase the benefit at
intersections, virtually eliminates glare to other motorists, prevents
incidents where drivers forget to turn on full headlamps (with
taillamps) in inclement weather or at twilight because the headlamp
DRLs provide so much light; and allows motorcycles to keep a unique
conspicuity signature. Additional, non-safety benefits are that turn
signal DRLs offer a fuel economy benefit of up to 0.5 m.p.g. compared
to headlamp DRLs (according to 1990 test data), lower cost of
replacement bulbs (compared with replacement costs for headlamps or
headlamp bulbs), and lower costs than the reduced intensity lower beam
headlamp according to the 1995 Economic Evaluation of DRLs performed by
Transport Canada. In addition, turn signals that conform to Federal
requirements when mounted closer than 100mm from a lower beam headlamp
or an upper beam DRL already meet DRL minimum requirements.
NHTSA realizes that some turn signal lamps would have to be
redesigned for this use, because some present lamps could not withstand
the heat load from continuous operation or would need to become more
intense than 500 cd. However, GM already has at least nine vehicle
models with this option, and Chrysler uses turn signals as DRLs on some
of its Canadian models.
NHTSA does not believe that it would be wise to immediately
prohibit the higher intensity headlamp DRLs and thus terminate the
majority of DRL installations on new vehicles. However, the glare
limits in this proposed amendment may well move manufacturers to choose
turn signal lamps or dedicated DRL lamps as the preferred DRL option.
Because the data available to date indicate that there may well be
safety benefits from using DRLs, the issue of glare must be seriously
addressed. One could argue that the use of glare-producing DRLs should
cease as soon as possible because there are no quantified
countervailing benefits the public receives along with this glare.
However, the intuitive conspicuity benefits of DRLs are appealing and
may translate into significant crash avoidance safety benefits. The
costs and burdens discussed above could be tempered if manufacturers
are given a modest lead time to make any necessary changes to DRLs, and
the public would be assured that its glare complaints are being acted
upon.
As stated above, NHTSA proposes to allow one year following the
publication of the final rule to make the initial change for upper beam
DRL from 7000 cd at H-V to 3000 cd. This would give the public near-
term relief from the upper beam DRLs that are the subject of many of
the DRL glare complaints. While this would require relatively quick
corrective action on the part of the vehicle manufacturers, changing
the mechanization of DRLs to other DRL designs they already use would
not seem to pose any undue technical design or manufacturing
challenges.
Two years after the final rule, and one year after the new
requirements for upper beam DRLs go into effect, lower beam DRLs would
be limited to no more than 3000 cd at any point on the horizontal or
above. There are two types of lower beam DRLs currently offered. One is
a full intensity lower beam; in essence, the headlamps come on whenever
the car is started. The other is a reduced intensity lower beam, which
is accomplished by using voltage/current reduction electronics. Most
lower beam DRLs already use reduced intensity, because this prolongs
bulb life and increases customer satisfaction. All full intensity lower
beam DRLs would have to be modified to use reduced intensity. However,
this technology is already in place. Most reduced intensity lower beams
will have to have the intensity reduced further to comply with this new
3000 cd limit. This is simply a question of adjusting the voltage/
current reduction electronics that are already in place to a lower
level. An additional year of leadtime should allow plenty of time to
make these changes to lower beam DRLs.
Four years after the final rule, and three years after the new
requirements for upper beam DRLs go into effect, lower beam DRLS would
be limited to no more than 1500 cd at any point on horizontal or above
and all other DRLs would be limited to no more than 1500 cd at any
point in the beam. This requirement can be met by using turn signal
lamps as DRLs, as 7 percent of GM's 1997 vehicles already do, or by
further reducing the intensity of lower beam DRLs. The proposed
leadtime is intended to give manufacturers time to decide which choice
is appropriate for the DRLs on their vehicles and to design and test
the changed DRLS as well as making any necessary changes in the
manufacturing process.
NHTSA recognizes that this proposed action has an impact on the
agency's efforts to harmonize the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards with other countries' safety standards. As has been stated,
Canada requires DRLs on new vehicles and requires a minimum of 2000 cd
for upper beams and permits a maximum intensity of 7000 cd for upper
beam DRLs. Canada also permits full or reduced intensity lower beam
headlamps, turn signals, fog lamps and separate DRL lamps. The existing
DRL provisions in Standard No. 108 permit DRLs to be installed and
allow upper beam headlamp DRLs with a maximum intensity of 7000 cd when
mounted at or below 864mm, and with a 3000 cd maximum intensity for
other DRLs that do not use lower beam headlamps. Essentially, DRLs that
comply with the Canadian requirements except fog lamp DRLs and higher
mounted upper beam DRLs would also comply with the existing U.S.
requirements. The existing requirements in Standard No. 108 explicitly
prohibit fog lamp DRLs in
[[Page 42358]]
response to states' concern about enforcement issues.
However, the proposed rule would move the performance requirements
for DRLs in the U.S. and Canada further apart. As noted above, Canada
requires upper beams to have a minimum intensity of 2000 cd, while
NHTSA proposes a maximum intensity for upper beam DRLs of 1500 cd in
four years. Thus, upper beam DRLs would not be able to comply with both
the U.S. and the present Canadian requirements when run at the same
voltage. It is also unlikely that lower beam DRLs will be able to
simultaneously comply with U.S. and Canadian requirements. This is
because Canada requires that lower beam DRLs operate at not less than
75 percent of the normal operating voltage. Voltage reductions below
that level will very likely be required on many lower beam lamps to
comply with the proposed specifications. Turn signal DRLs and separate
DRL lamps would be able to comply simultaneously with the Canadian
requirements and the proposed changes to Standard No. 108. In addition,
both upper and lower beam DRLs can use voltage/current reduction
electronics to achieve the reduced intensity. It would be possible to
use the same electronics package in U.S. and Canadian vehicles, but set
the U.S. vehicles at 50 percent voltage and the Canadian vehicles at 75
percent voltage for example. Thus, there would still be a window of
harmonization between the two countries' DRL standards, but that window
would be much smaller.
NHTSA has discussed DRL glare with a representative of Transport
Canada, who indicated interest in reducing DRL glare. But there are
almost no public complaints in Canada about DRL glare. As part of the
glare reduction, Transport Canada was concerned that lower beams not be
precluded from being viable DRLs. The agency's proposal addresses that
concern by measuring the intensity limit only at horizontal or above.
Transport Canada was also concerned that the wide angle performance of
DRLs not be reduced substantially, because that would lessen the
peripheral illumination of these lamps and their value as conspicuity
enhancement at intersections. In layman's terms, lamps at design
intensity typically cast a wide cone of light, but as one decreases the
intensity of the lamps, the width of the cone of noticeable light
narrows dramatically.
NHTSA has carefully considered this latter point. It agrees with
Transport Canada that the intensity reductions needed for lower beam
lamps to be used as DRLs will reduce wide angle performance of those
DRLs if the reductions are solely from voltage reductions without
attendant improvements in beam pattern width and intensity. The need
for peripheral performance is demonstrated by the recent Canadian study
by Tufflemire and Whitehead, ``An Evaluation of the Impact of Daytime
running Lights on Traffic Safety in Canada'' Journal of Safety
Research, Winter 1997, where a general reduction of 2.5 percent in
angular crashes was found. Thus, while small, this benefit of
peripheral detection means that DRL performance should not be so
constrained that it loses its wide angle intensity. For DRLs that are
intended to comply with Canadian rules, the beam pattern of lower beam
headlamps would likely need to be wider and more intense below the
horizontal to accommodate the above horizontal intensity reduction
proposed for glare reduction. Additionally, NHTSA notes that DRLs that
use turn signal lamps, lamps intentionally designed to provide wide
angle conspicuity, would address Canada's concern for assuring the
maintenance of DRL peripheral detection benefits. Nonetheless, given
that the reductions in glare may come at the expense of peripheral
performance, NHTSA asks whether it should regulate the minimum
intensity performance of DRLs to assure such peripheral performance.
Proposed Changes to Standard No. 108 and Their Effective Dates
On the basis of the discussion above, NHTSA is proposing an
amendment to paragraph S5.5.11(a) of Standard No. 108 which would
become effective one year after publication of the final rule. Within
this amendment are differing performance specifications based upon the
date of a vehicle's manufacture. Proposed paragraph S5.5.11(a)(1) would
apply to vehicles manufactured from the date one year after the
publication of the final rule to the date two years after the final
rule; it would reduce the maximum permissible intensity for upper beam
DRLs from 7000 cd to 3000 cd, and remove specifications that applied
before October 1, 1995. Proposed paragraph S5.5.11(a)(2) would apply to
vehicles manufactured from two to four years after publication of the
final rule; it would limit intensity in a lower beam DRL to a maximum
of 3000 candela at any test point at or above the horizontal. Proposed
paragraph S5.5.11(a)(3) would apply to vehicles manufactured beginning
four years after publication of the final rule; this would limit
intensity in a lower beam DRL to a maximum of 1500 cd at any test point
at or above the horizontal and limit intensity in any other DRL to 1500
candela at any test point.
Request for Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting for the
information specified in the agency's confidential business information
regulation, 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available to inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after
the closing date and it is recommended that interested persons continue
to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Rulemaking Analyses
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget has informed NHTSA that it will
not review this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866. It has
been
[[Page 42359]]
determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The
effect of the rulemaking action would be to adopt terminology more
suitable to new technologies, and it would not impose any additional
burden upon any person. Impacts of the proposed rule are, therefore, so
minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that
this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic effect
upon a substantial number of small entities. Motor vehicle and lighting
equipment manufacturers are generally not small businesses within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further, small organizations
and governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected as
the price of new motor vehicles should not be impacted. Accordingly, no
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 on ``Federalism.'' It has
been determined that the rulemaking action does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The rulemaking action would not have
a significant effect upon the environment as it does not affect the
present method of manufacturing motor vehicle lighting equipment.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 105 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.108 would be amended by revising paragraph
S5.5.11(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S5.5.11(a) Any pair of lamps on the front of a passenger car,
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, whether or not required
by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps, may be wired
to be automatically activated, as determined by the manufacturer of the
vehicle, in a steady burning state as daytime running lamps (DRLs) and
to be automatically deactivated when the headlamp control is in any
``on'' position, and as otherwise determined by the manufacturer of the
vehicle, provided that each such lamp:
(1) On a vehicle manufactured on or after [one year after
publication of the final rule] and before [two years after publication
of the final rule]:
(i) Has a luminous intensity not less than 500 candela at test
point H-V, nor more than 3,000 candela at any location in the beam,
when tested in accordance with S11 of this standard, unless it is a
lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL at full voltage, or at
a voltage lower than used to operate it as a lower beam headlamp;
(ii) Is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less
than 3 mm high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp;
(iii) Is designed to provide the same color as the other lamp in
the pair, and that it is one of the following colors as defined in SAE
Standard J578 MAY88: White, white to yellow, white to selective yellow,
selective yellow, or yellow;
(iv) If not optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is located
so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the
nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm. unless:
(A) The luminous intensity of the DRL is not more than 2,600 cd. at
any location in the beam and the turn signal meets the requirements of
S5.3.1.7; or
(B) The DRL is optically combined with the headlamp and the turn
signal lamp meets the requirements of S5.3.1.7; or
(C) The DRL signal is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard
warning signal lamp is activated;
(v) If optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is automatically
deactivated as a DRL when the turn signal lamp or hazard warning lamp
is activated, and automatically reactivated as a DRL when the turn
signal lamp or hazard warning lamp is activated;
(2) On a vehicle manufactured between [two years after publication
of the final rule] and [four years after publication of the final
rule]:
(i) Has a luminous intensity not less than 500 candela at test
point H-V, nor more than 3,000 candela at any location in the beam,
when tested in accordance with S11 of this standard, unless it is a
lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL in which case it shall
have a luminous intensity of not less than 500 candela at test point H-
V and not more than 3,000 candela at any point on the H-H line or
above;
(ii) Is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less
than 3 mm high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp;
(iii) Is designed to provide the same color as the other lamp in
the pair, and that it is one of the following colors as defined in SAE
Standard J578 MAY88: White, white to yellow, white to selective yellow,
selective yellow, or yellow;
(iv) If not optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is located
so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the
nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm. unless:
(A) The luminous intensity of the DRL is not more than 2,600 cd. at
any location in the beam and the turn signal meets the requirements of
S5.3.1.7; or
(B) The DRL is optically combined with the headlamp and the turn
signal lamp meets the requirements of S5.3.1.7; or
(C) The DRL signal is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard
warning signal lamp is activated;
(v) If optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is automatically
deactivated as a DRL when the turn signal lamp or hazard warning lamp
is activated, and automatically reactivated as a DRL when the turn
signal lamp or hazard warning lamp is activated;
[[Page 42360]]
(3) On a vehicle manufactured on or after [four years after
publication of the final rule]:
(i) Has a luminous intensity not less than 500 candela at test
point H-V, nor more than 1,500 candela at any location in the beam,
when tested in accordance with S11 of this standard, unless it is a
lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL, in which case it
shall have a luminous intensity of not less than 500 candela at test
point H-V and not more than 1,500 candela at any point on the H-H line
or above;
(ii) Is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less
than 3 mm high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp;
(iii) Is designed to provide the same color as the other lamp in
the pair, and that it is one of the following colors as defined in SAE
Standard J578 MAY88: White, white to yellow, white to selective yellow,
selective yellow, or yellow;
(iv) If not optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is located
so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the
nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm. unless:
(A) The DRL is optically combined with the headlamp and the turn
signal lamp meets the requirements of S5.3.1.7; or
(B) The DRL signal is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard
warning signal lamp is activated;
(v) If optically combined with a turn signal lamp, is automatically
deactivated as a DRL when the turn signal lamp or hazard warning lamp
is activated, and automatically reactivated as a DRL when the turn
signal lamp or hazard warning lamp is activated.
* * * * *
Issued on: July 31, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-20918 Filed 8-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
