[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48231-48232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22938]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4430; Notice 2]
Denial of Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108--Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment
General Motors Corporation (GM), determined that approximately
15,300 1998 GMC Sonoma and Chevrolet S-10 pickup trucks, and GMC Jimmy
and Chevrolet Blazer sport utility vehicles, equipped with the ``ZR2''
option package, fail to meet a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108--Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment. Specifically, these vehicles are equipped with daytime
running lamps (DRLs) mounted higher than the maximum height allowed by
S5.5.11(a)(1)(ii) of FMVSS 108. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120,
GM has applied to us, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) for a decision that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM also submitted a 49 CFR
part 573 noncompliance notification to the agency in accordance with 49
CFR 556.4(b)(6).
We published a notice of receipt of the application in the Federal
Register (64 FR 27032) on May 18, 1999. Opportunity was afforded for
comments until June 17, 1999. No comments were received.
The DRLs on the noncompliant vehicles are provided by the upper
beam headlamps operating at reduced intensity, with a maximum output of
approximately 6,700 candela per lamp (according to GM). As such, FMVSS
108 requires the DRL be mounted not higher than 34 inches (864 mm) from
the road surface. Base-level GMC Sonomas and Jimmys and Chevrolet S-10
pickups and Blazers comply with the DRL height limitation of FMVSS 108.
However, the ZR2 option package gives the vehicles a stiffer suspension
and larger tires, which results in an overall increase in the height of
the vehicle, including the DRL mounting height. The mean mounting
height of DRLs on the noncompliant vehicles is 36 inches above the
ground, with a maximum height of 37 inches. As a result, they fail to
meet S5.5.11(a)(1)(ii) of FMVSS 108.
GM believes that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicles safety for the following reasons:
1. Research conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation
[[Page 48232]]
Research Institute (UMTRI) on the changes in glare caused by varying
mounting height of high beam DRLs confirms that the DRLs on the subject
vehicles do not produce significantly more glare than compliant DRLs.
2. In addition to the UMTRI research, GM conducted subjective
evaluations that confirmed that the DRLs on the noncomplying vehicles
do not cause a consequential increase in glare relative to complying
vehicles with lamps at or just below the maximum permitted mounting
height.
3. The driver of a preceding vehicle will not see more light in the
rearview mirror than NHTSA intended when it adopted the DRL
requirements in January, 1993. GM evaluated light from the noncomplying
vehicles with the DRL mounted at 37 inches, which is in the most
extreme build condition and worst case, for purposes of this analysis.
The light from this condition striking a mirror mounted 44 inches above
the ground and 20 feet in front of the DRL, would be below the 2,600
candela limit established by the agency in the final DRL rule.
4. The mounting height of the DRLs on the noncomplying vehicles
complies with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(CMVSS) 108.
5. GM has not identified any accidents, injuries or warranty
reports that are associated with this condition on the noncomplying
vehicles.
For all of the above reasons, GM argued that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and applied for a decision
that it be exempted from the notification and remedy provisions of 49
U.S.C 30118 and 30120.
We have received hundreds of letters from citizens about excessive
glare from headlamp-derived DRLs and particularly upper beam-derived
DRLs. Partially in response to those complaints, on August 7, 1998, we
issued a proposed amendment to FMVSS 108 to reduce the intensity
permitted for DRLs, starting with the upper beam DRLs such as the ones
found on these vehicles (63 FR 42348). As we stated in the proposed
amendment, we found that the actual intensities of some of these
headlamp DRLs on vehicles were as much as 1.35 times the intensities
measured when the lamps are photometrically tested in the laboratory--
because vehicle voltages up to 14 volts are found on some vehicles
(compared to the 12.8 volt lab test voltage). This may help explain why
there are so many reports by the public of glare from DRLs.
GM submitted this application after we had issued the 1998 proposed
amendments to reduce glare from DRLs and was aware that we consider
glare from DRLs, even at legal mounting heights, to be a problem. We
recognize that the noncompliance here is due to a small height
increase, resulting in relatively small increases in glare, as reported
by the test subjects GM used. However, real world experience reflecting
potential safety concerns, demonstrates that an unprecedented number of
citizens are complaining of glare from DRLs. We believe therefore, that
manufacturers should be held to the existing location requirements so
as not to exacerbate the problem of glare. The DRL intensity
requirements in existence since February 10, 1993, were a significant
relaxation (i.e., increase in intensity) from that originally proposed
on August 12, 1991 (56 FR 38100). Even then, DRL glare was an important
issue. Today, public concerns have caused NHTSA to re-examine the
intensity limits for DRLs. Given these circumstances, we cannot find
that a noncompliance that increases DRL glare is inconsequential to
safety. This application is therefore denied.
(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50
and 501.8)
Issued on August 30, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-22938 Filed 9-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
