[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 54 (Friday, March 19, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13011-13012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6208]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-17243]
RIN 2127-AG86
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that would have amended the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard on lighting to reduce glare from daytime running lamps (DRLs).
In late 2001, General Motors (GM) submitted a petition for rulemaking
that asked NHTSA to mandate DRLs on new vehicles. We have decided that
the issue addressed in the 1998 NPRM, just one of a number of
interrelated issues surrounding DRLs, would best be resolved in the
context of responding to the GM petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the NHTSA,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Richard VanIderstine, Office
of Crash Avoidance Standards (Telephone: 202-366-2720) (Fax: 202-366-
7002).
For legal issues, you may call Mr. Eric Stas, Office of Chief
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, establishes lighting
requirements for motor vehicles. Although the standard does not require
DRLs, it does specify requirements that they must meet if a vehicle
manufacturer voluntarily decides to provide them (see 49 CFR 571.108,
S5.5.11).
In proposing to permit vehicles to be equipped with DRLs, we stated
that limits on the intensity of DRLs were needed to prevent glare and
to ensure that DRLs do not mask the vehicle's turn and hazard warning
signals (56 FR 38100, August 12, 1991). In the final rule published on
January 11, 1993, we adopted the following limitations on DRL
intensity: (1) 3,000 cd for lamps other than headlamps, and (2) 7,000
cd for upper beam headlamps used as DRLs at test point H-V, if mounted
not higher than 864 mm above the road surface (see 58 FR 3500). No
limitation was provided for lower beam headlamps used as DRLs.
Since that time, the number of DRL-equipped vehicles has increased
significantly, and NHTSA has received numerous complaints regarding DRL
glare. Further, in 1997, the National Motorists Association (NMA) and
JCW Consulting submitted petitions for rulemaking that, among other
things, asked NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 108 to reduce DRL intensity and
resulting glare.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NMA petition (submitted in August 1997) and the JCW
Consulting petition (submitted in September 1997) are discussed in
detail in NHTSA's August 7, 1998 Federal Register notice (see 63 FR
42348, 42351). The NMA petition is available under Docket No. NHTSA-
1998-3319-21, and the JCW Consulting petition is available under
Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3319-22. Both were originally incorporated in
Docket submissions No. NHTSA-1998-3319-1 and -2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 1998 to amend
FMVSS No. 108 to reduce glare from DRLs (63 FR 42348, August 7, 1998).
Such reduction would have been accomplished in three stages. The NPRM
proposed that one year after publication of the final rule, DRLs
utilizing the upper headlight beam would not be permitted to exceed
3,000 cd at any point, thereby becoming subject to the maximum candela
permitted for DRLs other than headlamps. Two years after publication of
the final rule, that same limitation would have applied to the upper
half of lower beam DRLs. Finally, four years after publication of the
final rule, all DRLs, except lower beam DRLs, would have been subject
to a flat 1,500 cd limit. (Lower beam DRLs would have been limited to
1,500 cd at horizontal or above.) NHTSA anticipated that its proposed
approach would have provided the public with all of the conspicuity
benefits of DRLs, while reducing the glare from these light sources.
Approximately 700 comments have been submitted since the NPRM was
published in 1998. Many commenters did not want DRLs, regarding them to
be of little value and requesting that they be prohibited. Other
commenters represented the opposite opinion, stating that DRLs are
effective and should be mandatory. Still other commenters supported the
proposal to reduce glare from DRLs.
In the intervening period, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking
from General Motors (GM) asking the agency to mandate DRLs on new
vehicles.\2\ In support of its December 20, 2001 petition, GM submitted
various studies designed to demonstrate the efficacy of DRLs in
preventing deaths and injuries associated with daytime crashes. In
addition, information was provided on the costs of DRLs. During this
time, NHTSA also has studied the impact of DRLs in terms of crash
avoidance on U.S. highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Reason for Withdrawal
After reviewing the comments submitted pursuant to the 1998 NPRM,
NHTSA has concluded that there are a number of interrelated issues
surrounding DRLs that may best be evaluated in a comprehensive fashion.
These issues include: whether DRLs should be optional or mandatory, how
to balance the competing goals of conspicuity and prevention of glare
when setting intensity levels, what are the levels of cost and benefits
associated with DRLs, whether DRLs may reduce the conspicuity of
motorcycles or emergency vehicles, whether DRLs mask turn signals or
other roadway users, and the extent to which they may distort distance
perception or result in failure to use the vehicle's normal
headlighting system at night.
Moreover, both the GM studies and NHTSA's own studies suggest that
DRLs have the positive potential to reduce crashes. We believe that
further research and analysis may provide a better understanding of
potential safety benefits of DRLs and optimum performance requirements
for those devices. As one example of our ongoing research, NHTSA
currently has a study underway on the effect of DRLs on motorcycle
conspicuity, that could assist in assessing the safety benefit of DRLs,
once completed.
In seeking to address DRL issues on a more comprehensive basis,
NHTSA also plans to conduct further deliberations with Transport
Canada, particularly regarding its comments to the docket on DRL
intensity reduction and on its follow-up comments regarding switching
and other issues. Such consultations would promote harmonization of DRL
regulation in the North American market.
Accordingly, for all of the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is
withdrawing the 1998 NPRM for DRL
[[Page 13012]]
intensity reduction. We believe that the issue raised in the NPRM would
best be resolved in a future comprehensive evaluation of DRL issues
that we plan to undertake in response to the petition from GM.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued: March 16, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-6208 Filed 3-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P