Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 30993-30996 [E9-15314]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule
involves establishing a safety zone
under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
request authorization to do so from the
Command Center (COMCEN). The
COMCEN may be contacted on VHF–FM
Channel 16.
(3) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the
designated representative.
(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast
Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio,
flashing light, or other means, the
operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed.
(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted
by other Federal, State, or local
agencies.
Dated: June 17, 2009.
D.L. Leblanc,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9–15187 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876]
§ 165.T11–201 Safety zone; Paddle for
Clean Water; San Diego; California
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
2. Add a new temporary zone
§ 165.T11–201 to read as follows:
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment
(a) Location. The limits of the safety
zone would be as follows:
32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W;
32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W;
32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W;
32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the
shoreline to
32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W.
(b) Enforcement Period. This section
will be enforced on September 13, 2009
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. If the event
concludes prior to the scheduled
termination time, the Captain of the Port
will cease enforcement of this safety
zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(c) Definitions. The following
definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any
commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board
Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
and local, State, and Federal law
enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the
Captain of the Port.
(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit
through or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port of San Diego or
his designated on-scene representative.
(2) Mariners requesting permission to
transit through the safety zone may
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:27 Jun 26, 2009
Jkt 217001
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This document denies a
petition for rulemaking submitted by
General Motors on December 20, 2001.
The petitioner requested that the agency
amend the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment to
require the installation of daytime
running lamps on passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses that have a gross
vehicle weight rating under 4,536
kilograms (10,000 lbs). NHTSA has
reviewed the petition and performed an
extensive analysis of real world crash
data. Based on the results of our study
we were unable to find solid evidence
of an overall safety benefit associated
with daytime running lamps and are
therefore denying the petition for
rulemaking. The agency maintains its
neutral position with respect to the
safety benefits from the use of daytime
running lamps.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30993
Standards (Phone: 202–366–0098; FAX:
202–366–7002).
For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari
Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel
(Phone: 202–366–2992; FAX: 202–366–
3820).
You may send mail to these officials
at: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Petition
IV. Agency Analysis and Decision
a. NHTSA Studies and Comparison
b. Differences in Statistical Methodology
V. Conclusion
I. Summary
This document denies a 2001 petition
from General Motors (GM) requesting
that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) mandate the
installation of daytime running lamps
(DRLs) on all vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under
4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs). The
rationale for denying the petition is that,
overall, studies of the effectiveness of
DRLs have not indicated that they are an
effective means of preventing crashes.
While GM presented studies that appear
to indicate a degree of effectiveness,
NHTSA’s own studies contradict that
finding. Furthermore, for reasons
described in detail below, a careful
analysis of the various studies of DRL
effectiveness indicates flaws in the
studies GM cites and that NHTSA
should place greater weight on its own
studies. Given the information currently
available, the agency has been unable to
determine if there are any demonstrable
safety benefits associated with
mandating DRLs, and therefore has
decided that leaving them as a
manufacturer option is the best course
of action.
II. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated
equipment, establishes lighting
requirements for motor vehicles.
Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) are
steady burning lamps that illuminate
when the regular headlamps are not
required for driving. While FMVSS No.
108 does not require DRLs, it does
specify requirements that they must
meet if a vehicle manufacturer
voluntarily decides to install them.1
The requirements for DRLs were first
established on January 11, 1993 in
1 See
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
49 CFR 571.108, S7.10.1, Table I–a.
29JNP1
30994
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
response to a petition from General
Motors (GM) that asked the agency to
facilitate the introduction of DRLs on
motor vehicles. At that time, GM’s view
was that an amendment ‘‘would allow
manufacturers to install DRLs on new
vehicles without being in violation of
the multitude of State laws’’ which at
that time had ‘‘the unintended effect of
prohibiting them.’’ Also, GM did not
believe that there was justification for
mandating DRLs as standard equipment
because there was not yet evidence of a
‘‘national safety need’’ in the United
States. As a result of GM’s petition,
FMVSS No. 108 was amended to permit,
but not require, DRLs that comply with
various marking and performance
requirements.2
III. Petition
On December 20, 2001, GM petitioned
the agency requesting that DRLs be
made required equipment on passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses that have a
gross vehicle weight rating under 4,536
kilograms (10,000 lbs). In support of its
petition, GM provided information from
a study that reported a 5 percent
decrease in daytime multiple vehicle
crashes and a 9 percent reduction in
vehicle to pedestrian crashes.3 GM
claimed that this report ‘‘demonstrates
that DRLs are preventing crashes and
injuries, and saving lives.’’ The data
supporting this study were collected in
12 States from the years 1994 to 1997,
using vehicle registration as a measure
of exposure, and the ratio of crash rates
estimated by the Poisson regression
statistical method (described in detail
below).
As an update to the 2000 study, GM
most recently sponsored a study written
by Steffey, Lau, and Ray of Exponent,
Inc in 2008.4 This study examined
vehicles manufactured by GM, Saab,
Toyota, Subaru, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Crash data were analyzed from 18 States
between the years 1996 and 2005. This
study used two mathematical methods
to determine if there was a link between
DRLs and crash rates, the ratio of odds
ratio method and the ratio of crash rates.
This study reported the impact of DRLs
on various types of vehicle crashes
including head-on, rural area, highway,
rain/fog, angle, urban area, sideswipe,
pedestrian, and motorcycle.
The Steffey et al. (2008) study
reported a statistically significant
reduction in crashes associated with
DRLs. For passenger cars, it reported a
reduction in daytime head-on multivehicle crashes of 12.35 percent using
2 See
59 FR 3501 January 11, 1993.
No. NHTSA–2001–8876–11.
4 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15.
3 Docket
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:27 Jun 26, 2009
Jkt 217001
the ratio of crash rates method. This
study also reported a significant
reduction in rural area daytime multivehicle crashes of 9.1 percent for
passenger cars using this method.5
Similar results were reported for light
trucks. Similar to the 2001 GM study,
this study reported a 5 percent decrease
in daytime multiple vehicle crashes, but
contrary to the 2001 study, a nonsignificant increase in vehicle to
pedestrian crashes of 2.5 was observed.
No statistically significant results were
found for fatal crashes.
This study also analyzed the data
using the ratio of odds ratio technique.
GM stated that this methodology
produced findings that correlated DRLs
with a reduction in certain crash types.
However, NHTSA’s analysis found, with
regard to the overall crash rates
experienced by vehicles equipped with
DRLs, the Steffey et al. study’s analysis
using the ratio of odds ratios method
did not produce a statistically
significant decrease in the crash rates of
those vehicles.6
IV. Discussion and Analysis
After carefully reviewing the data in
GM’s petition, NHTSA has come to the
conclusion that the evidence linking
DRLs to lower incidents of crashes is
not persuasive. To begin, NHTSA
believes that one of the statistical
techniques used in the two GM studies,
the ratio of crash rates method, is less
effective in this case than the ratio of
odds ratio method used in the three
NHTSA studies (to be fair, this
methodology was also employed in the
Steffey et al. study). Additionally,
certain correlations in the GM study
raise questions as to the validity of its
findings. Contrary to this, NHTSA’s
studies do not show that DRLs are an
effective means of crash avoidance.
Given these issues, NHTSA does not
believe that the case has been made to
incorporate a change to require DRLs.
A. NHTSA Studies and Comparison
In 2000, NHTSA published a study
that examined the effectiveness of DRLs
installed on passenger cars
manufactured in the 1990s.7 In that
study, no statistically significant results
were found using the ratio of odds ratio
method. In 2004, NHTSA again reported
on the effectiveness of DRLs on crashes
5 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et
al., p. 21.
6 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et al.
page 38.
7 DOT HS 808 645 Table 24 & 25 Available at
https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/
DRL7_RPT.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
within the U.S.8 Again, using a broader
data set and a different control group,
no results using the ratio of odds ratio
method produced statistical
significance.
In 2008, NHTSA completed a new
study on the effectiveness of DRLs.9 The
data source is FARS (2000–2005), and
State data from 9 States (2000–2005).
The results of this NHTSA study (2008)
are inconclusive regarding overall DRL
effectiveness. When both light truck and
cars are evaluated together, the result of
DRL installation is a non-statistically
significant decrease in two vehicle, all
severity crashes of 0.3 percent (¥2.5–
3.1, 0.95 confidence). A statistically
significant decrease of 5.7 percent (0.7–
10.7, 0.95 confidence) in two vehicle
type crashes for light trucks is
somewhat offset by a non-significant 2
percent (¥5.4–1.4, 0.95 confidence)
increase in passenger car crashes of the
same type and severity. Further
complicating attempts to find a
definitive pattern of safety impact that
DRLs have, this study finds a nonsignificant increase of 12.2 percent
(¥50.1–25.7, 0.95 confidence) in light
truck-motorcycle crashes. Contrarily, it
also reports that a non-significant
decrease of 1.2 percent (¥18.5–20.9,
0.95 confidence) is observed for
passenger cars of the same crash type.
Continuing, this study was also unable
to find a clear pattern of effectiveness
between States. An overview of the
results finds some positive and some
negative results depending on crash
type and crash severity. When all
crashes are considered, a non-significant
decrease of 0.1 percent is observed,
demonstrating the overall safety benefits
of DRLs in this study are inconclusive.
The agency is aware of some groups’
concerns that DRLs may have a
detrimental impact on motorcycle
safety. The concern is that as
motorcycles have historically been the
only class of vehicles using DRLs, as
other vehicle classes begin to use DRLs
the unique conspicuity provided to
motorcycles by DRLs will be
diminished. Neither the GM, nor the
agency’s studies are able to establish
new evidence with respect to this
concern. Therefore, the potential
‘‘masking effect’’ is still unknown and
was not considered in this denial notice
analysis.
The agency believes that the result
derived based on the ratio of odds ratios
are more plausible and defendable than
those based on crash rates used in GM’s
study. The Steffey et al. study found a
8 DOT HS 809 760 Appendix B Available at
https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809760.PDF.
9 HS 811 029.
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Another limitation regarding this GM
study is the different time period for
which vehicle registration was recorded
compared to the times that the crashes
occurred. The registration numbers were
recorded as a snapshot in time on July
first, but the crashes occurred
throughout the entire year. This time
difference may cause inaccuracies in the
number of vehicles in the exposure
group.
4.28 percent decrease in nighttime
multi-party car crashes as a result of
DRL installation. It also found a 3.67
percent decrease in single vehicle light
truck crashes. Additionally, the report
found that DRLs would reduce
nighttime fatal crashes by 11.4 percent
for passenger cars and daytime singlevehicle crashes by 9.4 percent for light
trucks.10 These results cast doubt on the
validity of the GM study because we do
not believe these crash types are
plausibly affected by DRL installation.
The authors claim these numbers ‘‘serve
as useful control groups and
benchmarks for comparison.’’ 11 The
agency respectfully disagrees, and
believes this may demonstrate the lack
of control for changes that may have
occurred during the study period.
DRLEffect
B. Differences in Statistical Methodology
As discussed above, numerous studies
exist that attempt to quantify the crash
risk relative to the installation of DRLs.
Among these studies, various statistical
techniques have been used for
determining the effectiveness in real
world crashes, including the ratio of
odds ratios method (used in the NHTSA
30995
studies), and the ratio of crash rates
method (used in the GM studies).
NHTSA believes that the ratio of odds
ratios is the most effective means for the
analysis in these studies.
The primary statistical technique used
in the studies submitted by GM in
support of its petition is the ratio of
crash rates method. This was used in
the 2001 GM study, and was also used
in certain parts of the 2008 Steffey et al.
study. This technique compared the
ratio of crashes to the number of
vehicles of that type registered. This
collision rate is calculated and
compared for both vehicles with DRLs
and for vehicles without DRLs. This
comparison reportedly represents the
effectiveness of the DRL. This is
mathematically represented as follows:
CrashesDRL
CollisionRateDRL
Vehicles-in-UseDRL
=
=
Crashesno- DRL
CollisionRateno- DRL
Vehicles-in-Useno- DRL
Continuing, this expression is
modeled using a Poisson regression
model to estimate the overall DRL effect
across all model pairs. Because this
method uses vehicle registration as the
measure of exposure, it may not reflect
the actual on-road exposure of vehicles
in use that, in actuality, may be
involved in a crash. For example, this
methodology would assign equal weight
to a vehicle driven five miles per day as
to a vehicle driven 25 miles per day,
despite the fact that the latter vehicle is
far more exposed to the risk of a crash.
The ratio of odds ratios method,
which was used in NHTSA’s studies
and in some parts of the Steffey et al.
study, avoids using vehicle registration
as a method of exposure. This method
compares the ratio of target crashes in
the daytime with control crashes in the
daytime. It continues by calculating the
ratio of target crashes at night compared
to the control crashes at night. The ratio
of these ratios is then considered the
odds of a vehicle becoming involved in
a DRL relevant crash. This ratio is
calculated for both a group of DRLequipped vehicles, and for a group of
vehicles which do not have DRLs
installed. A comparison of the two
groups’ odds then determines the
effectiveness of the DRL. This method is
demonstrated as follows:
DRL-EQUIPPED VEHICLES
Light condition
Target crashes
Control crashes
Daytime ..............................................................
Nighttime ............................................................
N1 ......................................................................
N3 ......................................................................
N2.
N4.
NON-DRL VEHICLES
Light condition
Target crashes
Daytime ..............................................................
Nighttime ............................................................
N5 ......................................................................
N7 ......................................................................
R=
10 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et
al., p. 24–25.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:27 Jun 26, 2009
N5 N 6
N ∗ N8
÷
= 5
N 7 N8
N6 ∗ N7
R1
R2
Jkt 217001
R2 =
EP29jN09.012</MATH>
N1 N 2
N ∗ N4
÷
= 1
N3 N 4
N 2 ∗ N3
N6.
N8.
11 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et
al. p. 20.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
EP29JN09.011</MATH>
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
R1 =
Control crashes
30996
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
The value of R represents the relative
odds of daytime target crashes
involvements between DRL-equipped
vehicles and non-DRL vehicles. The
agency believes the ratio of odds ratio is
the optimal method because it has a
strong confounding-factor-control
ability. With regard to the previous
example, the ratio of odds ratios would
factor in a higher expected crash rate for
the vehicle driven 25 miles per day than
the vehicle driven five.
The ratio of odds ratios avoids using
crash rates because the true exposure
data generally do not exist. In GM’s
case, with regard to the portion of the
study that utilized the ratio of crash
rates method, vehicle registrations were
used as the exposure data. However,
registration data do not differentiate
driving between DRL and non-DRL
vehicles. They do not separate daytime
and nighttime driving. Consequently,
vehicle registrations are not considered
to be an appropriate exposure measure
for a DRL study. The contradicting
results from the GM study demonstrate
this. In contrast, the ratio of odds ratios
method compares the ratio of target
crashes (DRL-relevant) to control
crashes (non DRL-relevant) in the
daytime.
The Steffey et al. study incorporated
both of the methodologies in arriving at
its conclusions. Using the ratio of crash
rates method, the study found an overall
decrease in crash rates of 4.61 percent,
which was noted as statistically
significant.12 However, using the ratio of
odds ratios method, the same report
found a non-significant decrease in the
crash rates of 1.36 percent.13 Given the
significant divergence in results from
the different methodologies, we feel that
the results from the ratio of crash rates
methodology should be assigned less
weight in NHTSA’s analysis of the
safety effect of DRLs.
V. Conclusion
The agency’s 2008 DRL study is a
more robust study than previous
attempts by the agency to quantify the
effectiveness of DRLs. This newest
study was unable to find solid evidence
of overall safety benefits associated with
DRLs installed on passenger vehicles
using the ratio of odds ratio statistical
technique. While DRLs may be
beneficial for certain scenarios, the
agency has been unable to document
overall safety benefits due to DRL
installation which could serve as a basis
for mandating them. NHTSA is therefore
denying this petition from GM.
However, the agency is willing to re12 Steffey
13 Steffey
et al., p. 34.
et al., p. 38.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:27 Jun 26, 2009
Jkt 217001
examine the DRL issue if additional data
is presented demonstrating overall
safety benefits. Any such study should
consider using the ratio of odds ratios
technique as used in the latest NHTSA
study, or provide compelling evidence
that an alternative technique is superior
at predicting the effectiveness of DRLs.
In the meantime, the agency remains
neutral with respect to a policy
regarding the inclusion of DRLs in
vehicles. Although we do not find data
that provides a definitive safety benefit
that justifies Federal regulation, we are
not making recommendations that
vehicle manufacturers should change
their policies regarding DRLs.
Manufacturers should continue to make
individual decisions regarding DRLs in
their vehicles.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
Issued: June 23, 2009.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards.
[FR Doc. E9–15314 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R8–ES–2009–0040; 92220–1113–
0000–C5]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To Delist the Lost River
Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the
Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes
brevirostris)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove
the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus)
and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes
brevirostris) from the Federal List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
(List) under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that
the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that removing the Lost River
sucker or shortnose sucker from the List
may be warranted. Therefore, we will
not initiate a status review for either
species in response to this petition. We
ask the public to submit to us any new
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information that becomes available
concerning the status of, or threats to,
the Lost River and shortnose suckers or
their habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on June 29, 2009.
You may submit new information
concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/klamathfallsfwo.
Supporting documentation we used in
preparing this finding is available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the
Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1936
California Avenue, Klamath Falls, OR
97601; telephone (541) 885–8481;
facsimile (541) 885–7837. Please send
any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at (800) 877–8339, 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files at the time we
make the determination. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition, and publish our
notice of the finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
This finding is based on the
information included in and with the
petition and information available in
our files at the time of the petition
review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act and our regulations at 50 CFR
424.14(b), our review is limited to a
determination of whether the
information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial scientific or commercial
information’’ threshold. Our standard
for substantial information with regard
to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that
E:\FR\FM\29JNP1.SGM
29JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30993-30996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15314]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamp, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
General Motors on December 20, 2001. The petitioner requested that the
agency amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) on
lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment to require the
installation of daytime running lamps on passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses that have a gross vehicle weight
rating under 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs). NHTSA has reviewed the
petition and performed an extensive analysis of real world crash data.
Based on the results of our study we were unable to find solid evidence
of an overall safety benefit associated with daytime running lamps and
are therefore denying the petition for rulemaking. The agency maintains
its neutral position with respect to the safety benefits from the use
of daytime running lamps.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-0098;
FAX: 202-366-7002).
For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari Scott, Office of the Chief
Counsel (Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820).
You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Petition
IV. Agency Analysis and Decision
a. NHTSA Studies and Comparison
b. Differences in Statistical Methodology
V. Conclusion
I. Summary
This document denies a 2001 petition from General Motors (GM)
requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) mandate the installation of daytime running lamps (DRLs) on all
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 4,536
kilograms (10,000 lbs). The rationale for denying the petition is that,
overall, studies of the effectiveness of DRLs have not indicated that
they are an effective means of preventing crashes. While GM presented
studies that appear to indicate a degree of effectiveness, NHTSA's own
studies contradict that finding. Furthermore, for reasons described in
detail below, a careful analysis of the various studies of DRL
effectiveness indicates flaws in the studies GM cites and that NHTSA
should place greater weight on its own studies. Given the information
currently available, the agency has been unable to determine if there
are any demonstrable safety benefits associated with mandating DRLs,
and therefore has decided that leaving them as a manufacturer option is
the best course of action.
II. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated equipment, establishes lighting
requirements for motor vehicles. Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) are
steady burning lamps that illuminate when the regular headlamps are not
required for driving. While FMVSS No. 108 does not require DRLs, it
does specify requirements that they must meet if a vehicle manufacturer
voluntarily decides to install them.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 49 CFR 571.108, S7.10.1, Table I-a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements for DRLs were first established on January 11,
1993 in
[[Page 30994]]
response to a petition from General Motors (GM) that asked the agency
to facilitate the introduction of DRLs on motor vehicles. At that time,
GM's view was that an amendment ``would allow manufacturers to install
DRLs on new vehicles without being in violation of the multitude of
State laws'' which at that time had ``the unintended effect of
prohibiting them.'' Also, GM did not believe that there was
justification for mandating DRLs as standard equipment because there
was not yet evidence of a ``national safety need'' in the United
States. As a result of GM's petition, FMVSS No. 108 was amended to
permit, but not require, DRLs that comply with various marking and
performance requirements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 59 FR 3501 January 11, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Petition
On December 20, 2001, GM petitioned the agency requesting that DRLs
be made required equipment on passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that
have a gross vehicle weight rating under 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs).
In support of its petition, GM provided information from a study that
reported a 5 percent decrease in daytime multiple vehicle crashes and a
9 percent reduction in vehicle to pedestrian crashes.\3\ GM claimed
that this report ``demonstrates that DRLs are preventing crashes and
injuries, and saving lives.'' The data supporting this study were
collected in 12 States from the years 1994 to 1997, using vehicle
registration as a measure of exposure, and the ratio of crash rates
estimated by the Poisson regression statistical method (described in
detail below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an update to the 2000 study, GM most recently sponsored a study
written by Steffey, Lau, and Ray of Exponent, Inc in 2008.\4\ This
study examined vehicles manufactured by GM, Saab, Toyota, Subaru,
Volkswagen and Volvo. Crash data were analyzed from 18 States between
the years 1996 and 2005. This study used two mathematical methods to
determine if there was a link between DRLs and crash rates, the ratio
of odds ratio method and the ratio of crash rates. This study reported
the impact of DRLs on various types of vehicle crashes including head-
on, rural area, highway, rain/fog, angle, urban area, sideswipe,
pedestrian, and motorcycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Steffey et al. (2008) study reported a statistically
significant reduction in crashes associated with DRLs. For passenger
cars, it reported a reduction in daytime head-on multi-vehicle crashes
of 12.35 percent using the ratio of crash rates method. This study also
reported a significant reduction in rural area daytime multi-vehicle
crashes of 9.1 percent for passenger cars using this method.\5\ Similar
results were reported for light trucks. Similar to the 2001 GM study,
this study reported a 5 percent decrease in daytime multiple vehicle
crashes, but contrary to the 2001 study, a non-significant increase in
vehicle to pedestrian crashes of 2.5 was observed. No statistically
significant results were found for fatal crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-15 Steffey et al., p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This study also analyzed the data using the ratio of odds ratio
technique. GM stated that this methodology produced findings that
correlated DRLs with a reduction in certain crash types. However,
NHTSA's analysis found, with regard to the overall crash rates
experienced by vehicles equipped with DRLs, the Steffey et al. study's
analysis using the ratio of odds ratios method did not produce a
statistically significant decrease in the crash rates of those
vehicles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-15 Steffey et al. page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion and Analysis
After carefully reviewing the data in GM's petition, NHTSA has come
to the conclusion that the evidence linking DRLs to lower incidents of
crashes is not persuasive. To begin, NHTSA believes that one of the
statistical techniques used in the two GM studies, the ratio of crash
rates method, is less effective in this case than the ratio of odds
ratio method used in the three NHTSA studies (to be fair, this
methodology was also employed in the Steffey et al. study).
Additionally, certain correlations in the GM study raise questions as
to the validity of its findings. Contrary to this, NHTSA's studies do
not show that DRLs are an effective means of crash avoidance. Given
these issues, NHTSA does not believe that the case has been made to
incorporate a change to require DRLs.
A. NHTSA Studies and Comparison
In 2000, NHTSA published a study that examined the effectiveness of
DRLs installed on passenger cars manufactured in the 1990s.\7\ In that
study, no statistically significant results were found using the ratio
of odds ratio method. In 2004, NHTSA again reported on the
effectiveness of DRLs on crashes within the U.S.\8\ Again, using a
broader data set and a different control group, no results using the
ratio of odds ratio method produced statistical significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DOT HS 808 645 Table 24 & 25 Available at https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/DRL7_RPT.pdf.
\8\ DOT HS 809 760 Appendix B Available at https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809760.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, NHTSA completed a new study on the effectiveness of
DRLs.\9\ The data source is FARS (2000-2005), and State data from 9
States (2000-2005). The results of this NHTSA study (2008) are
inconclusive regarding overall DRL effectiveness. When both light truck
and cars are evaluated together, the result of DRL installation is a
non-statistically significant decrease in two vehicle, all severity
crashes of 0.3 percent (-2.5-3.1, 0.95 confidence). A statistically
significant decrease of 5.7 percent (0.7-10.7, 0.95 confidence) in two
vehicle type crashes for light trucks is somewhat offset by a non-
significant 2 percent (-5.4-1.4, 0.95 confidence) increase in passenger
car crashes of the same type and severity. Further complicating
attempts to find a definitive pattern of safety impact that DRLs have,
this study finds a non-significant increase of 12.2 percent (-50.1-
25.7, 0.95 confidence) in light truck-motorcycle crashes. Contrarily,
it also reports that a non-significant decrease of 1.2 percent (-18.5-
20.9, 0.95 confidence) is observed for passenger cars of the same crash
type. Continuing, this study was also unable to find a clear pattern of
effectiveness between States. An overview of the results finds some
positive and some negative results depending on crash type and crash
severity. When all crashes are considered, a non-significant decrease
of 0.1 percent is observed, demonstrating the overall safety benefits
of DRLs in this study are inconclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ HS 811 029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is aware of some groups' concerns that DRLs may have a
detrimental impact on motorcycle safety. The concern is that as
motorcycles have historically been the only class of vehicles using
DRLs, as other vehicle classes begin to use DRLs the unique conspicuity
provided to motorcycles by DRLs will be diminished. Neither the GM, nor
the agency's studies are able to establish new evidence with respect to
this concern. Therefore, the potential ``masking effect'' is still
unknown and was not considered in this denial notice analysis.
The agency believes that the result derived based on the ratio of
odds ratios are more plausible and defendable than those based on crash
rates used in GM's study. The Steffey et al. study found a
[[Page 30995]]
4.28 percent decrease in nighttime multi-party car crashes as a result
of DRL installation. It also found a 3.67 percent decrease in single
vehicle light truck crashes. Additionally, the report found that DRLs
would reduce nighttime fatal crashes by 11.4 percent for passenger cars
and daytime single-vehicle crashes by 9.4 percent for light trucks.\10\
These results cast doubt on the validity of the GM study because we do
not believe these crash types are plausibly affected by DRL
installation. The authors claim these numbers ``serve as useful control
groups and benchmarks for comparison.'' \11\ The agency respectfully
disagrees, and believes this may demonstrate the lack of control for
changes that may have occurred during the study period. Another
limitation regarding this GM study is the different time period for
which vehicle registration was recorded compared to the times that the
crashes occurred. The registration numbers were recorded as a snapshot
in time on July first, but the crashes occurred throughout the entire
year. This time difference may cause inaccuracies in the number of
vehicles in the exposure group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-15 Steffey et al., p. 24-25.
\11\ Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8876-15 Steffey et al. p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Differences in Statistical Methodology
As discussed above, numerous studies exist that attempt to quantify
the crash risk relative to the installation of DRLs. Among these
studies, various statistical techniques have been used for determining
the effectiveness in real world crashes, including the ratio of odds
ratios method (used in the NHTSA studies), and the ratio of crash rates
method (used in the GM studies). NHTSA believes that the ratio of odds
ratios is the most effective means for the analysis in these studies.
The primary statistical technique used in the studies submitted by
GM in support of its petition is the ratio of crash rates method. This
was used in the 2001 GM study, and was also used in certain parts of
the 2008 Steffey et al. study. This technique compared the ratio of
crashes to the number of vehicles of that type registered. This
collision rate is calculated and compared for both vehicles with DRLs
and for vehicles without DRLs. This comparison reportedly represents
the effectiveness of the DRL. This is mathematically represented as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN09.011
Continuing, this expression is modeled using a Poisson regression
model to estimate the overall DRL effect across all model pairs.
Because this method uses vehicle registration as the measure of
exposure, it may not reflect the actual on-road exposure of vehicles in
use that, in actuality, may be involved in a crash. For example, this
methodology would assign equal weight to a vehicle driven five miles
per day as to a vehicle driven 25 miles per day, despite the fact that
the latter vehicle is far more exposed to the risk of a crash.
The ratio of odds ratios method, which was used in NHTSA's studies
and in some parts of the Steffey et al. study, avoids using vehicle
registration as a method of exposure. This method compares the ratio of
target crashes in the daytime with control crashes in the daytime. It
continues by calculating the ratio of target crashes at night compared
to the control crashes at night. The ratio of these ratios is then
considered the odds of a vehicle becoming involved in a DRL relevant
crash. This ratio is calculated for both a group of DRL-equipped
vehicles, and for a group of vehicles which do not have DRLs installed.
A comparison of the two groups' odds then determines the effectiveness
of the DRL. This method is demonstrated as follows:
DRL-Equipped Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light condition Target crashes Control crashes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daytime......................... N1................ N2.
Nighttime....................... N3................ N4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-DRL Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light condition Target crashes Control crashes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daytime......................... N5................ N6.
Nighttime....................... N7................ N8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN09.012
[[Page 30996]]
The value of R represents the relative odds of daytime target
crashes involvements between DRL-equipped vehicles and non-DRL
vehicles. The agency believes the ratio of odds ratio is the optimal
method because it has a strong confounding-factor-control ability. With
regard to the previous example, the ratio of odds ratios would factor
in a higher expected crash rate for the vehicle driven 25 miles per day
than the vehicle driven five.
The ratio of odds ratios avoids using crash rates because the true
exposure data generally do not exist. In GM's case, with regard to the
portion of the study that utilized the ratio of crash rates method,
vehicle registrations were used as the exposure data. However,
registration data do not differentiate driving between DRL and non-DRL
vehicles. They do not separate daytime and nighttime driving.
Consequently, vehicle registrations are not considered to be an
appropriate exposure measure for a DRL study. The contradicting results
from the GM study demonstrate this. In contrast, the ratio of odds
ratios method compares the ratio of target crashes (DRL-relevant) to
control crashes (non DRL-relevant) in the daytime.
The Steffey et al. study incorporated both of the methodologies in
arriving at its conclusions. Using the ratio of crash rates method, the
study found an overall decrease in crash rates of 4.61 percent, which
was noted as statistically significant.\12\ However, using the ratio of
odds ratios method, the same report found a non-significant decrease in
the crash rates of 1.36 percent.\13\ Given the significant divergence
in results from the different methodologies, we feel that the results
from the ratio of crash rates methodology should be assigned less
weight in NHTSA's analysis of the safety effect of DRLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Steffey et al., p. 34.
\13\ Steffey et al., p. 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
The agency's 2008 DRL study is a more robust study than previous
attempts by the agency to quantify the effectiveness of DRLs. This
newest study was unable to find solid evidence of overall safety
benefits associated with DRLs installed on passenger vehicles using the
ratio of odds ratio statistical technique. While DRLs may be beneficial
for certain scenarios, the agency has been unable to document overall
safety benefits due to DRL installation which could serve as a basis
for mandating them. NHTSA is therefore denying this petition from GM.
However, the agency is willing to re-examine the DRL issue if
additional data is presented demonstrating overall safety benefits. Any
such study should consider using the ratio of odds ratios technique as
used in the latest NHTSA study, or provide compelling evidence that an
alternative technique is superior at predicting the effectiveness of
DRLs. In the meantime, the agency remains neutral with respect to a
policy regarding the inclusion of DRLs in vehicles. Although we do not
find data that provides a definitive safety benefit that justifies
Federal regulation, we are not making recommendations that vehicle
manufacturers should change their policies regarding DRLs.
Manufacturers should continue to make individual decisions regarding
DRLs in their vehicles.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued: June 23, 2009.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. E9-15314 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
