[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34350-34356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-3967; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG88
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 relieve design restrictions that may
inadvertently prevent the implementation of certain new-technology
light sources in motor vehicle lamps. These are light emitting diodes
(LEDs) and miniature halogen bulbs. The standard would be amended to
add two paragraphs reflecting SAE specifications for measurement of
photometrics in taillamps and in certain stop and turn signal lamps
with more than one lighted section and for LED heat testing. The agency
issued a proposal on these issues in 1994, but terminated rulemaking
the following year. These issues are being revisited in response to a
petition for rulemaking from Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co. KG.
DATES: Comments are due on the proposal August 10, 1998. The proposed
effective date is one year after publication of the final rule.
However, the agency is soliciting comments on whether optional
compliance should be allowed in advance of that date.
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: Chris Flanigan, Office of Safety
Performance Standards (202-366-4918).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
On April 8, 1994, the agency published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,'' to
relieve design restrictions that may inadvertently prevent the
implementation of certain new-technology light sources in lamps (59 FR
16788). These new lamp technologies include light-emitting diodes
(LEDs), miniature halogen bulbs, and other light sources with a limited
luminous flux. Luminous flux is the total light emitted from a light
source, in all directions. All these light sources will be referred to
as ``limited flux light sources'' hereafter. Compared with light
sources with traditional filaments, non-filament light sources such as
LED and miniature halogen light sources emit only a fraction of the
luminous flux of filament light sources. Consequently, to achieve the
same performance as a single traditional filament light source, it is
necessary to use multiple non-traditional light sources, hence their
identification as ``limited flux light sources.'' In the 1994 proposal,
the agency asked for comment on how it might specify a means of
determining the number of equivalent lighted sections for lamps
equipped with these new lamp technologies. The agency wishes Standard
No. 108 to be responsive to new technologies and to remove inadvertent
impediments to their implementation. The notice also proposed a
performance requirement to determine an LED lamp's ability to maintain
photometric compliance under increased temperature conditions.
The requirements contained in Standard No. 108 for signal lamps are
based on Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standards and
Recommended Practices that were developed to accommodate incandescent
bulbs, i.e., those with filaments. These were developed many years
before LEDs when incandescent bulbs were the only light sources in use
at that time. New lighting source technologies have arisen that have
fundamentally different characteristics than incandescent lamps. Thus,
it is difficult to apply the specifications of Standard No. 108 to the
new
[[Page 34351]]
technologies. Attempts to do so have revealed some ambiguities and
inconsistencies with the design and method of performance of the new
technologies. The SAE standards for taillamps, and for stop and turn
signal lamps on vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches,
treat a lamp having one bulb as a lamp with a single lighted section, a
lamp having two bulbs as one with two lighted sections, and a lamp with
three or more bulbs as one with three lighted sections. Thus, the
standard requires that, if a lamp uses three or more light sources, it
must meet the minimum photometric requirements of a three-compartment
lamp. This becomes a problem when a manufacturer intends to make an LED
lamp which is equal in size to a conventional incandescent lamp with
one or two lighted sections. To make such an LED lamp, many more than
three LEDs are needed. Typically, 15 or more are necessary. Thus, when
there are three or more LEDs in one compartment, under current
interpretations regarding the light output of one, two, and three-
lighted section lamps, those LEDs must achieve the light intensity of a
lamp with three lighted sections to comply with Standard No. 108. This
results in a lamp which is overly bright in comparison with a
similarly-sized single bulb/single lighted section incandescent lamp.
This is because this lamp would be approximately one-third the size of
a lamp with three lighted sections, and must achieve about 1.3 times
the intensity of a lamp with a single lighted section. Further, it is
unnecessarily expensive because a greater number of LEDs must be used
to achieve the intensity of three lighted sections than would otherwise
be used to achieve the intensity of a single lighted section.
In their comments on the 1994 NPRM, the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and
General Motors Corporation (GM) all indicated that they thought it was
premature for the agency to specify unique requirements for lamps
equipped with these light sources until studies could be completed to
assess concerns regarding possible perceptions with respect to their
brightness. AAMA wanted to gather data on intensity, brightness, and
dimensional features (e.g., aspect ratio--the ratio of length to
height) of signal and marker lamps of recent model vehicles. Other
commenters could not reach a consensus on an appropriate specification.
Based on these comments, the agency concluded that, although the
lighting industry had a solution acceptable to it, there was a great
uncertainty within the vehicle industry about the best method of
regulating the photometric requirements of non-traditional light
sources for signal and marker lamps. In view of this uncertainty on the
part of the automotive industry, the agency terminated the rulemaking
on June 19, 1995 (60 FR 31939), stating that it might reinitiate it at
a time when an outcome that would be more acceptable was a prospect.
The termination also covered the proposed performance requirement to
determine an LED lamp's ability to maintain photometric compliance
under increased temperature conditions, as NHTSA anticipated that the
industry, in a short time, would develop a test procedure more
representative of the real world.
On February 6, 1997, Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co. KG
(Schefenacker), a lighting manufacturer, petitioned the agency to
revisit this issue. Schefenacker stated that Standard No. 108 is design
restrictive and a burden for vehicle and signal lamp manufacturers
because it makes LED signal lamps unnecessarily expensive and, in
certain cases, too large to fit on the vehicle. This is because, in
nearly all cases, lamps which use LEDs must meet the requirements for a
three-section lamp. This imposes design restrictions because the lamps
must be made larger to accommodate the additional LEDs. According to
Schefenacker, this can increase the cost of the lamp by 50 percent. The
petitioner also stated that, due to the increased number of LEDs in the
lamps, the brightness is increased and may cause discomfort glare to
following drivers. Schefenacker argued that if Standard No. 108 were
amended to account for the different characteristics of LEDs, the size
of lamps would be comparable to conventional lamps and there would be
no fundamental change in appearance. Based on these arguments, NHTSA
has decided to reopen rulemaking.
The second issue addressed in the 1994 NPRM was the effect of heat
on the luminous flux of LEDs. Unlike incandescent light sources, the
luminous flux of LEDs drops rapidly as their temperature increases.
This could be a problem if the lamps are illuminated for a long period
of time, such as can occur with use of the hazard warning system or
when stop lamps are applied in dense urban traffic. LEDs can also
become heated if they are used in an environment with a relatively high
ambient temperature. The agency's position on this issue has been that
LEDs should conform at any temperature in the motoring environment. The
SAE addresses this characteristic in SAE Recommended Practice J1889
JUN88 ``L.E.D. Lighting Devices.'' This specification contains tests
which test the performance of LEDs at higher temperatures.
Background
Limited Flux Light Sources
The adoption of requirements for a center high-mounted stop lamp
(CHMSL) has resulted in some creative solutions to the problem of
integration of the lamp into the overall vehicle design. To reduce the
size and obtrusiveness of the lamp, while maintaining the photometric
conformance called for by Standard No. 108, manufacturers began to
resort to smaller light sources. Limited flux light sources have been
used in CHMSLs (because the standard contains no light source
specifications for CHMSLs, any light source is permissible).
However, the application of Standard No. 108 to lamps with limited
flux light sources raises the question as to how to determine
compliance with photometric requirements, specifically, how to define a
lighted section. SAE Standards J586 FEB84 and J588 NOV84 incorporated
by reference and applying to stop lamps and turn signal lamps on
vehicles whose overall width is less than 2032 mm (80 inches), and SAE
Standard J585e September 1977, applying to taillamps on all vehicles,
specify requirements to be met by lamps with one, two, and three
lighted sections. These standards are based upon incandescent bulb
technology where requirements are generally met by using one bulb for
each lighted section. The specification of 32 candela per lighted
section is based upon the highest output of contemporary incandescent
signal lamp bulbs. When requirements are intended to be met by limited
flux light sources, the light output specification cannot be provided
by a single light source, but must be provided by multiple light
sources. However, current interpretations of what is necessary to
comply with Standard No. 108 do not contain any differentiations based
upon the type of light source, only upon the number of light sources,
because the SAE standards have not contained any differentiations based
on type of light source. Thus, if 20 LEDs provide the same illumination
as a single filament bulb, a lamp equipped with the former is
considered a lamp with three lighted sections for purposes of
compliance, not a single-section lamp. To meet the photometric
requirements for three-
[[Page 34352]]
section lamps, manufacturers must use an overly bright and costly array
of LEDs.
Schefenacker suggested three ways to address the problem. The first
is to require lamps which use limited flux light sources to meet the
photometric requirements of lamps with one lighted section regardless
of the size of those lamps. The second is to use luminous flux limits
by summing the luminous flux of LED's, thereby providing some method of
equating the number of LEDs to the equivalent number of lighted
sections: lamps with up to 32 candlepower (cp) would be considered as
having one section; between 32 cp and 64 cp, as having two sections;
and greater than 64 cp, as having three sections. A lamp's candlepower
would be determined by summing the rated candlepowers for each
individual light source in a lamp. For example, if a lamp used 40 LEDs,
each with a rated candlepower of one cp, the lamp's candlepower would
be 40 cp. Under this approach to the problem, the lamp would be
considered to be a lamp with two lighted sections because the sum of
the rated candlepower is between 32 and 64 cp. The third way is to use
size-dependent criteria for determining the equivalent number of
lighted sections. A lamp would be regarded as having the equivalent of
one lighted section if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear
dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp is
less than 150 millimeters (mm), two lighted sections if the dimension
is 150-300 mm, and three lighted sections if the dimension is greater
than 300 mm. This is the specification which is contained in SAE J1889
and which was also proposed in the 1994 NPRM.
Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer of LEDs, recommended another method
to deal with this issue. Under this approach, which the agency proposed
in the 1994 NPRM as an alternative, lamps using LEDs or other limited
flux light sources need only meet the intensity specifications for
single-section lamps, provided that: (a) the maximum horizontal or
vertical distance between the apparent optical centers of the closest
adjacent light sources within the lighted section of the lamp are not
greater than 2.0 centimeters (cm); and (b), if there were more than one
lighted section, there is not more than 2.0 cm between the edge of the
closest adjacent lighted sections. Measuring the distance between the
optical centers would therefore provide an objective method for
determining whether there is more than one lighted section.
Arguing that the LED requirements in SAE J1889 were far too
limiting from standpoints of cost and styling, Hewlett-Packard
explained the rationale for its recommendation as follows:
SAE's higher intensity requirements for multiple compartment
lighting devices stems from the fact that the apparent
``brightness'' of any light emitting area is not solely dependent on
the intensity measured, but also the area of the emitter. Any two
light sources can exhibit the same intensity measurement, while the
source with the smaller light emitting area will appear brighter to
the human eye. This is due to the nature of the human eye's
perception of light, and is frequently taken into account in the
design of ``sterance [or brightness] matched'' displays in the
information display industry. This effect is also demonstrated by
the response of consumers who mention that LED high mount stop lamps
are very bright, when in fact they are designed to meet the same
intensity requirements as incandescent high mount stop lamps. The
difference is in the light emitting area. The smaller the light
emitting area for a given intensity, the brighter the appearance to
the human eye.
With this in mind, the proposed change in [Standard No. 108]
will guarantee that at least a minimum level of brightness, or
sterance, will be maintained regardless of length, area, or shape of
the lighting device. This will allow lighting designers to fully
realize all the benefits of styling and flexibility of LED lighting
and provide a conspicuous and understandable signal device whether
it be in tail, stop, or turn mode.
To the agency's knowledge, the vehicle industry has not come to a
consensus on how to define the number of lighted sections in a lamp
since NHTSA published the 1994 NPRM. Because of the multitude of lamp
designs (different shapes, sizes, lens optics, etc.) installed in on
today's vehicles, it may take more time to determine the best method.
However, notwithstanding the absence of a consensus, the agency
believes that it should move forward with rulemaking. Unlike 1994, when
the agency issued a proposal on its own initiative, this time it is
issuing a proposal in response to a petition from a member of the
industry.
Agency Proposal Regarding Limited Flux Light Sources
This notice outlines the advantages and disadvantages of its
proposed solution, as well as those of three alternative solutions
suggested above. The public is invited to submit other recommendations.
However, the agency wishes to make clear that if other recommendations
are made and if they are substantially different from those which are
proposed, their consideration could necessitate the issuance of a
supplemental proposal and thereby prolong the rulemaking process. In
any event, the agency plans to proceed to a final rule to resolve this
issue.
The following is a discussion of possible solutions and their
advantages and disadvantages:
1. At the present, the agency tentatively concludes that the most
logical solution is the one that it is proposing: the adoption of size-
dependent criteria for determining the equivalent number of lighted
sections. A lamp would be regarded as having the equivalent of one
lighted section if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear dimension
of the effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp is less than
150 millimeters (mm), two lighted sections if the dimension is 150-300
mm, and three lighted sections if the dimension is greater than 300 mm.
This is essentially the same specification contained in SAE J1889 and
proposed by NHTSA in 1994. Schefenacker, too, recommended this
solution. This specification was developed and accepted by the lighting
industry for this very purpose. Further, adopting this specification
would satisfy Federal requirements (i.e., National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities )
concerning Federal agencies' use of industry consensus standards except
where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical . Adopting
accepted industry consensus standards eases the regulatory burden on
manufacturers since many of them are already meeting them. However,
given that SAE J1889 was adopted in 1988, an important question is
whether the parameters remain representative of lamp designs that are
in use now and those that are contemplated in the foreseeable future.
NHTSA invites comments on this issue.
2. Another possible solution suggested by Schefenacker is that all
lamps which use limited flux light sources meet the photometric
requirements of lamps with one section. This specification assumes that
a cluster of these bulbs will be used to achieve the same effect as one
incandescent bulb. If, however, these bulbs are grouped with the
intention of achieving the same effect as a two-section lamp with two
incandescent bulbs, the lamp may be too dim. If a lamp with two or more
sections is intended, the number of limited flux light sources which
would normally be used for a one-section lamp could be spread out over
the area of the multisection lamp. Such a lamp would comply with SAE
J1889 and be less costly, but it would appear to observers to be only
about half as bright as lamps that use normal
[[Page 34353]]
incandescent bulbs. This could present a problem in fog because the
already-diffuse light emitting from the lamp would be diffused further
by the fog.
3. Another alternative suggested by Schefenacker would be to use
the luminous flux limits to determine the number of lighted sections.
Lamps with up to 32 candlepower (cp) would be considered as having one
section; between 32 cp and 64 cp, as having two sections; and greater
than 64 cp, as having three sections. A lamp's candlepower would be
determined by summing the rated candlepower for each individual light
source in a lamp. For example, if a lamp used 40 LEDs, each with a
rated candlepower of one cp, the sum would be 40 cp. Under this
suggested way of addressing the problem, the lamp would be considered
to be a two-section lamp because the sum of the rated candlepower is
between 32 and 64 cp. This is an easily enforceable specification for
some light sources, typically miniature halogen bulbs, as the ratings
of the bulbs could be easily determined. Thus, each lamp would be
clearly defined by the bulbs it is designed to use.
However, there may be some problems with this approach for
manufacturers which produce LED and neon light sources. If the summed
numbers do not represent the real world, or because of a lack of
standardization, it is possible that this approach would not be viable.
NHTSA therefore requests comments as to the representativeness of the
numbers. This approach may also cause problems in the design of lamps.
For example, if the optimal design for a certain lamp calls for 33
LEDs, rated at one cp per LED, the lamp would be required to comply
with the two-section specifications. This is because the sum of the
candlepower of the LEDs would total 33 cp, which is between 32 and 64
cp. To comply with the two-section requirements, more LEDs may have to
be added to achieve the required level of brightness. This may make the
lamp overly bright and costly, the same situation that exists today.
However, the agency is interested in having comments on all the
suggestions made by Schefenacker as discussed above.
4. Another alternative submitted by Hewlett-Packard was also
proposed in the 1994 NPRM. Under this alternative, lamps using LEDs or
other limited flux light sources need only meet the intensity
specifications for single-section lamps, provided that: (a) the maximum
horizontal or vertical distance between the apparent optical centers of
the closest adjacent light sources within the lighted section of the
lamp are not greater than 2.0 centimeters (cm); and (b), if there were
more than one lighted section, there is not more than 2.0 cm between
the edge of the closest adjacent lighted sections.
This alternative would provide maximum flexibility for
manufacturers who use LEDs because they could use many configurations.
However, miniature halogen bulbs may be too large to put in some
intricate configurations for lamp design, especially for manufacturers
of LEDs such as Hewlett-Packard. Further, this approach may provide too
much flexibility. For instance, it would allow a manufacturer to write
its name in script form in lights, provided each light source was
within 2.0 cm of another other, and thus have it considered a single-
section lamp. A specification such as this could allow too much
flexibility and result in lamps which are so unconventional in
appearance that they would be likely to be misunderstood by the public.
One goal of Standard No. 108 is to provide lamps which are fairly
universal in appearance for assuring quick recognition of stop and turn
signal lamps. This can be critical in many situations such as abrupt
stops and turns. Nevertheless, the agency wishes to have informed
opinion on this approach, and invites the public to comment on it.
Within the past year, the agency received a suggestion from the
Chair and a member of the SAE Heavy Duty Lighting Standards Committee.
Addressing the issue of LEDs and lighted sections, they recommended
amending Standard No. 108's paragraph on definitions.
They would add a definition for ``composite light source:''
Composite light source means a device consisting of two or more
adjacent light sources, with or without common or individual primary
reflectors, integrated and powered by one electronic module or
electric circuit designed to function as a single, independent unit
providing single or multiple lighting functions. The device forms an
indivisible joined unit which cannot be dismantle without rendering
it completely unusable.
They would also change the current definition of ``multiple compartment
lamp'' to read:
Multiple compartment lamp means a lamp which provides its
lighting function using two or more lighted areas, each of which is
lighted by a separate, composite, or single light source, and which
are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens.
While these definitions would help solve problems for lamps using
LEDs, they would not resolve issues relating to miniature halogen lamps
or other miniature light sources. The last sentence of the definition
suggested for ``composite light source'' specifies that the unit be
indivisibly joined and not able to be dismantled without rendering it
useless. Lamps that use LEDs generally incorporate a circuit board with
all the LEDs permanently attached to it. However, other miniature light
sources use bulbs that can be individually replaced. NHTSA believes
that its rulemaking should take into account all miniature light
sources. However, the agency invites comments on the approach discussed
above.
A GM safety office employee has asked a staff member of the agency
to consider an issue that is related to this rulemaking. Standard No.
108 requires that failure of a turn signal lamp be indicated to the
vehicle operator. In many turn signal systems, when a failure occurs,
the turn signal indicator light ceases to flash and begins to operate
in a steady-burning mode. The question arises as to how many LEDs in a
turn signal lamp using LEDs must fail in order for the failure to be
indicated to the driver. Certainly, a failure of one or two LEDs out
of, say, 40 ought not to create a noticeable decrease in turn signal
intensity. However, a level could be reached which could significantly
affect the lamp's effectiveness, when 15, 20, or more LEDs cease to
function. The agency views this rulemaking as an opportune and
appropriate time to solicit comment on this issue, and asks that each
person wishing to comment address it specifically.
Finally, there is the possibility of regulating the luminance of
the lamp itself, without reference to the number of sections or light
sources. Performance standards could be adopted that would assure the
lamps would have a maximum and minimum luminance. While such a change
might be difficult, with no enhancement of safety, this approach could
allow design flexibility that could reduce lamp and vehicle costs. The
agency, therefore, is inviting comments on this possibility and how it
might be developed and implemented.
In accordance with the discussion above, NHTSA is proposing the
addition of a new paragraph S5.1.1.23 to read:
S5.1.1.23 Instead of being designed to conform to photometric
requirements based on the number of lighted sections specified in
SAE J586 FEB84, SAE J588 NOV84, and SAE J585e September 1977, as
applicable, each stop lamp, turn signal lamp, and taillamp that is
equipped with light-emitting diodes or other miniature light
sources, and that needs more than one light source to achieve
compliance with the photometric performance required of a single
lighted
[[Page 34354]]
section, shall be designed to conform to photometric requirements
based on the dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area
for the function being tested. A lamp is regarded as having one
lighted section if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear
dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp
is less than 150 millimeters (mm), two lighted sections if the
dimension is 150-300 mm, and three lighted sections if the dimension
is greater than 300 mm.
Effective Projected Luminous Area
At numerous places in Standard No. 108, there are requirements for
the ``minimum effective projected luminous area'' of signal and marker
lamps. This area is defined by the standard as being the area of the
projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of
the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test
pattern, and does not include mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector
area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased
intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from small areas (\1/2\
degree radius around the test point). The rationale for area
requirements is to ensure that the lamps' luminance is not too high,
while reducing the light dispersion effect of dirt on the lens. This is
especially important for larger vehicles that tend to be cleaned less
often.
In the case of lamps which use LEDs or other types of miniature
light sources, the individual light sources each produce a narrow beam
of light. Because of this, the individual light sources illuminate very
distinct areas of the entire lamp lens. For example, looking at a
single, circular tail lamp which uses 25 LEDs as its light sources, the
narrow beam of each LED creates an appearance of 25 small illuminated
circles within the larger circular lens. The area surrounding these 25
illuminated circles appears to not be illuminated. However, based on
informal conversations with a lamp manufacturer, on some lamps, if one
were to cover the smaller circular areas on the lens where the LED
beams are projected on the lens surface, there is a small amount of
light that can be detected from the darker regions which are not
covered. This small amount of light allows the lamp to comply with the
minimum effective projected luminous area requirements, as the total
light emitted is from the entire lamp surface.
While lamps using miniature light sources may technically comply
with the minimum effective projected luminous area requirements of the
standard, the agency is concerned that dirt on the lens could easily
negate the light emission from these interstices such that the lamp
becomes markedly smaller in lens area for emitted light. That is, the
minuscule amount of light emitted from the areas outside the beams of
the light sources may not be enough to be seen in some conditions, such
as driving in very bright sunlight or with mildly dirty lenses.
The agency's concerns are even greater for some combination lamp
designs using miniature light sources. In some lamp designs the stop,
turn, and taillamp functions are incorporated into one lamp. For some
of these lamps, only a fraction of the total number of light sources
are illuminated for the taillamp signal. The taillamp function may
utilize one-tenth of the miniature light sources that the stop or turn
lamp uses. Again, industry testing of these turn signals has shown that
there still is a small amount of light emitted from the entire lens
surface. But, because of the smaller number of light sources being
illuminated for some tail lamps, the likelihood is increased that the
critical areas of the lamp could be reduced in output.
The agency would like to have comments on this issue. Specifically,
NHTSA wishes to have the view of commenters on whether lamps which use
miniature light sources with narrow beams are more likely to have
performance degraded than those lamps where the light is more evenly
distributed over the lens. NHTSA would like comments on the quantum of
light emitted outside the narrow beams of light from the miniature
light sources and whether it is sufficient for the lamp to retain some
functionality in case it is impaired by road contaminants. In addition,
commenters should address how the minimum effective projected luminous
area should be measured to account for the narrow beams of LED's and
similar sources, and whether there should be requirements to distribute
the light more evenly over the lens surface.
Heat Performance of LEDs
In the 1994 NPRM, the agency proposed to adopt the text of SAE
J1889 which specifies (paragraphs 3.1.5.2 and 3.1.5.3) a temperature
condition for testing LED lamps to photometric maxima and minima. For
measurements of the maximum photometrics, an unenergized test device is
stabilized at the laboratory's ambient temperature, which is 23
5 degrees Celsius ( deg.C). It is then energized. The
maximum values within 60 seconds of the initial ``on'' time are
recorded. For measurements of the minimum requirements, an energized
device is also stabilized within the same temperature range until
either the heat buildup saturation has occurred, or 30 minutes has
elapsed, whichever first occurs. Measurements are then taken of the
already-energized lamp. However, this test procedure does not cause
LEDs to reach the temperatures they could experience in very hot
climates. Because of this, the industry asked the agency to defer
rulemaking on this issue so that it could develop a test procedure
which represents real world conditions. However, the industry has not
moved forward on this issue, and the agency has decided to repropose
the procedure.
This procedure provides a simple method for testing the
relationship between temperature and light intensity by having the
lamps heat themselves. It does not replicate the environment in which
lamps on motor vehicles must produce correct signals for the
transmission of safety information. In the real world, lamps are heated
by the environment, such as use on a hot day in Florida. It is
conceivable that lamps could be placed in a heat chamber to simulate
the environment and tested photometrically. However, this would not be
practicable because of the expense of tests and their lack of
repeatability. The SAE test represents a thoughtful and repeatable
solution to this simulator. However, developing a practicable test
procedure that replicated that environment would be problematic. NHTSA
believes that a test procedure which represents real world conditions
would be overly burdensome to the industry. Attempting to create such a
procedure would require a heat chamber to heat the LEDs to a
temperature that represents a very hot climate. If the lamp were to be
placed in a heat chamber and heated, the lamp would have to be removed
when it reached the desired temperature and mounted in the test device.
During this interval, the temperature of the lamp would decrease, thus
reducing the accuracy and repeatability of the test. To maintain the
heat, the test device would have to be located in a large heat chamber.
To create a test apparatus which could heat the LEDs, and also house
the photometric equipment, would be very costly, assuming that the
equipment would be accurate and reliable at such high temperatures.
Also challenging is assuring that an optically correct window can be
fitted to the chamber so that the lamp's beam can be projected to the
intensity measuring equipment located outside the test chamber if that
equipment cannot be located inside the chamber.
To the agency's knowledge, the industry has not developed a
procedure for testing the effects of temperature on LED lamps that is
more representative
[[Page 34355]]
than that which is contained in SAE J1889 and that avoids the practical
testing problems described above. Therefore, NHTSA is proposing that
Standard No. 108 be amended to include the test procedure contained in
SAE J1889. Although it does not represent the worst case conditions of
the driving environment, it is a standard which was created by the
industry to test LEDs' ability to maintain their photometric compliance
when heated. As stated previously, it is preferable for the agency to
adopt industry standards whenever it is feasible to do so.
Additionally, this procedure is presently under consideration for
incorporation in European standards in Geneva.
The agency thus proposes to add a new paragraph S5.1.1.24 to read:
S5.1.1.24 Any lamp whose light is provided by light-emitting
diodes shall be designed to conform to the photometric requirements
appropriate for its type when the lamp is stabilized at
235 degrees C, energized, tested 60 seconds after being
energized, and allowed to operate continuously until either the
internal heat buildup has stabilized or for 30 minutes, whichever
occurs first, and tested again.
Optical Combinations
Standard No. 108 contains requirements for lamps and lamp functions
which are combined optically. Paragraphs S5.4(b) and (c) refer to
``combined optically,'' which is defined in SAE J387, ``Terminology--
Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87.'' This definition states in part that an
optical combination is a single or two filament light source or two or
more separated light sources that are operated in different ways. NHTSA
asks readers for their opinion whether this definition includes LEDs.
Because LEDs do not have filaments, they are not ``filament light
sources'' within the meaning of the first part of the definition.
However, they could be ``two or more separated light sources operated
in different ways'' within the meaning of the second part of the
definition. LEDs are sometimes operated at different duty cycles
depending on the photometric needs of the lamp. For example, because
the lamps need to be brighter for the stop lamp function, the duty
cycle would have to be higher than for the taillamp function. NHTSA
asks whether this would constitute the LEDs being ``two or more
separated light sources that are operated in different ways'' or is it
really a single light source operated in different ways? If each LED is
operated in two or more ways, the definition of ``combined optically''
may not be adequate and in need of change to accommodate light sources
such as LEDs that alone can operate in different ways just by changing
the nature of the electric signal supplied to them, e.g. different duty
cycles, a polarity reversal, or alternating current. In this event,
NHTSA will adopt a revision of the SAE definition and include it in the
text of Standard No. 108.
Effective Date
The agency is proposing that S5.1.1.23 and S5.1.1.24 become
effective one year after issuance of the final rule. However, it does
not know whether there are existing lamps using LEDs and other
miniature light sources which would require redesign in order to
comply. Therefore, based upon the comments, an effective date of later
than one year is a possibility. Nor does NHTSA know whether there are
manufacturers who wish to comply with the proposed amendments in
advance of their effective date. Accordingly, based upon the comments,
optional compliance with the amendments in advance of their effective
date is also a possibility.
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
later 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
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' It has been 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. It might
require minimal redesign of stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and
taillamps on vehicles in order to substitute LEDs and other miniature
light sources. However, impacts of the cost of the proposed rule are
expected to be 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 (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601
et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The proposed amendment would
primarily affect motor vehicle and lighting equipment manufacturers.
Under 15 U.S.C. Chapter 14A ``Aid to Small Businesses,'' a small
business concern is ``one which is independently owned and operated and
which is not dominant in its field of operation'' (15 U.S.C. Sec. 632).
Manufacturers of motor vehicles and lighting equipment are generally
dominant in their fields of
[[Page 34356]]
operations and are not small businesses within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further, small organizations and
governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected by the
proposed rule 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 would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103(b), 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 30161 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.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part
571 be amended as follows:
1. The authority section would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.108 [Amended]
2. Section 571.108 would be amended by adding paragraphs S5.1.1.23
and S5.1.1.24 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S5.1.1.23 Instead of being designed to conform to photometric
requirements based on the number of lighted sections specified in SAE
J586 FEB84, SAE J588 NOV84, and SAE J585e September 1977, as
applicable, each stop lamp, turn signal lamp, and taillamp that is
equipped with light-emitting diodes or other miniature light sources,
and that needs more than one light source to achieve compliance with
the photometric performance required of a single lighted section, shall
be designed to conform to photometric requirements based on the
dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area for the
function being tested. A lamp is regarded as having one lighted section
if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear dimension of the effective
projected luminous lens area of the lamp is less than 150 millimeters
(mm), two lighted sections if the dimension is 150-300 mm, and three
lighted sections if the dimension is greater than 300 mm.
S5.1.1.24 Any lamp whose light is provided by light-emitting diodes
shall be designed to conform to the photometric requirements
appropriate for its type when the lamp is stabilized at 235
degrees C, energized, tested 60 seconds after being energized, and
allowed to operate continuously until either the internal heat buildup
has stabilized or for 30 minutes, whichever occurs first, and tested
again.
* * * * *
Issued: June 18, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-16808 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P