[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4370-4372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2492]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies the California Highway Patrol's petition 
to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108, Lamps, 
reflective devices and associated equipment, to include requirements 
that no visible color other than white be emitted from headlamps at any 
axis. NHTSA's analysis of the petition concludes that this action would 
have no effect upon highway safety and would cause many if not all 
presently complying headlamps to be non-complying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard L. Van Iderstine, Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Mr. Van Iderstine's telephone number is: (202) 366-5275. His 
facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated May 31, 1995, Lt. R.B. 
Wineinger, Acting Commander, Hazardous Materials Section, Department of 


[[Page 4371]]
California Highway Patrol (CHP) petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS 
108 to include requirements that no visible color other than white be 
emitted from headlamps at any axis.
    CHP is concerned about the use of ``Color-Clear TM'' headlamps 
manufactured and recently introduced by Philips Lighting Company (``the 
Headlamps''). CHP states that, with the Headlamps, the color red is 
clearly visible when viewing the lamp from off-axis positions. While 
CHP agrees that this does not approximate the red light emitted from 
red authorized emergency vehicle (AEV) warning lamps under static test 
conditions, it is concerned that such lamps could cause confusion under 
actual driving conditions where sight recognition time is often 
restricted to very short periods. CHP is also concerned about the 
potential for misuse or abuse of these lamps among certain segments of 
the public. CHP states that it does not wish to unduly restrict or 
burden the manufacturers of lamps and lighting devices, but does 
believe that any device which displays any amount of red light to the 
front of motor vehicles may have a negative impact on highway safety.
    CHP states that the lamps are also unlawful under California law. 
California Vehicle Code Section 25950(a) reads, in part, as follows: 
``The emitted light from all lamps and the reflected light from all 
reflectors, visible from the front of the vehicle shall be white or 
yellow.'' CHP would like to prohibit the use of the Headlamps and any 
others that perform similarly, but believes that California is 
prohibited from doing this because FMVSS No. 108 pre-empts California 
law and the lamps meet the requirements of FMVSS 108.

    Analysis of Petition: NHTSA personnel have viewed the Headlamps 
when operating and not operating. On April 26, 1995, Philips Lighting 
Company demonstrated the Headlamps and presented a report from ETL 
Testing Laboratories (ETL) that showed that the color of light from the 
Headlamps is identical to that of standard halogen headlamps. In 
response to a letter requesting an interpretation of the color 
requirements of FMVSS No. 108, on May 11, 1995, NHTSA wrote to the 
manufacturer of the Headlamps and agreed with its conclusion that the 
Headlamps were designed to conform to the FMVSS No. 108. During the 
demonstration NHTSA observed that the Headlamps are built with an 
internal honeycomb structure placed between the reflector and the lens. 
This honeycomb structure can be colored by the lamp manufacturer, and 
Philips had done so with the colors white, black, red and blue. Other 
colors appear to be feasible.
    The structure appears colorless and almost invisible when viewed 
``on'' axis (from straight ahead), whether the lamp is turned on or 
not. As the ETL test report stated, the structure appears to have no 
effect on the formation of the beam and the photometric performance. In 
the ``on'' state, the preponderance of light emitted is white when 
viewed with the human eye. At large off-axis angles to the side, some 
color does appear, and is noticeable when projected on a white screen. 
In the ``off'' state, as the off-axis viewing angle increases, the 
color of the honeycomb structure becomes apparent because of ambient 
light that enters the lamp and is reflected off the internal colored 
structure. In thinking about that demonstration, whether on or off, the 
agency believes that colored light from the Headlamp's internal 
structure would be less noticeable than colored light reflected off 
adjacent colored trim, and painted fenders and hoods of motor vehicles. 
These are permitted to be any color and as a consequence, may reflect 
any color as may headlamps without the inserted honeycomb structure.
    CHP did not show that the Headlamps could cause onlookers to 
misidentify the vehicle as an AEV or that the Headlamps could somehow 
be misused to make onlookers misidentify the vehicle as an AEV. 
Accordingly, NHTSA is not convinced that the Headlamps present any 
danger to the public from either a highway safety or misrepresentation 
perspective.
    An additional and very compelling issue is that which results from 
the specific language that CHP has asked to be incorporated in the 
FMVSS No. 108. CHP wants the lighting standard ``to include 
requirements that no visible color other than white be emitted from 
headlamps at any axis.'' This requirement, if implemented, would have 
the effect of banning almost all headlamps that are manufactured for 
the U.S. market. This is because of the physics of light transmission 
through lenses. As light passes through prisms (the fluting patterns on 
headlamp lenses), the light path is bent to direct the light in 
directions chosen by the optical engineer. This is done to form the 
beam for compliance purposes and for achieving a safe highway beam. As 
the light is refracted in the prism, the light has the tendency to 
split into its constituent wavelengths, causing visible colors other 
than white to appear at the edges of the beam. These are rarely seen in 
the main part of the beam because of the multiples of light rays adding 
to each other and achieving white light. Where it can be noticed, 
however, is at extreme angles where there are large gradients between 
light and dark areas of the beam. Often red and blue color is visible 
in these regions. Thus, even headlamps that do not have the special 
internal features of the Headlamps will emit light in some parts of the 
beam pattern that is a color other than white. Under the CHP proposed 
language, most headlamps would be deemed non-complying after a test for 
emitting only white light.
    Finding colors at the periphery of the beam pattern are of no 
highway safety consequence because the light levels are low, the 
locations are near the periphery of forward vision, relatively close to 
the vehicle, and target identification (as opposed to target 
noticeability) under these circumstances has never been identified as 
necessary of regulation. There is no safety justification for 
regulating such performance.
    The petitioner believes that California Vehicle Code Section 
25950(a) is preempted, and that California is thereby prohibited from 
enforcing the Code against the Headlamps. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), no 
State may enact or continue in effect a standard covering the same 
aspect of performance as a FMVSS unless it is identical to the FMVSS. 
The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on 
commerce that would ensue were States to have differing safety 
standards on the same aspect of performance. With respect to the color 
of headlamps, Section 25950(a) is, on its face, essentially identical 
to FMVSS No. 108. FMVSS No. 108 specifies white as the color for 
headlamps, while Section 25950(a) states that ``[t]he emitted light 
from all lamps * * * visible from the front of the vehicle shall be 
white * * *.'' However, Section 25950(a), as interpreted by California, 
is not identical to FMVSS No. 108. While the Headlamps are white and 
thus meet the color requirement of FMVSS No. 108, they are regarded by 
California as failing to meet its requirement. The preemption clause 
requires State standards be identical not only on their face but also 
as interpreted. Thus, NHTSA concurs with California's conclusion that 
the preemption clause prohibits that State from prohibiting use of the 
Headlamps because of their color.
    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's 
review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there is no 
reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the petitioner 
would be issued at the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding. 
Accordingly, it denies the CHP petition.


[[Page 4372]]

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30111 30162; delegations of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: February 1, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-2492 Filed 2-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P