[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