[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5863-5864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-2700]



[[Page 5863]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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 petition submitted by Sierra 
Products, Inc. (Sierra), to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment,'' to allow center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) to be 
combined with identification lamps, and to require that identification 
lamps be lowered to eye height on heavy trucks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Flanigan, Office of 
Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. 
Flanigan's telephone number is: (202) 366-4918. His facsimile number is 
(202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a letter dated September 19, 2001, Sierra 
petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow vehicles with a 
width of 2032 millimeters (mm) or greater to have their CHMSLs 
physically and optically combined with their three identification lamps 
and that this combination of lamps be required to be lowered to eye 
height. Sierra found that an industry standard was being changed to 
allow the combination of these lamps.
    Background: FMVSS No. 108 requires CHMSLs to be on all motor 
vehicles, except trailers and motorcycles, that are less than 2032 mm 
wide. It does not require CHMSLs on any other vehicle. CHMSLs on 
vehicles not required to have these lamps are considered by the agency 
to be auxiliary lamps that are not specifically regulated. 
Manufacturers may voluntarily install CHMSLs on vehicles on which 
CHMSLs are not required provided that the voluntary CHMSL does not 
impair the effectiveness of required lamps.
    FMVSS No. 108 requires that identification lamps (a cluster of 
three lamps) be mounted on the centerline and as high as practicable on 
vehicles whose overall width is 2032 mm or more. The purpose of 
identification lamps is to uniquely identify large vehicles and do so 
with the longest possible sight preview of the lamps.
    The industry standard Sierra referred to in its petition is Society 
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1432, ``High-Mounted Stop Lamps for Use 
on Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width (March 2000).'' This 
standard specifies requirements for CHMSLs on heavy trucks. This 
standard was amended to allow combination of the CHMSL and three 
identification lamps. This change to J1432 first appeared in the 2001 
version of the ``SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Standards Manual.'' To 
maintain the conspicuity of each signal, J1432 specifies that the CHMSL 
must emit at least three to five times (depending on lamp position) the 
amount of light that the identification lamps emit.
    Petitioner's Rationale: Sierra believes that, because SAE J1432 has 
been amended to allow the combination of CHMSLs and identification 
lamps on heavy trucks, FMVSS No. 108 should be changed as well. It 
states that if the agency were to amend the standard to allow the 
combination of the signal lamp configurations and also to require this 
combination to be moved downward to ``eye level,'' the CHMSLs would be 
located in a more effective position. It also believes that this would 
provide an economic incentive for manufacturers of heavy trucks to 
include CHMSLs on these vehicles.
    Regarding the agency's current requirement that identification 
lamps be mounted ``as high as practicable,'' Sierra believes it is 
outdated. It states that the original reasons for this requirement were 
for ``visually checking a vehicle's height in order to avoid hitting a 
bridge or overhang'' and ``for following traffic to spot slow moving 
trucks cresting steep hills.'' Sierra states that, today, neither of 
these reasons makes sense. It believes that heavy trucks routinely 
travel as fast as regular traffic and they no longer need 
identification lamps to visually clear bridges and overhangs. Also, it 
states that ``steep hill crests have been leveled.'' No information was 
supplied by Sierra to support these assertions.
    Agency Analysis: The agency believes there are no recommendations 
in Sierra's petition that would improve motor vehicle safety. Sierra 
has made a number of assumptions that are not based in fact. The 
petition references a change made to SAE J1432 that allows combination 
of the CHMSL and identification lamps on vehicles with a width that is 
2032 mm or greater. Sierra further stated that it is aware that the 
agency has been adamant about not allowing any other lamps to be 
mounted in the same housing with a CHMSL, and that it was not aware 
that NHTSA had removed this prohibition. Sierra is confused as to when 
and how this combination (in the SAE standard) had come to be allowed.
    As stated above, the CHMSLs of which Sierra speaks are auxiliary 
lamps under FMVSS No. 108, and as such, are not specifically regulated 
for vehicles that are 2032 mm or wider. The only specific criterion 
applicable to such supplemental stop lamps is that they not impair the 
effectiveness of any required lamps. Conceptually, auxiliary stop lamps 
should not impair the effectiveness of the required identification 
lamps if they perform identically to required stop lamps. One means for 
assuring this is for the lamps to meet SAE J1432 or the requirements in 
FMVSS No. 108 that apply to stop lamps. The SAE document, among other 
things, states that ``[t]he purpose of the high-mounted stop lamp or 
lamps is to provide a signal over intervening vehicles to the driver of 
following vehicles.'' As such, it has the same purpose as the 
identification lamps in that they, too, are required to be located to 
provide a preview over intervening vehicles.
    Sierra is confused about the CHMSLs required by FMVSS No. 108 and 
the stop lamps that are described in SAE J1432. While the FMVSS No. 108 
CHMSLs, which are required on some vehicles, are prohibited from being 
combined with any lamp (whether required or auxiliary, except for cargo 
lamps), the SAE J1432 CHMSLs are not regulated in any manner. Thus, 
contrary to Sierra's statement, there has never been such a rescission 
for the CHMSL regulated by FMVSS No. 108. More importantly, there has 
never been a prohibition on combining supplementary stop lamps with 
identification lamps.
    In fact, this interpretation has been expressly stated in at least 
three letters issued by the agency to persons asking about such 
auxiliary stop lamps. The most recent was a June 1999 letter to an 
anonymous author which stated that:

    You have also asked whether this product [a light bar containing 
three identification lamps] can also incorporate ``a set of brake 
lights to act as a `third eye' brake light, similar to those 
required for automobiles.'' In other words, the identification lamp 
bar would act as a supplementary stop lamp when the brakes are 
applied.
    Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lamps as long as they do 
not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by 
the standard (S5.1.3). The function of the identification lamps is 
to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. This 
effectiveness of this function would not be impaired by an increase 
in intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal

[[Page 5864]]

is applied. Therefore, your product can incorporate a supplementary 
stop lamp function.

    Sierra argued further that, if acceptable, it would make ``economic 
and safety sense'' to allow this signal combination to be used on 
vehicles with a width of 2032 mm or greater and to be lowered to ``eye 
height.'' Sierra's economic argument is that installing a CHMSL 
separately from the identification lamps costs more. Now that the 
agency has allowed the combination of supplementary stop lamps and 
identification lamps, Sierra asserts that the CHMSL must be in the 
wrong location, thus forcing the installation of a separate lamp 
anyway. To eliminate the need for an extra lamp, Sierra wants the 
combination of lamps to be lowered.
    In the second part of the petition, Sierra requests that the 
identification lamps, as well as all signal and marker lamps mounted on 
the rear, be required to be mounted at eye level. Sierra indicated that 
``numerous Public and Federally Financed Tests performed prove that the 
`Centered, Eye Level' Location is where following Drivers focus most of 
their Conscience and/or Subconscious Attention, and therefore is the 
most `Conspicuous' and the most effective place to locate all rear 
Signal Vehicle Lights, except `Clearance' Lights * * * which should 
represent `Extreme Width' * * * while also located at Eye Level.'' 
However, Sierra provided no specific test data to support its 
assertions that the aforementioned research is applicable to its 
suggested amendment.
    While putting all lamps at eye level may seem plausible, there is 
no evidence that this is the most effective location. Sierra did not 
specify what the height should be. Eye height is different for drivers 
of sports cars, passenger cars, light duty trucks, large trucks, and 
buses. Also, a significant reason for higher mounting heights for lamps 
that provide signals of driver intent (stop and turn lamps) is to 
inform following drivers, not just the most immediately rearward one, 
of the vehicle's intent to stop. The agency is not prepared to initiate 
rulemaking to require CHMSLs on heavy trucks. If identification lamps 
were lowered, the purpose of uniquely identifying large vehicles with 
the longest possible sight preview of the lamps would be compromised. 
As the mounting height of identification lamps is lowered, the time 
that nearby drivers will have to identify the vehicle, as a heavy truck 
will lessen. This is contrary to the intent of the requirement.
    On the other hand, the mounting height of identification lamps has 
been long established to be ``as high as practicable.'' This is to make 
nearby drivers aware of the vehicle's size. If these lamps were lowered 
to eye level, approaching drivers may not be able to distinguish large 
commercial vehicles from passenger vehicles.
    Sierra has provided no convincing rationale that Standard No. 108 
should be amended in the manner in which it petitioned and, in 
accordance with 49 CFR part 552, after review of the petition, the 
agency has concluded that it should not be granted. Accordingly, it 
denies Sierra's petition.

(49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: January 30, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-2700 Filed 2-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P