[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55548-55550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20720]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 98-3967; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AG88


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a rulemaking to amend the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard on lighting as it applies to light 
emitting diode (LED) signal lamps. In 1998, the agency proposed to 
amend the standard by adding new paragraphs reflecting Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) specifications for measurement of 
photometrics in LED lamps with more than one lighted section, and for 
LED signal lamp heat testing. For reasons discussed in this document, 
the agency is withdrawing this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Richard Van 
Iderstine, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2720. Fax: (202) 366-7002.
    For legal issues: Mr. George Feygin, Attorney Advisor, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 
(202) 366-5834. Fax: (202) 366-3820. E-Mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 8, 1994, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to amend FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, to relieve design restrictions that may have 
inadvertently prevented the implementation of certain ``new-
technology'' light sources such as LEDs.\1\ In response, we received 
comments indicating that it was premature for the agency to specify 
unique requirements for lamps equipped with these light sources until 
further research could be completed to assess conspicuity and other 
issues. We

[[Page 55549]]

withdrew the rulemaking on June 19, 1995.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 59 FR 16788.
    \2\ See 60 FR 31939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 6, 1997, Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co. KG 
(Schefenacker) petitioned the agency to reexamine this issue once again 
and amend the standard as it applies to photometrics of signal lamps 
with LEDs. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the standard 
imposes unnecessary design restrictions on LED signal lamps because, as 
explained in greater detail below, lamps that use LEDs are usually 
subject to the requirements applicable to a three-section lamp. These 
requirements were said to make it necessary for LED signal lamps to be 
unnecessarily large. Schefenacker stated that the standard should be 
amended to account for the different characteristics of LEDs, so that 
the size of LED signal lamps would be comparable to that of 
conventional lamps.
    On June 24, 1998, we issued an NPRM proposing to amend FMVSS No. 
108 so that the standard better addressed LED light sources.\3\ 
Specifically, we proposed to adopt provisions reflecting Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practices for measurement of 
photometrics in lamps using LED (and miniature halogen light sources) 
with more than one lighted section, and for LED lamp heat testing to 
ensure that an LED lamp could maintain photometric compliance under 
increased temperature conditions. Neither proposal addressed 
traditional incandescent light sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 63 FR 34350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. How FMVSS No. 108 Applies to Signal Lamps With Light Emitting 
Diodes

    The current Federal requirements for automotive signal lighting 
were established in the late 1960s. At that time, only incandescent 
light sources were used in vehicle signal lighting. However, in the 
past 20 years, automobile manufacturers have begun to introduce new 
types of signal light technology. These new lamp technologies include 
LEDs, miniature halogen bulbs, and other light sources with a limited 
luminous flux (``limited flux light sources''). The main characteristic 
of LEDs and other limited flux light sources is that they are generally 
smaller than conventional incandescent light sources and typically 
produce a lower light intensity, compared to incandescent light 
sources. Because of the smaller size and lower light output, multiple 
LEDs are used within a single lamp subject to the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 108.
    The unique characteristics of LEDs present certain regulatory 
challenges and potential safety problems. For example, some SAE 
standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 specify 
photometric performance requirements whose applicability is based upon 
whether a lamp has one, two, or three or more lighted sections or 
bulbs. Usually, an incandescent lamp has one light source. By contrast, 
an LED lamp often has three or more light sources, and is therefore 
considered (under the current standard) to be a lamp with three or more 
lighted sections. Accordingly, a manufacturer of such an LED signal 
lamp must ensure that the lamp has the light intensity required of a 
three-section lamp.
    With respect to safety, agency research indicates that luminous 
intensity of LED light sources decreases as ambient temperatures 
increase. This decrease usually occurs if the lamps are illuminated for 
a long period of time or if they are operated in a relatively high 
temperature climate. This is not the case with traditional incandescent 
light sources.

III. Summary of the NPRM

    In the NPRM, we proposed to adopt provisions reflecting Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1889 OCT93 ``L.E.D. 
Lighting Devices,'' which distinguished between single section and 
multi-section lamps based on the projected luminous lens area of the 
lamp, instead of number of light sources within that lamp. Under the 
proposed provisions, the LED signal lamps would no longer automatically 
be considered multi-section lamps. To better address our safety 
concerns associated with LED lamp behavior in high ambient 
temperatures, we proposed to adopt provisions from an SAE Recommended 
Practice J1889 OCT93 test procedure for temperature condition testing 
of LED light sources. For details on the proposal, please see the NPRM, 
63 FR 34350 (June 24, 1998).

IV. Comments in Response to the NPRM

    In response to the NPRM, we received comments from 22 entities. 
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., (Koito), Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 
(Stanley), Dialight Corporation (Dialight), Peterson Manufacturing 
Company, (Peterson), Grote Industries, Inc., (Grote), Hella KG (Hella), 
AAMA, Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc., (Toyota), Mitsubishi Motors 
(Mitsubishi), TSEI, NAL, and Truck-Lite Co., Inc., (Truck-Lite) 
recommended that NHTSA adopt a different version of the SAE requirement 
for LED signal lamps. Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., (Ichikoh) and Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) opposed adoption of SAE 
requirements for LED signal lamps. Advocates suggested that there is no 
safety justification for adopting the proposed requirements. Further, 
Advocates recommended regulating the luminance of the lamp itself, 
without reference to number of sections or lighting sources. Peterson 
commented that regulating the luminance of the lamps was, in theory, 
the best way to judge signal lamp performance, but that such a 
requirement would be difficult to quantify and administer.
    Stanley, Dialight, Peterson, Grote, AAMA, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz of 
North America, Inc., (Mercedes), TSEI, and Truck-Lite favored adopting 
SAE requirements for heat resistance testing. However, Dialight, 
Peterson, Grote, TSEI, and Truck-Lite all stated that the SAE 
procedures called for an unrealistically stringent test that does not 
accurately test the LED signal lamp performance. Conversely, Relume 
Corporation (Relume) and Sierra Products (Sierra) commented that LED 
signal lamp heat testing should be more representative of the 
environments actually experienced by many vehicles and that the SAE 
procedures are not realistic or stringent enough.
    Dialight, Peterson, Grote, TSEI, NAL, and Truck-Lite made 
additional comments on the issue of effective projected luminous area 
of LED signal lamps. Sierra asserted that LEDs used in arrays should be 
required to use a lens to more evenly distribute the light in order to 
reduce unwanted glare for other nearby vehicle operators.
    Osram Sylvania (Osram), Mitsubishi, Sierra, and Truck-Lite stated 
that turn signal failure indication requirements for LED lamps should 
be such that failure should occur when the number of failed light 
sources is enough to take the lamp out of compliance with Standard No. 
108. Dialight, Data Display Products (DDP), Relume, and Sierra 
commented that manufacturers of LED turn signal lamps should design 
them to minimize the loss in light output when some of the individual 
diodes fail. Peterson and TSEI recommended that a lamp be considered to 
have failed when its intensity has decreased 25 percent. DDP suggested 
that the lamps indicate failure when the light intensity has dropped 50 
percent.
    Advocates, Toyota, and Sierra all expressed concern that glare from 
LEDs is causing problems for nearby vehicle operators. Sierra, as 
previously described, asked that the agency require a lens over each 
LED to distribute the

[[Page 55550]]

light more evenly and thus reduce the glare. Toyota stated that the 
maximum allowable candlepower values were unnecessarily high. It argued 
that a lamp designed to meet this maximum could create a distraction 
for a following driver, and that these lamps would still function 
effectively if lower maximum values were adopted. Toyota has 
recommended that the current requirements for the aforementioned lamps 
be lowered to the levels set by the Economic Commission for Europe 
(ECE). All the ECE maximum requirements are approximately 50 percent 
less than those in Standard No. 108.
    AAMA recommended that the optical axis of a lamp be defined as the 
centroid. AAMA also recommended that we permit the manufacturer to 
choose the optical axis of any given lamp based on the design.

V. Agency Decision To Withdraw Rulemaking

    After careful consideration, NHTSA has decided to withdraw this 
rulemaking. With respect to the proposed method of determining the 
number of lighted sections within one LED signal lamp, NHTSA is 
concerned that adopting the proposed requirement might result in LED 
lamps having lower light intensity compared to incandescent lamps with 
a similar projected luminous lens area. The agency believes that lower 
light intensity could decrease visibility or confuse vehicle operators 
by making a normally bright stop lamp appear to be a taillamp. Because 
of this concern, the agency concludes that adopting the proposed 
requirements would be inappropriate.
    With respect to the proposed LED lamp heat test methods, the agency 
has concluded that the proposed test is not a good surrogate for the 
real world performance of LEDs under increased or decreased ambient 
temperature conditions because the test does not accurately replicate 
high or low ambient temperatures occurring in various climates 
throughout U.S. The proposed test would energize the lamp for a period 
of 30 minutes in order to raise the LED lamp temperature (self-heating) 
before taking photometric measurements. However, some LED lamps do not 
necessarily heat up after being energized for an extended period of 
time. Nevertheless, some of the same lamps respond to low or high 
ambient temperatures by becoming much brighter or dimmer. Therefore, 
the agency believes that in order ensure adequate performance of the 
LED lamps in typical driving environments, it may be necessary to 
conduct additional research on alternative tests, including testing in 
a temperature chamber. We note that two comments on the NPRM suggested 
that testing should be more representative of the real-world 
environmental conditions vehicles may experience. One commenter 
provided information on two photometry test procedures, one from the 
Institute of Transportation Engineers and the other from the California 
Department of Transportation, which replicate real world temperatures. 
Transport Canada has also developed test procedures that replicate real 
world temperatures in a laboratory environment.
    We continue to believe that it might be appropriate at some point 
to adopt new requirements related to LED lamp performance. As to 
photometric requirements and number of lighted sections, we would want 
to explore a single requirement equally applicable to LED, 
incandescent, or any other light sources, that would better relate lamp 
size to its intensity. As to the LED lamp heat test methods, we would 
want to explore test procedures that better replicate real-world 
ambient temperatures.
    Given the complexity of the issues involved, however, and 
considering agency priorities and allocation of limited resources 
available to best carry out the agency's safety mission, NHTSA has 
decided, for the reasons discussed above, to withdraw this rulemaking.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued: September 8, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-20720 Filed 9-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P