[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75327-75329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26658]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0109]


Soft Lights Foundation, Denial of Petition for Decision of Non-
Compliance Order

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a non-compliance order.

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

SUMMARY: Soft Lights Foundation (Petitioner) has petitioned NHTSA 
requesting NHTSA to issue an order of non-compliance for certain model 
year (MY) 2021 Tesla Model 3, 2021 Ford Bronco, and 2021 Rivian R1T 
motor vehicles based on its assertions that these motor vehicles do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Soft Lights 
Foundation petitioned NHTSA on August 5, 2022, for the 2021 Tesla Model 
3, on August 11, 2022, for the 2021 Ford Bronco, and on September 9, 
2022, for the 2021 Rivian R1T. This notice announces the denial of Soft 
Lights Foundation's petitions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle 
Safety NHTSA, (202) 366-5304.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2) and 49 CFR part 552.1, interested 
persons can petition NHTSA to begin a proceeding to make a 
determination that a motor vehicle or an item of replacement equipment 
does not comply with an applicable FMVSS. Upon receipt of a properly 
filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review of the petition, 
material submitted with the petition and any additional information. 49 
U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.6. After conducting the technical review 
and considering appropriate factors, the Agency will grant or deny the 
petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.8.
    Soft Lights Foundation has alleged that certain MY 2021 Tesla Model 
3, MY 2021 Ford Bronco, and MY 2021 Rivian R1T motor vehicles, herein 
also known as ``subject vehicles,'' do not fully comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs S4, S5, S10.1.1, S14.1.1, and Table XIX of 
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 
CFR 571.108) and has requested that NHTSA issue a noncompliance order.

II. Vehicles Involved

    MY 2021 Tesla Model 3, MY 2021 Ford Bronco, and MY 2021 Rivian R1T 
motor vehicles are potentially involved. These vehicles are likely 
equipped with integral beam headlamps that utilize Light Emitting Diode 
(``LED'') technology.

III. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4, S5, S10.1.1, S14.1.1, and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 
include the requirements relevant to this petition as cited by Soft 
Lights Foundation.
    Paragraph S4 defines a filament as that part of the light source or 
light emitting element(s), such as a resistive element, the excited 
portion of a specific mixture of gases under pressure, or any part of 
other energy conversion sources, that generates radiant energy which 
can be seen.
    Paragraph S5 addresses references to SAE publications where each 
required lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must 
be designed to conform to the requirements of applicable SAE 
publications as referenced and subreferenced in this standard. The 
words ``it is recommended that,'' ``recommendations,'' or ``should be'' 
appearing in any SAE publication referenced or subreferenced in this 
standard must be read as setting forth mandatory requirements. S10.1.1 
specifies headlighting system requirements for vehicle headlighting 
systems. Wherein this section states that each passenger car, 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus must be equipped with a 
headlighting system conforming to the requirements of Table II and this 
standard.
    S14.1.1 specifies physical and photometry test procedures and 
performance requirements. Wherein this sections states that each lamp, 
reflective device, item of conspicuity treatment, and item of 
associated equipment required or permitted by this standard must be 
designed to conform to all applicable physical test performance 
requirements specified for it.
    Table XIX specifies the minimum and maximum photometric intensities 
at specific test points for the lower beam headlamp.

IV. Summary of Soft Lights Foundation's Petition

    The views and arguments presented in this section are the views and 
arguments provided by Soft Lights Foundation. They do not reflect the 
views of the Agency. Soft Lights Foundation described an alleged 
noncompliance for the subject vehicles and stated their belief that the 
subject vehicles do not comply with FMVSS No. 108. The subject vehicles 
are equipped with LED headlamps. The subject Rivian R1T vehicles are 
also equipped with Daytime Running Lights (DRLs).
    According to Soft Lights Foundation, the subject vehicles do not 
meet federal safety regulation as specified in FMVSS No. 108 for the 
following reasons:
    1. Congress has determined that visible light from an electronic 
device is different than light from a burning filament or gas discharge 
and that this visible electromagnetic radiation from an electronic 
product requires special federal regulations. Congress has determined 
that ``visible electromagnetic radiation from an electronic product 
requires special federal regulations.''
    2. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet developed 
safety regulations for LED products, and thus LED headlamps are an 
unregulated product which have not been deemed safe.
    3. FMVSS No. 108 is only applicable to spherical/point light 
sources and specifies intensity minimums and maximums using luminous 
intensity measured in candela. Only vehicles using spherical/point 
light sources can be compliant with FMVSS No. 108.
    4. LED lights are flat-surface sources, which results in spatially 
non-uniform energy, and which creates a Lambertian mathematical shape. 
Brightness is measured with luminance in nits (candela per square 
meter). NHTSA has not yet developed the health and safety regulations 
for surface source LED headlamps and has not specified the necessary 
restrictions that might make LED headlamps safe. The characteristics 
specific to LED headlamps that should be regulated include restrictions 
on spatial non-uniformity, peak luminance, spectral power distribution, 
and square wave flicker.
    5. Tesla, Ford, and Rivian failed to petition NHTSA for amendment 
of

[[Page 75328]]

existing regulations to allow use of LED technology for headlamps and 
has not received authorization from NHTSA.
    6. FMVSS No. 108 contains no tables for specifying the minimum or 
maximum peak luminance of an LED headlight system and does not specify 
or refer to measurement requirements that involve a laboratory setting 
and precision measurement devices. Thus, a vehicle with an LED 
headlight system is non-compliant with FMVSS No. 108 because an LED 
headlight system cannot meet the requirements of Table XIX and there 
are no tables in FMVSS No. 108 that are applicable to an LED light 
source.
    7. LED headlights and Daytime Running Lights are dangerous due to 
the excessive glare, non-uniform luminance, excessive peak luminance, 
and square wave flicker, putting public comfort, health, and safety at 
risk.
    Soft Lights Foundation is requesting NHTSA to issue an Order of 
Non-Compliance to Tesla, Ford, and Rivian as well as for NHTSA to 
notify the public that LED headlamps do not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    NHTSA has reviewed the information Soft Lights Foundation provided 
and additional material in response to Soft Lights Foundation's 
statements that Congress stated LED products require special federal 
regulations, that the FDA has not developed regulations specific to LED 
products, and therefore they are unregulated products that have not 
been deemed safe.
    First, the FDA has authority to regulate certain aspects of LED 
products as radiation-emitting devices.\1\ 21 U.S.C. 360kk states that 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall by regulation 
prescribe performance standards for electronic products to control the 
emission of electronic product radiation from such products if the 
Secretary determines that such standards are necessary for the 
protection of the public health and safety. Pursuant to its authority, 
FDA issued title 21, part I, subchapter J, part 1040 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, ``Performance Standards for Light-Emitting 
Products.'' \2\ Currently, there is no FDA performance standard for LED 
products in Part 1040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act Sec.  531 et 
seq.
    \2\ See https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/laser-products-and-instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue that the petition presents to NHTSA, however, is whether 
NHTSA should determine (or open an investigation to determine) that the 
headlamps in the subject vehicles comply with FMVSS No. 108. In 
addressing this, NHTSA is guided by the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, 
and the requirements set out in FMVSS No. 108. The Petitioner asserts 
that ``[o]nly vehicles using spherical/point light sources can be 
compliant with FMVSS No. 108.'' NHTSA understands ``spherical/point 
light sources'' to refer to filament (e.g., tungsten/halogen) or High-
Intensity Discharge Arc (HID) light sources. NHTSA therefore 
understands the Petitioner to be asserting that headlamps that utilize 
LED technology are de facto noncompliant with FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA 
disagrees. FMVSS No. 108 is not limited to ``spherical/point light 
sources.'' Specifically, regardless of the light sources used in 
headlamps, headlamps all have an area from which they emit light and 
they all emit different intensities of light in different directions. A 
key to understanding this topic is that the integral beam photometry 
requirements are for the lamp, not the light source. In addition, a 
NHTSA interpretation has stated that a design that combines an 
``integral beam lower beam headlamp'' that uses LEDs (wired in series), 
with a ``replaceable bulb upper beam headlamp'' would be permissible, 
provided that it meets the applicable photometric requirements of the 
standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.--Takayuki Amma, December 21, 
2005: https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/LEDlamp.1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Agency acknowledges that LED light sources have different 
physical properties when compared to halogen, incandescent, or a high-
intensity discharge light source, the light emitted by integral beam 
headlamps utilizing any of these light sources is measurable by current 
laboratory test equipment and can be evaluated based on the performance 
requirements in FMVSS No. 108. In a laboratory setting, a photometer is 
used to measure, in candela, the amount of light emitted by a lighting 
device in a particular direction over multiple test points. This 
measurement can determine whether a vehicle's integral beam headlamp 
pattern meets the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Further, 
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance's annual test program has found 
evidence that LED headlamp assemblies can meet the current requirements 
of FMVSS No. 108,4 5 and therefore, using LED technology in 
an integral beam headlamp does not de facto make the headlamp 
noncompliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 2018 Toyota Camry--Compliance Test Report--108-CAN-22-
001: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-647670-2022-001.pdf.
    \5\ See 2012 Nissan Leaf--Compliance Test Report--108-CAN-18-
013: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-645804-2018-001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, regarding Soft Lights Foundation's argument that, 
Tesla, Ford, and Rivian ``failed to petition NHTSA for amendment of 
existing regulations to allow use of LED technology for headlamps and 
has not received authorization from NHTSA,'' neither a petition, nor 
authorization, is necessarily required for a manufacturer to 
manufacture a vehicle that is equipped with FMVSS No. 108-compliant 
integral beam headlamps using LED technology. NHTSA does not 
``authorize'' or ``approve'' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. 
Under NHTSA's self-certification system, the manufacturer is legally 
bound to ensure their vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs, including 
FMVSS No. 108.
    With respect to the Soft Lights Foundation's statement that ``LED 
headlights and Daytime Running Lights are dangerous due to the 
excessive glare, non-uniform luminance, excessive peak luminance, and 
square wave flicker, putting public comfort, health and safety at 
risk,'' NHTSA believes the current research supports that FMVSS No. 108 
contains the appropriate requirements to address these areas. NHTSA 
agrees that glare can have a negative safety impact and believes FMVSS 
No. 108 addresses that issue. As NHTSA has stated, the requirements of 
FMVSS No. 108 apply to LED headlamps. Photometric requirements stated 
in FMVSS No. 108 Table XIX specify candela maximums over several test 
points to prevent excess light which can result in glare and other 
issues. While LED integral beam headlamps can be made to have a smaller 
footprint compared to lamps that use halogen or high-intensity 
discharge (HID) light sources, which can be perceived to be more 
uncomfortable at closer distances, an agency report to Congress, 
``Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance,'' stated that when viewed 
from more than approximately 100 feet, the size of a headlamp has 
little impact on discomfort and that no research has identified any 
impact of oncoming headlamp size on the visibility of the person 
experiencing glare.\6\ With respect to flicker, FMVSS No. 108 requires 
that ``modulating light from the lamp [must

[[Page 75329]]

be] perceived to be steady burning.'' \7\ LED integral beam headlamp 
systems can meet this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance (2007)--https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/glare_congressional_report.pdf.
    \7\ Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.--Kiminori Hyodo, November 5, 
2005: https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/koito2followup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also wants to express appreciation to the Petitioner for 
bringing to its attention health concerns that the Petitioner 
associates with LED headlamps. NHTSA takes these concerns seriously. 
NHTSA, as an agency focused on automotive safety, also recognizes the 
expertise of its sister agencies that are health-focused, such as the 
FDA.
    NHTSA wants to be clear that its decision in connection with these 
petitions is intended to address integral beam headlamps that use LED 
lighting technology and does not address other headlamp types like 
replaceable bulb headlamps or sealed beam headlamps. FMVSS No. 108 
specifies performance requirements for headlamp systems. The most 
common types of headlamp systems are integral beam (S10.14) and 
replaceable bulb (S10.15, S11) systems. The standard does not mandate a 
light source type for integral beam headlamps, so, as we explained 
above, LED light sources are permitted in an integral beam headlamp,\8\ 
provided that the headlamp complies with the performance requirements 
set out in FMVSS No. 108. LED light sources are not, however, permitted 
in a replaceable bulb headlamp. For replaceable bulb headlamps, S11 of 
the standard requires that ``[e]ach replaceable light source must be 
designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications 
furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564 of this chapter[.]'' 
\9\ Part 564 requires that replaceable bulb manufacturers submit to 
NHTSA various design specifications of the bulb. This design 
information is then placed in a publicly-available docket to facilitate 
the manufacture and use of those light sources. The design information 
that must be submitted is set out in part 564 and includes information 
regarding the filament or discharge arc and the filament capsule. 
Because an LED light source lacks these components, an LED light source 
may not be submitted for inclusion in the Part 564 docket; and, because 
it cannot be submitted to the part 564 docket, a replaceable bulb 
headlamp may not use an LED replaceable light source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FMVSS No. 108, S4 defines integral beam headlamps as ``a 
headlamp (other than a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to 
conform to paragraph S10.13 or a replaceable bulb headlamp designed 
to conform to paragraph S10.15) comprising an integral and 
indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light 
source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S10.18.8 or 
paragraph S10.18.9 may have a lens designed to be replaceable.''
    \9\ See also Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, 
NHTSA, to Nancy Tavarez, Beitrix Industries (Aug. 30, 1995), 
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/11118 (clarifying 
application of part 564 to replaceable headlamp bulbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA does not believe that a 
formal investigation is warranted, and NHTSA has decided to deny Soft 
Lights Foundation's petitions for non-compliance orders on the subject 
vehicles. After full consideration of appropriate factors, Soft Lights 
Foundation's petitions are denied.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-26658 Filed 12-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P