[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
