|
|---|
|
Soft Lights Foundation, Denial of Petition for Decision of Non-Compliance Order Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Anne L. Collins Date: 8 December 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
|
[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