34350 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules

feels that the resources developed by the

Massachusetts Department of Labor and

Workforce Development are adequate to

effectively implement and administer

the asbestos program in Massachusetts.

6. Final approval of the program by

EPA will require effective

implementation and continued use of

the EPA-approved NAIS, logging and

tracking system, enforcement strategy

and standard operating procedures,

enforcement response policy, and

communication strategy. EPA’s final

approval of the State’s program will

require the State to continue to provide

adequate resources to support the

administration of the program.

The reporting and recordkeeping

provisions relating to State waivers from

the requirements of the AsbestosContaining Materials in Schools Rule at

40 CFR part 763 have been approved by

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 and its

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part

1320 and assigned OMB control number

2070–0091.

With this notice, EPA is hereby

announcing receipt of the State’s request

and soliciting written comments from

the public pertaining to the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’

AHERA waiver request. Comments must

be submitted by July 24, 1998. If during

the comment period, EPA receives a

written objection to the State’s request,

EPA will schedule a hearing to be held

in the Commonwealth after the close of

the comment period.

The official record for this document,

as well as the public version, has been

established for this document under

docket control number ‘‘OPPTS–62155’’

(including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The official

record is located at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

bryson.jamesm@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption, Comment and data will

also be accepted on disks in

Wordperfect 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number ‘‘OPPTS–

62155.’’ Electronic comments on this

document may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

List of Subjects in Part 763

Environmental protection, Asbestos,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Hazardous substances, Imports,

Intergovernmental relations, Labeling,

Occupational safety and health,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Schools.

Dated: June 15, 1998.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 98–16770 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 98–3967; Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AG88

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices,

and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the Federal motor vehicle safety

standard on lighting to relieve design

restrictions that may inadvertently

prevent the implementation of certain

new-technology light sources in motor

vehicle lamps. These are light emitting

diodes (LEDs) and miniature halogen

bulbs. The standard would be amended

to add two paragraphs reflecting SAE

specifications for measurement of

photometrics in taillamps and in certain

stop and turn signal lamps with more

than one lighted section and for LED

heat testing. The agency issued a

proposal on these issues in 1994, but

terminated rulemaking the following

year. These issues are being revisited in

response to a petition for rulemaking

from Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH &

Co. KG.

DATES: Comments are due on the

proposal August 10, 1998. The proposed

effective date is one year after

publication of the final rule. However,

the agency is soliciting comments on

whether optional compliance should be

allowed in advance of that date.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (Docket hours are from 10:00 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Flanigan, Office of Safety

Performance Standards (202–366–4918).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

On April 8, 1994, the agency

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108,

‘‘Lamps, Reflective Devices, and

Associated Equipment,’’ to relieve

design restrictions that may

inadvertently prevent the

implementation of certain newtechnology light sources in lamps (59

FR 16788). These new lamp

technologies include light-emitting

diodes (LEDs), miniature halogen bulbs,

and other light sources with a limited

luminous flux. Luminous flux is the

total light emitted from a light source,

in all directions. All these light sources

will be referred to as ‘‘limited flux light

sources’’ hereafter. Compared with light

sources with traditional filaments, nonfilament light sources such as LED and

miniature halogen light sources emit

only a fraction of the luminous flux of

filament light sources. Consequently, to

achieve the same performance as a

single traditional filament light source,

it is necessary to use multiple nontraditional light sources, hence their

identification as ‘‘limited flux light

sources.’’ In the 1994 proposal, the

agency asked for comment on how it

might specify a means of determining

the number of equivalent lighted

sections for lamps equipped with these

new lamp technologies. The agency

wishes Standard No. 108 to be

responsive to new technologies and to

remove inadvertent impediments to

their implementation. The notice also

proposed a performance requirement to

determine an LED lamp’s ability to

maintain photometric compliance under

increased temperature conditions.

The requirements contained in

Standard No. 108 for signal lamps are

based on Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) Standards and

Recommended Practices that were

developed to accommodate

incandescent bulbs, i.e., those with

filaments. These were developed many

years before LEDs when incandescent

bulbs were the only light sources in use

at that time. New lighting source

technologies have arisen that have

fundamentally different characteristics

than incandescent lamps. Thus, it is

difficult to apply the specifications of

Standard No. 108 to the new
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34351

technologies. Attempts to do so have

revealed some ambiguities and

inconsistencies with the design and

method of performance of the new

technologies. The SAE standards for

taillamps, and for stop and turn signal

lamps on vehicles with an overall width

of less than 80 inches, treat a lamp

having one bulb as a lamp with a single

lighted section, a lamp having two bulbs

as one with two lighted sections, and a

lamp with three or more bulbs as one

with three lighted sections. Thus, the

standard requires that, if a lamp uses

three or more light sources, it must meet

the minimum photometric requirements

of a three-compartment lamp. This

becomes a problem when a

manufacturer intends to make an LED

lamp which is equal in size to a

conventional incandescent lamp with

one or two lighted sections. To make

such an LED lamp, many more than

three LEDs are needed. Typically, 15 or

more are necessary. Thus, when there

are three or more LEDs in one

compartment, under current

interpretations regarding the light

output of one, two, and three-lighted

section lamps, those LEDs must achieve

the light intensity of a lamp with three

lighted sections to comply with

Standard No. 108. This results in a lamp

which is overly bright in comparison

with a similarly-sized single bulb/single

lighted section incandescent lamp. This

is because this lamp would be

approximately one-third the size of a

lamp with three lighted sections, and

must achieve about 1.3 times the

intensity of a lamp with a single lighted

section. Further, it is unnecessarily

expensive because a greater number of

LEDs must be used to achieve the

intensity of three lighted sections than

would otherwise be used to achieve the

intensity of a single lighted section.

In their comments on the 1994 NPRM,

the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA),

Ford Motor Company (Ford), and

General Motors Corporation (GM) all

indicated that they thought it was

premature for the agency to specify

unique requirements for lamps

equipped with these light sources until

studies could be completed to assess

concerns regarding possible perceptions

with respect to their brightness. AAMA

wanted to gather data on intensity,

brightness, and dimensional features

(e.g., aspect ratio—the ratio of length to

height) of signal and marker lamps of

recent model vehicles. Other

commenters could not reach a

consensus on an appropriate

specification.

Based on these comments, the agency

concluded that, although the lighting

industry had a solution acceptable to it,

there was a great uncertainty within the

vehicle industry about the best method

of regulating the photometric

requirements of non-traditional light

sources for signal and marker lamps. In

view of this uncertainty on the part of

the automotive industry, the agency

terminated the rulemaking on June 19,

1995 (60 FR 31939), stating that it might

reinitiate it at a time when an outcome

that would be more acceptable was a

prospect. The termination also covered

the proposed performance requirement

to determine an LED lamp’s ability to

maintain photometric compliance under

increased temperature conditions, as

NHTSA anticipated that the industry, in

a short time, would develop a test

procedure more representative of the

real world.

On February 6, 1997, Reitter &

Schefenacker GmbH & Co. KG

(Schefenacker), a lighting manufacturer,

petitioned the agency to revisit this

issue. Schefenacker stated that Standard

No. 108 is design restrictive and a

burden for vehicle and signal lamp

manufacturers because it makes LED

signal lamps unnecessarily expensive

and, in certain cases, too large to fit on

the vehicle. This is because, in nearly

all cases, lamps which use LEDs must

meet the requirements for a threesection lamp. This imposes design

restrictions because the lamps must be

made larger to accommodate the

additional LEDs. According to

Schefenacker, this can increase the cost

of the lamp by 50 percent. The

petitioner also stated that, due to the

increased number of LEDs in the lamps,

the brightness is increased and may

cause discomfort glare to following

drivers. Schefenacker argued that if

Standard No. 108 were amended to

account for the different characteristics

of LEDs, the size of lamps would be

comparable to conventional lamps and

there would be no fundamental change

in appearance. Based on these

arguments, NHTSA has decided to

reopen rulemaking.

The second issue addressed in the

1994 NPRM was the effect of heat on the

luminous flux of LEDs. Unlike

incandescent light sources, the

luminous flux of LEDs drops rapidly as

their temperature increases. This could

be a problem if the lamps are

illuminated for a long period of time,

such as can occur with use of the hazard

warning system or when stop lamps are

applied in dense urban traffic. LEDs can

also become heated if they are used in

an environment with a relatively high

ambient temperature. The agency’s

position on this issue has been that

LEDs should conform at any

temperature in the motoring

environment. The SAE addresses this

characteristic in SAE Recommended

Practice J1889 JUN88 ‘‘L.E.D. Lighting

Devices.’’ This specification contains

tests which test the performance of

LEDs at higher temperatures.

Background

Limited Flux Light Sources

The adoption of requirements for a

center high-mounted stop lamp

(CHMSL) has resulted in some creative

solutions to the problem of integration

of the lamp into the overall vehicle

design. To reduce the size and

obtrusiveness of the lamp, while

maintaining the photometric

conformance called for by Standard No.

108, manufacturers began to resort to

smaller light sources. Limited flux light

sources have been used in CHMSLs

(because the standard contains no light

source specifications for CHMSLs, any

light source is permissible).

However, the application of Standard

No. 108 to lamps with limited flux light

sources raises the question as to how to

determine compliance with photometric

requirements, specifically, how to

define a lighted section. SAE Standards

J586 FEB84 and J588 NOV84

incorporated by reference and applying

to stop lamps and turn signal lamps on

vehicles whose overall width is less

than 2032 mm (80 inches), and SAE

Standard J585e September 1977,

applying to taillamps on all vehicles,

specify requirements to be met by lamps

with one, two, and three lighted

sections. These standards are based

upon incandescent bulb technology

where requirements are generally met

by using one bulb for each lighted

section. The specification of 32 candela

per lighted section is based upon the

highest output of contemporary

incandescent signal lamp bulbs. When

requirements are intended to be met by

limited flux light sources, the light

output specification cannot be provided

by a single light source, but must be

provided by multiple light sources.

However, current interpretations of

what is necessary to comply with

Standard No. 108 do not contain any

differentiations based upon the type of

light source, only upon the number of

light sources, because the SAE

standards have not contained any

differentiations based on type of light

source. Thus, if 20 LEDs provide the

same illumination as a single filament

bulb, a lamp equipped with the former

is considered a lamp with three lighted

sections for purposes of compliance, not

a single-section lamp. To meet the

photometric requirements for three-
34352 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules

section lamps, manufacturers must use

an overly bright and costly array of

LEDs.

Schefenacker suggested three ways to

address the problem. The first is to

require lamps which use limited flux

light sources to meet the photometric

requirements of lamps with one lighted

section regardless of the size of those

lamps. The second is to use luminous

flux limits by summing the luminous

flux of LED’s, thereby providing some

method of equating the number of LEDs

to the equivalent number of lighted

sections: lamps with up to 32

candlepower (cp) would be considered

as having one section; between 32 cp

and 64 cp, as having two sections; and

greater than 64 cp, as having three

sections. A lamp’s candlepower would

be determined by summing the rated

candlepowers for each individual light

source in a lamp. For example, if a lamp

used 40 LEDs, each with a rated

candlepower of one cp, the lamp’s

candlepower would be 40 cp. Under

this approach to the problem, the lamp

would be considered to be a lamp with

two lighted sections because the sum of

the rated candlepower is between 32

and 64 cp. The third way is to use sizedependent criteria for determining the

equivalent number of lighted sections. A

lamp would be regarded as having the

equivalent of one lighted section if the

maximum horizontal or vertical linear

dimension of the effective projected

luminous lens area of the lamp is less

than 150 millimeters (mm), two lighted

sections if the dimension is 150–300

mm, and three lighted sections if the

dimension is greater than 300 mm. This

is the specification which is contained

in SAE J1889 and which was also

proposed in the 1994 NPRM.

Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer of

LEDs, recommended another method to

deal with this issue. Under this

approach, which the agency proposed in

the 1994 NPRM as an alternative, lamps

using LEDs or other limited flux light

sources need only meet the intensity

specifications for single-section lamps,

provided that: (a) the maximum

horizontal or vertical distance between

the apparent optical centers of the

closest adjacent light sources within the

lighted section of the lamp are not

greater than 2.0 centimeters (cm); and

(b), if there were more than one lighted

section, there is not more than 2.0 cm

between the edge of the closest adjacent

lighted sections. Measuring the distance

between the optical centers would

therefore provide an objective method

for determining whether there is more

than one lighted section.

Arguing that the LED requirements in

SAE J1889 were far too limiting from

standpoints of cost and styling, HewlettPackard explained the rationale for its

recommendation as follows:

SAE’s higher intensity requirements for

multiple compartment lighting devices stems

from the fact that the apparent ‘‘brightness’’

of any light emitting area is not solely

dependent on the intensity measured, but

also the area of the emitter. Any two light

sources can exhibit the same intensity

measurement, while the source with the

smaller light emitting area will appear

brighter to the human eye. This is due to the

nature of the human eye’s perception of light,

and is frequently taken into account in the

design of ‘‘sterance [or brightness] matched’’

displays in the information display industry.

This effect is also demonstrated by the

response of consumers who mention that

LED high mount stop lamps are very bright,

when in fact they are designed to meet the

same intensity requirements as incandescent

high mount stop lamps. The difference is in

the light emitting area. The smaller the light

emitting area for a given intensity, the

brighter the appearance to the human eye.

With this in mind, the proposed change in

[Standard No. 108] will guarantee that at

least a minimum level of brightness, or

sterance, will be maintained regardless of

length, area, or shape of the lighting device.

This will allow lighting designers to fully

realize all the benefits of styling and

flexibility of LED lighting and provide a

conspicuous and understandable signal

device whether it be in tail, stop, or turn

mode.

To the agency’s knowledge, the

vehicle industry has not come to a

consensus on how to define the number

of lighted sections in a lamp since

NHTSA published the 1994 NPRM.

Because of the multitude of lamp

designs (different shapes, sizes, lens

optics, etc.) installed in on today’s

vehicles, it may take more time to

determine the best method. However,

notwithstanding the absence of a

consensus, the agency believes that it

should move forward with rulemaking.

Unlike 1994, when the agency issued a

proposal on its own initiative, this time

it is issuing a proposal in response to a

petition from a member of the industry.

Agency Proposal Regarding Limited

Flux Light Sources

This notice outlines the advantages

and disadvantages of its proposed

solution, as well as those of three

alternative solutions suggested above.

The public is invited to submit other

recommendations. However, the agency

wishes to make clear that if other

recommendations are made and if they

are substantially different from those

which are proposed, their consideration

could necessitate the issuance of a

supplemental proposal and thereby

prolong the rulemaking process. In any

event, the agency plans to proceed to a

final rule to resolve this issue.

The following is a discussion of

possible solutions and their advantages

and disadvantages:

1. At the present, the agency

tentatively concludes that the most

logical solution is the one that it is

proposing: the adoption of sizedependent criteria for determining the

equivalent number of lighted sections. A

lamp would be regarded as having the

equivalent of one lighted section if the

maximum horizontal or vertical linear

dimension of the effective projected

luminous lens area of the lamp is less

than 150 millimeters (mm), two lighted

sections if the dimension is 150–300

mm, and three lighted sections if the

dimension is greater than 300 mm. This

is essentially the same specification

contained in SAE J1889 and proposed

by NHTSA in 1994. Schefenacker, too,

recommended this solution. This

specification was developed and

accepted by the lighting industry for

this very purpose. Further, adopting this

specification would satisfy Federal

requirements (i.e., National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

and Office of Management and Budget

Circular A–119, Federal Participation in

the Development and Use of Voluntary

Consensus Standards and in Conformity

Assessment Activities ) concerning

Federal agencies’ use of industry

consensus standards except where

inconsistent with law or otherwise

impractical . Adopting accepted

industry consensus standards eases the

regulatory burden on manufacturers

since many of them are already meeting

them. However, given that SAE J1889

was adopted in 1988, an important

question is whether the parameters

remain representative of lamp designs

that are in use now and those that are

contemplated in the foreseeable future.

NHTSA invites comments on this issue.

2. Another possible solution

suggested by Schefenacker is that all

lamps which use limited flux light

sources meet the photometric

requirements of lamps with one section.

This specification assumes that a cluster

of these bulbs will be used to achieve

the same effect as one incandescent

bulb. If, however, these bulbs are

grouped with the intention of achieving

the same effect as a two-section lamp

with two incandescent bulbs, the lamp

may be too dim. If a lamp with two or

more sections is intended, the number

of limited flux light sources which

would normally be used for a onesection lamp could be spread out over

the area of the multisection lamp. Such

a lamp would comply with SAE J1889

and be less costly, but it would appear

to observers to be only about half as

bright as lamps that use normal
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34353

incandescent bulbs. This could present

a problem in fog because the alreadydiffuse light emitting from the lamp

would be diffused further by the fog.

3. Another alternative suggested by

Schefenacker would be to use the

luminous flux limits to determine the

number of lighted sections. Lamps with

up to 32 candlepower (cp) would be

considered as having one section;

between 32 cp and 64 cp, as having two

sections; and greater than 64 cp, as

having three sections. A lamp’s

candlepower would be determined by

summing the rated candlepower for

each individual light source in a lamp.

For example, if a lamp used 40 LEDs,

each with a rated candlepower of one

cp, the sum would be 40 cp. Under this

suggested way of addressing the

problem, the lamp would be considered

to be a two-section lamp because the

sum of the rated candlepower is

between 32 and 64 cp. This is an easily

enforceable specification for some light

sources, typically miniature halogen

bulbs, as the ratings of the bulbs could

be easily determined. Thus, each lamp

would be clearly defined by the bulbs it

is designed to use.

However, there may be some

problems with this approach for

manufacturers which produce LED and

neon light sources. If the summed

numbers do not represent the real

world, or because of a lack of

standardization, it is possible that this

approach would not be viable. NHTSA

therefore requests comments as to the

representativeness of the numbers. This

approach may also cause problems in

the design of lamps. For example, if the

optimal design for a certain lamp calls

for 33 LEDs, rated at one cp per LED, the

lamp would be required to comply with

the two-section specifications. This is

because the sum of the candlepower of

the LEDs would total 33 cp, which is

between 32 and 64 cp. To comply with

the two-section requirements, more

LEDs may have to be added to achieve

the required level of brightness. This

may make the lamp overly bright and

costly, the same situation that exists

today. However, the agency is interested

in having comments on all the

suggestions made by Schefenacker as

discussed above.

4. Another alternative submitted by

Hewlett-Packard was also proposed in

the 1994 NPRM. Under this alternative,

lamps using LEDs or other limited flux

light sources need only meet the

intensity specifications for singlesection lamps, provided that: (a) the

maximum horizontal or vertical

distance between the apparent optical

centers of the closest adjacent light

sources within the lighted section of the

lamp are not greater than 2.0

centimeters (cm); and (b), if there were

more than one lighted section, there is

not more than 2.0 cm between the edge

of the closest adjacent lighted sections.

This alternative would provide

maximum flexibility for manufacturers

who use LEDs because they could use

many configurations. However,

miniature halogen bulbs may be too

large to put in some intricate

configurations for lamp design,

especially for manufacturers of LEDs

such as Hewlett-Packard. Further, this

approach may provide too much

flexibility. For instance, it would allow

a manufacturer to write its name in

script form in lights, provided each light

source was within 2.0 cm of another

other, and thus have it considered a

single-section lamp. A specification

such as this could allow too much

flexibility and result in lamps which are

so unconventional in appearance that

they would be likely to be

misunderstood by the public. One goal

of Standard No. 108 is to provide lamps

which are fairly universal in appearance

for assuring quick recognition of stop

and turn signal lamps. This can be

critical in many situations such as

abrupt stops and turns. Nevertheless,

the agency wishes to have informed

opinion on this approach, and invites

the public to comment on it.

Within the past year, the agency

received a suggestion from the Chair

and a member of the SAE Heavy Duty

Lighting Standards Committee.

Addressing the issue of LEDs and

lighted sections, they recommended

amending Standard No. 108’s paragraph

on definitions.

They would add a definition for

‘‘composite light source:’’

Composite light source means a device

consisting of two or more adjacent light

sources, with or without common or

individual primary reflectors, integrated and

powered by one electronic module or electric

circuit designed to function as a single,

independent unit providing single or

multiple lighting functions. The device forms

an indivisible joined unit which cannot be

dismantle without rendering it completely

unusable.

They would also change the current

definition of ‘‘multiple compartment

lamp’’ to read:

Multiple compartment lamp means a lamp

which provides its lighting function using

two or more lighted areas, each of which is

lighted by a separate, composite, or single

light source, and which are joined by one or

more common parts, such as a housing or

lens.

While these definitions would help

solve problems for lamps using LEDs,

they would not resolve issues relating to

miniature halogen lamps or other

miniature light sources. The last

sentence of the definition suggested for

‘‘composite light source’’ specifies that

the unit be indivisibly joined and not

able to be dismantled without rendering

it useless. Lamps that use LEDs

generally incorporate a circuit board

with all the LEDs permanently attached

to it. However, other miniature light

sources use bulbs that can be

individually replaced. NHTSA believes

that its rulemaking should take into

account all miniature light sources.

However, the agency invites comments

on the approach discussed above.

A GM safety office employee has

asked a staff member of the agency to

consider an issue that is related to this

rulemaking. Standard No. 108 requires

that failure of a turn signal lamp be

indicated to the vehicle operator. In

many turn signal systems, when a

failure occurs, the turn signal indicator

light ceases to flash and begins to

operate in a steady-burning mode. The

question arises as to how many LEDs in

a turn signal lamp using LEDs must fail

in order for the failure to be indicated

to the driver. Certainly, a failure of one

or two LEDs out of, say, 40 ought not to

create a noticeable decrease in turn

signal intensity. However, a level could

be reached which could significantly

affect the lamp’s effectiveness, when 15,

20, or more LEDs cease to function. The

agency views this rulemaking as an

opportune and appropriate time to

solicit comment on this issue, and asks

that each person wishing to comment

address it specifically.

Finally, there is the possibility of

regulating the luminance of the lamp

itself, without reference to the number

of sections or light sources. Performance

standards could be adopted that would

assure the lamps would have a

maximum and minimum luminance.

While such a change might be difficult,

with no enhancement of safety, this

approach could allow design flexibility

that could reduce lamp and vehicle

costs. The agency, therefore, is inviting

comments on this possibility and how it

might be developed and implemented.

In accordance with the discussion

above, NHTSA is proposing the addition

of a new paragraph S5.1.1.23 to read:

S5.1.1.23 Instead of being designed to

conform to photometric requirements based

on the number of lighted sections specified

in SAE J586 FEB84, SAE J588 NOV84, and

SAE J585e September 1977, as applicable,

each stop lamp, turn signal lamp, and

taillamp that is equipped with light-emitting

diodes or other miniature light sources, and

that needs more than one light source to

achieve compliance with the photometric

performance required of a single lighted
34354 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules

section, shall be designed to conform to

photometric requirements based on the

dimension of the effective projected

luminous lens area for the function being

tested. A lamp is regarded as having one

lighted section if the maximum horizontal or

vertical linear dimension of the effective

projected luminous lens area of the lamp is

less than 150 millimeters (mm), two lighted

sections if the dimension is 150–300 mm,

and three lighted sections if the dimension is

greater than 300 mm.

Effective Projected Luminous Area

At numerous places in Standard No.

108, there are requirements for the

‘‘minimum effective projected luminous

area’’ of signal and marker lamps. This

area is defined by the standard as being

the area of the projection on a plane

perpendicular to the lamp axis of that

portion of the light-emitting surface that

directs light to the photometric test

pattern, and does not include mounting

hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads

or rims that may glow or produce small

areas of increased intensity as a result

of uncontrolled light from small areas

(1⁄2 degree radius around the test point).

The rationale for area requirements is to

ensure that the lamps’ luminance is not

too high, while reducing the light

dispersion effect of dirt on the lens. This

is especially important for larger

vehicles that tend to be cleaned less

often.

In the case of lamps which use LEDs

or other types of miniature light sources,

the individual light sources each

produce a narrow beam of light. Because

of this, the individual light sources

illuminate very distinct areas of the

entire lamp lens. For example, looking

at a single, circular tail lamp which uses

25 LEDs as its light sources, the narrow

beam of each LED creates an appearance

of 25 small illuminated circles within

the larger circular lens. The area

surrounding these 25 illuminated circles

appears to not be illuminated. However,

based on informal conversations with a

lamp manufacturer, on some lamps, if

one were to cover the smaller circular

areas on the lens where the LED beams

are projected on the lens surface, there

is a small amount of light that can be

detected from the darker regions which

are not covered. This small amount of

light allows the lamp to comply with

the minimum effective projected

luminous area requirements, as the total

light emitted is from the entire lamp

surface.

While lamps using miniature light

sources may technically comply with

the minimum effective projected

luminous area requirements of the

standard, the agency is concerned that

dirt on the lens could easily negate the

light emission from these interstices

such that the lamp becomes markedly

smaller in lens area for emitted light.

That is, the minuscule amount of light

emitted from the areas outside the

beams of the light sources may not be

enough to be seen in some conditions,

such as driving in very bright sunlight

or with mildly dirty lenses.

The agency’s concerns are even

greater for some combination lamp

designs using miniature light sources. In

some lamp designs the stop, turn, and

taillamp functions are incorporated into

one lamp. For some of these lamps, only

a fraction of the total number of light

sources are illuminated for the taillamp

signal. The taillamp function may

utilize one-tenth of the miniature light

sources that the stop or turn lamp uses.

Again, industry testing of these turn

signals has shown that there still is a

small amount of light emitted from the

entire lens surface. But, because of the

smaller number of light sources being

illuminated for some tail lamps, the

likelihood is increased that the critical

areas of the lamp could be reduced in

output.

The agency would like to have

comments on this issue. Specifically,

NHTSA wishes to have the view of

commenters on whether lamps which

use miniature light sources with narrow

beams are more likely to have

performance degraded than those lamps

where the light is more evenly

distributed over the lens. NHTSA would

like comments on the quantum of light

emitted outside the narrow beams of

light from the miniature light sources

and whether it is sufficient for the lamp

to retain some functionality in case it is

impaired by road contaminants. In

addition, commenters should address

how the minimum effective projected

luminous area should be measured to

account for the narrow beams of LED’s

and similar sources, and whether there

should be requirements to distribute the

light more evenly over the lens surface.

Heat Performance of LEDs

In the 1994 NPRM, the agency

proposed to adopt the text of SAE J1889

which specifies (paragraphs 3.1.5.2 and

3.1.5.3) a temperature condition for

testing LED lamps to photometric

maxima and minima. For measurements

of the maximum photometrics, an

unenergized test device is stabilized at

the laboratory’s ambient temperature,

which is 23 ±5 degrees Celsius (°C). It

is then energized. The maximum values

within 60 seconds of the initial ‘‘on’’

time are recorded. For measurements of

the minimum requirements, an

energized device is also stabilized

within the same temperature range until

either the heat buildup saturation has

occurred, or 30 minutes has elapsed,

whichever first occurs. Measurements

are then taken of the already-energized

lamp. However, this test procedure does

not cause LEDs to reach the

temperatures they could experience in

very hot climates. Because of this, the

industry asked the agency to defer

rulemaking on this issue so that it could

develop a test procedure which

represents real world conditions.

However, the industry has not moved

forward on this issue, and the agency

has decided to repropose the procedure.

This procedure provides a simple

method for testing the relationship

between temperature and light intensity

by having the lamps heat themselves. It

does not replicate the environment in

which lamps on motor vehicles must

produce correct signals for the

transmission of safety information. In

the real world, lamps are heated by the

environment, such as use on a hot day

in Florida. It is conceivable that lamps

could be placed in a heat chamber to

simulate the environment and tested

photometrically. However, this would

not be practicable because of the

expense of tests and their lack of

repeatability. The SAE test represents a

thoughtful and repeatable solution to

this simulator. However, developing a

practicable test procedure that

replicated that environment would be

problematic. NHTSA believes that a test

procedure which represents real world

conditions would be overly burdensome

to the industry. Attempting to create

such a procedure would require a heat

chamber to heat the LEDs to a

temperature that represents a very hot

climate. If the lamp were to be placed

in a heat chamber and heated, the lamp

would have to be removed when it

reached the desired temperature and

mounted in the test device. During this

interval, the temperature of the lamp

would decrease, thus reducing the

accuracy and repeatability of the test. To

maintain the heat, the test device would

have to be located in a large heat

chamber. To create a test apparatus

which could heat the LEDs, and also

house the photometric equipment,

would be very costly, assuming that the

equipment would be accurate and

reliable at such high temperatures. Also

challenging is assuring that an optically

correct window can be fitted to the

chamber so that the lamp’s beam can be

projected to the intensity measuring

equipment located outside the test

chamber if that equipment cannot be

located inside the chamber.

To the agency’s knowledge, the

industry has not developed a procedure

for testing the effects of temperature on

LED lamps that is more representative
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34355

than that which is contained in SAE

J1889 and that avoids the practical

testing problems described above.

Therefore, NHTSA is proposing that

Standard No. 108 be amended to

include the test procedure contained in

SAE J1889. Although it does not

represent the worst case conditions of

the driving environment, it is a standard

which was created by the industry to

test LEDs’ ability to maintain their

photometric compliance when heated.

As stated previously, it is preferable for

the agency to adopt industry standards

whenever it is feasible to do so.

Additionally, this procedure is

presently under consideration for

incorporation in European standards in

Geneva.

The agency thus proposes to add a

new paragraph S5.1.1.24 to read:

S5.1.1.24 Any lamp whose light is

provided by light-emitting diodes shall be

designed to conform to the photometric

requirements appropriate for its type when

the lamp is stabilized at 23±5 degrees C,

energized, tested 60 seconds after being

energized, and allowed to operate

continuously until either the internal heat

buildup has stabilized or for 30 minutes,

whichever occurs first, and tested again.

Optical Combinations

Standard No. 108 contains

requirements for lamps and lamp

functions which are combined optically.

Paragraphs S5.4(b) and (c) refer to

‘‘combined optically,’’ which is defined

in SAE J387, ‘‘Terminology—Motor

Vehicle Lighting NOV87.’’ This

definition states in part that an optical

combination is a single or two filament

light source or two or more separated

light sources that are operated in

different ways. NHTSA asks readers for

their opinion whether this definition

includes LEDs. Because LEDs do not

have filaments, they are not ‘‘filament

light sources’’ within the meaning of the

first part of the definition. However,

they could be ‘‘two or more separated

light sources operated in different

ways’’ within the meaning of the second

part of the definition. LEDs are

sometimes operated at different duty

cycles depending on the photometric

needs of the lamp. For example, because

the lamps need to be brighter for the

stop lamp function, the duty cycle

would have to be higher than for the

taillamp function. NHTSA asks whether

this would constitute the LEDs being

‘‘two or more separated light sources

that are operated in different ways’’ or

is it really a single light source operated

in different ways? If each LED is

operated in two or more ways, the

definition of ‘‘combined optically’’ may

not be adequate and in need of change

to accommodate light sources such as

LEDs that alone can operate in different

ways just by changing the nature of the

electric signal supplied to them, e.g.

different duty cycles, a polarity reversal,

or alternating current. In this event,

NHTSA will adopt a revision of the SAE

definition and include it in the text of

Standard No. 108.

Effective Date

The agency is proposing that

S5.1.1.23 and S5.1.1.24 become effective

one year after issuance of the final rule.

However, it does not know whether

there are existing lamps using LEDs and

other miniature light sources which

would require redesign in order to

comply. Therefore, based upon the

comments, an effective date of later than

one year is a possibility. Nor does

NHTSA know whether there are

manufacturers who wish to comply with

the proposed amendments in advance of

their effective date. Accordingly, based

upon the comments, optional

compliance with the amendments in

advance of their effective date is also a

possibility.

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting for

the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation, 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too later for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available to inspection

in the docket. NHTSA will continue to

file relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under Executive

Order 12866 and the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. This rulemaking document

was not reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under E.O.

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’ It has been determined that

the rulemaking action is not significant

under Department of Transportation

regulatory policies and procedures. The

effect of the rulemaking action would be

to adopt terminology more suitable to

new technologies. It might require

minimal redesign of stop lamps, turn

signal lamps, and taillamps on vehicles

in order to substitute LEDs and other

miniature light sources. However,

impacts of the cost of the proposed rule

are expected to be so minimal as not to

warrant preparation of a full regulatory

evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the

effects of this rulemaking action in

relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.). I certify that

this rulemaking action would not have

a significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

The following is NHTSA’s statement

providing the factual basis for the

certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The

proposed amendment would primarily

affect motor vehicle and lighting

equipment manufacturers. Under 15

U.S.C. Chapter 14A ‘‘Aid to Small

Businesses,’’ a small business concern is

‘‘one which is independently owned

and operated and which is not

dominant in its field of operation’’ (15

U.S.C. Sec. 632). Manufacturers of

motor vehicles and lighting equipment

are generally dominant in their fields of
34356 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules

operations and are not small businesses

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. Further, small

organizations and governmental

jurisdictions would not be significantly

affected by the proposed rule as the

price of new motor vehicles should not

be impacted. Accordingly, no

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been

prepared.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 on ‘‘Federalism.’’ It has been

determined that the rulemaking action

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The

rulemaking action would not have a

significant effect upon the environment

as it does not affect the present method

of manufacturing motor vehicle lighting

equipment.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule would not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103(b), whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard. Section 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending, or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

proposed that 49 CFR Part 571 be

amended as follows:

1. The authority section would

continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

§ 571.108 [Amended]

2. Section 571.108 would be amended

by adding paragraphs S5.1.1.23 and

S5.1.1.24 to read as follows:

§ 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps,

reflective devices, and associated

equipment.

* * * * *

S5.1.1.23 Instead of being designed to

conform to photometric requirements

based on the number of lighted sections

specified in SAE J586 FEB84, SAE J588

NOV84, and SAE J585e September 1977,

as applicable, each stop lamp, turn

signal lamp, and taillamp that is

equipped with light-emitting diodes or

other miniature light sources, and that

needs more than one light source to

achieve compliance with the

photometric performance required of a

single lighted section, shall be designed

to conform to photometric requirements

based on the dimension of the effective

projected luminous lens area for the

function being tested. A lamp is

regarded as having one lighted section

if the maximum horizontal or vertical

linear dimension of the effective

projected luminous lens area of the

lamp is less than 150 millimeters (mm),

two lighted sections if the dimension is

150–300 mm, and three lighted sections

if the dimension is greater than 300 mm.

S5.1.1.24 Any lamp whose light is

provided by light-emitting diodes shall

be designed to conform to the

photometric requirements appropriate

for its type when the lamp is stabilized

at 23±5 degrees C, energized, tested 60

seconds after being energized, and

allowed to operate continuously until

either the internal heat buildup has

stabilized or for 30 minutes, whichever

occurs first, and tested again.

* * * * *

Issued: June 18, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–16808 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. 980611156–8156–01; I.D.

060898A]

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Control Date

for the Halibut Charterboat Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS); National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; notice of control date for

the halibut charterboat fishery.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that anyone

entering the halibut charterboat fishery

in convention waters off Alaska after

June 24, 1998 will not be assured of

future access to that fishery if a

management regime that limits the

number of participants is developed and

implemented under the authority of the

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982

(Halibut Act). For purposes of this

notice, a person in the halibut

charterboat fishery means the owner or

operator of a vessel that carries

passengers for hire to engage in

recreational fishing for Pacific halibut

(Hippoglossus stenolepis) in convention

waters off Alaska. This notice is

intended to promote awareness of

potential eligibility criteria for future

access to the halibut charterboat fishery

in convention waters off Alaska and to

discourage new entrants into this

fishery based on economic speculation

while the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council)

contemplates whether and how access

to the halibut charterboat fishery in

convention waters off Alaska should be

controlled. The potential eligibility

criteria may be based on historical

participation. Therefore, current

participants in the halibut charterboat

fishery in convention waters off Alaska

should locate and preserve records that

substantiate and verify their

participation in that fishery.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Susan J. Salveson,

Assistant Administrator for Sustainable

Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 709

West 9th Street, Room 453, Juneau, AK

99801, or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

99802, Attention: Lori J. Gravel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Lepore, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 5 of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C.

773c(c)) provides that the Regional

Fishery Management Council having

authority for the geographical area

concerned may develop regulations

governing Pacific halibut catch in U.S.

Convention waters, including limited

access regulations, that are in addition

to, but not in conflict with, regulations

of the International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC). The IPHC is the

body authorized by the Convention

between the United States and Canada

for the Preservation of the Halibut

Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and

the Bering Sea (Convention) to

promulgate regulations for the

conservation and management of the

Pacific halibut fishery. Section 5 of the