[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38797-38799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19154]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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.

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

[[Page 38798]]

SUMMARY: This document denies Mr. John K. Roberts' petition to amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
reflective devices, and associated equipment, to add requirements 
regarding the maximum time for a stop lamp to reach 90 percent of its 
required illumination. A requirement of this nature could be met using 
currently-available technology such as light emitting diodes (LEDs), 
neon lamps, hot filament systems, or shuttered systems. However, the 
costs associated with such a requirement would be far in excess of its 
benefits.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Flanigan, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Mr. Flanigan's telephone number is: (202) 366-4918. His 
facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated March 29, 1997, Mr. Roberts 
petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 108 to create a stop lamp 
``rise time'' requirement. He suggested that the standard require stop 
lamps to reach 90 percent of their presently-required intensity within 
75 milliseconds (ms) following actuation. Conventional incandescent 
lamps take about 250 ms to reach 90 percent of their required 
intensity. In an emergency stop situation, this decrease in 
illumination time would allow an extra fraction of a second 
(approximately \1/6\th of a second), for a following driver's brake 
actuation time.
    Vehicle manufacturers could meet this requirement by using one of 
four currently available technologies. LED and neon lamps, which are 
both used on current vehicles, could meet the requirement as suggested 
by Mr. Roberts. These types of lamp systems can illuminate to 90 
percent of their required intensity in well under 75 ms. Another method 
of meeting the suggested requirement would be to use a hot filament 
incandescent lamp. For this type of system, a conventional incandescent 
lamp would be constantly supplied with a low voltage which would not be 
enough to illuminate the lamp, but would decrease the illumination 
time. This is because the lamp is already supplied with a portion of 
the energy required for illumination. Finally, a shuttered light system 
could be used to comply. This type of system uses a centralized light 
source and individually shuttered fiber optic bundles to distribute and 
modulate the light sent to the stop lamps.
    Mr. Roberts stated that Standard No. 108 should address the time 
lag occurring between the actuation of stop lamps and their rise to 
effective levels of intensity. He believes that the demands on a driver 
are much greater today than when the standard was promulgated, and 
therefore, this aspect of stop lamp systems should be regulated. He 
cites several vehicle design trends which lead him to believe that 
minimum stop lamp rise times are necessary. These include: enhanced 
capability for some vehicles to decelerate abruptly due to improved 
brakes, tires, and suspension systems; the use of lighter (and more 
electrically resistive) vehicle wiring harnesses to improve vehicle 
fuel economy; and increasingly overburdened vehicle electrical supply 
systems. He states that a vehicle travels seven meters or nearly 1.5 
car-lengths at typical highway speeds during a typical incandescent 
lamp's 250 ms rise time.

Agency Position

    Based on NHTSA's analyses, the requirement that Mr. Roberts 
suggested would produce relatively minor benefits. A May 1993 DOT 
report, ``Assessment of IVHS Countermeasures for Collision Avoidance: 
Rear end Crashes,'' (DOT HS 807 995) found that both vehicles were 
moving in only 25 percent of all rear-end crashes. Further, in only 
four percent of these crashes was ``following too closely'' or 
``tailgating'' cited as the principal cause. With respect to this one 
percent of all rear-end crashes (four percent of 25 percent), Mr. 
Roberts' suggestion would only provide a benefit if all the following 
conditions were met simultaneously: (1) The following driver is 
attentive enough to notice a \1/4\th second decrease in stop lamp 
actuation time; (2) the following distance is so short that the 
following driver cannot apply the brake fast enough to avoid the 
collision; (3) the lead driver decelerates so rapidly that the 
following driver cannot apply the brake fast enough to avoid a 
collision, and; (4) the following driver applies the brake upon first 
seeing the stop lamp without waiting for any additional clues such as 
closing distance reduction, lead vehicle pitching, or tire squeal. Even 
if all these factors occur, it seems unlikely that even one percent of 
all rear end crashes would be eliminated or reduced in severity by such 
a requirement.
    While there would be some small level of benefits if Mr. Roberts' 
suggestion were to be included in the standard, such benefits would be 
greatly outweighed by the costs involved. LED, neon, and shuttered 
light systems would cost manufacturers upwards of $30 per vehicle. The 
least expensive of the four available technologies would be the hot 
filament systems. These systems would cost the industry approximately 
$15 per vehicle. To incorporate these systems, vehicles would need 
extra wiring and circuitry to keep the filament of the incandescent 
bulb powered to a level that is just below illumination. Based on an 
annual U.S. production of 16,000,000 vehicles, the suggested 
requirements would cost at least $240,000,000 per year to vehicle 
manufacturers which would be passed on to the consumer. This cost does 
not include manufacturer installation and other costs such as 
manufacturer and dealer profits. The agency has found in the past that 
these costs generally add about 50 percent onto the original equipment 
cost. These additional factors thus would raise the cost to the 
consumer further. Also, there would be an additional cost incurred by 
the consumer due to the extra power required to keep the lamp filaments 
constantly powered. This would lead to an increase in fuel consumption.
    In order to confirm our belief that the benefits of fast rise brake 
requirements would be small, NHTSA analyzed data to compare the crash 
involvement of vehicles with LED and neon CHMSLs to similar vehicles 
with conventional incandescent CHMSLs. Specifically, Maryland state 
files were searched for model year 1994-1996 sport utility vehicles and 
vans that were struck in the rear while slowing or stopping. These 
types of vehicles were chosen because they had the highest percentage 
of vehicles which had LED and neon CHMSLs and were fairly similar in 
size. When comparing the crash involvement of LED and neon CHMSL 
vehicles to the incandescent CHMSL vehicles, there was no statistical 
difference found between designs. This may reflect the relatively small 
percentage of the vehicle fleet now in service with LED and neon 
CHMSLs, so that no statistically valid study may yet be conducted. 
Alternatively, it may be that the effects of lesser rise times do not 
show up in crash statistics. Whatever the case, the current data do not 
show safety benefits on the road from this technology.
    Although the agency does not have data at this time to support such 
a requirement, it seems intuitive that there could be some value to a 
stop lamp illuminating faster. Because there are potential benefits, 
the agency will revisit this issue in the future when there are more 
vehicles on the road with LED and neon stop lamps. Based on NHTSA's 
examination of recent model year vehicles' CHMSLs, manufacturers are 
moving towards using more LED and neon light sources for this 
application.

[[Page 38799]]

Further, LEDs are beginning to be used as a light source for the main 
stop lamps as well. When the population increases, perhaps this will 
give the agency sufficient data to support proposing such a 
requirement.
    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 a rulemaking proceeding. 
Accordingly, it denies Mr. Roberts' petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: July 13, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-19154 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P