|
|
|||||||
|
July 26, 2006 – “Further Clarified” from Initial “Request” sent NHTSA, June 5, 2006
“REQUEST for LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS” on FMVSS #108 Subjects
The Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NCC-01 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590
Receiver Receipt Requested
Referring to these quotes from current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #108 (FMVSS #108):
Perhaps there is a recent legal interpretation or change in the above FMVSS #108 definitions that our Company is unaware of. If not … we must ask:
“Why are the Brake and Turn Lamp “EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS LENS AREA” (“EPLLA”) mandates of 7-3/4in² and 11-5/8in² of FMVSS #108 not being monitored or enforced by NHTSA”?
Perhaps this is because the current “Rule Making” (Regulators) and “Enforcement” Department personnel at NHTSA do not understand what “EPLLA” represents or why it’s important for Road Safety?
Could it be that new, pertinent, NHTSA employees have not been made aware of the “Human Reaction Tests” that NHTSA performed many years ago, which concluded: just one or a few scattered small (red or amber) illuminated areas representing Brake, Turn and Tail Light Signals DID NOT generate the required human response that larger and near contiguous areas of “Functional Lighted Lens Areas” produced … even when both configurations projected nearly identical Test Pattern Candela to the receiver.
NHTSA actually found that “Human Reactions” were much slower and sometimes even ignored by drivers when tested with small “EPLLA” lamps, and therefore the 7-3/4in²* and 11-5/8in²* minimal “EPLLA” (Effective Projected Luminous Lens Area) requirements were derived for Brake and Turn Signals and added as mandates to FMVSS #108. *For Under 80” and Over 80” wide Vehicles, respectfully – originally 8in² and 12in², but since Harmonized with “EU” Law
1113 Greenville Road Livermore, California
94550 Tel: (925) 443-3140 Fax: (925) 443-0384
These minimal areas of “functional lighted lens area” are absolutely needed to assure the Public that optimum human recognition and reaction times are guaranteed for all mandated Brake, Turn and Tail Lamps*. As a note of interest … it was assumed when FMVSS #108 was first written that Tail Lights, Clearance Lights, Side Marker Lights and I.D. Lights would, inadvertently, generate adequate attention and reactions because of the inherent nature Incandescent Bulbs that project light in 100 more directions than do LEDs; therefore, no minimal EPLLA was mandated back then … nor up to the present. However, since the introduction of LEDs, NHTSA must now consider the Lack of EPLLA and the generated “recognition and attention safety problems”. *Tail Lamps too!?
Any Areas that are somewhat glowing from “UNCONTROLLED” Light … are NOT “EPLLA” On page 34354 of the June 24, 1998 Federal Register in the lower left corner … “Chris Flannigan” of NHTSA tells of an “informal conversation” with an unidentified LED Lamp Manufacturer who apparently believed that if he covered the seeable “Red Dot” areas represented by the tiny tops of typical LEDs*, and yet he could see the remaining surrounding areas of the Outer Lens somewhat glowing … this “glowing” area also qualified for the EPLLA total. *Usually 5mm diameter
Since Mr. Flannigan didn’t contend these “informal conversations” at the time … it’s apparent his lack of challenge was taken by this person and other LED Lighting Manufacturers to mean that, indeed these glowing areas were legally considered “EPLLA” by NHTSA, which could then be added to the obvious and seeable “Red Dot” areas projecting from the LED itself within the 20° Left to 20° Right Test Pattern.
Of course, by simply reading the Definition of EPLLA in FMVSS #108 (above) proves this is not at all true … Mr. Flannigan should have immediately squelched this assumption in this 1998 writing.
The 7-3/4in² and 11-58in² “EPLLA” requirements have been mandated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #108 (FMVSS #108) for many years, where all American Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers such as “Peterson”, “Truck Lite”, “Grote”, and us! … “Sierra Products Inc.” … plus a couple of others still in business … have been required to comply to these “EPLLA” mandates for the past 30+ years – and we have!
IT’S NOT OUR JOB to inform “involved” persons and companies they’re in violation of mandated Federal and State law, but since NHTSA and even the “SAE” (Society of Automotive Engineers) seems to be shirking this responsibility … we’ve begun to circulate what we call our “Technical & Legal Clarifications” (TLCs), which we’ve been sending to all those selling and/or distributing Vehicle Lighting that ends up on our streets and highways. These kinds of aids should help all “involved” persons and companies better understand all the mandates that apply to Incandescent as well as “LED” Lamps that they are directly (or indirectly) supplying to the Public.
Total understanding of the existing FMVSS #108 should produce … at the least … “peace of mind” when involved persons are assured they are operating within all Federal and State Laws on the subject of Vehicle Lighting.
Further, know that we’ll be circulating the reply* by NHTSA’s Chief Council to this document’s 6 (six) “Legal Interpretation Questions”* (page 5). Also, in months to come, we will be circulating some older “Legal Interpretations” and “Petitions for Change” from our archives that may help answer other commonly asked questions generated from FMVSS #108. These kinds of contributions will help explain and clarify some ambiguous portions of FMVSS #108; however, some issues will still require complete “rewrites” by NHTSA before they become sensible. *Which should end up on NHTSA’s Website and possibly in the Federal Register as well.
Also, to help the reader better understand the reasoning behind our 6 Legal Interpretation Questions as well as NHTSA’s ultimate answers* … I’ve attached two Analyses showing how “EPLLA” requirements for vehicles used in Europe and those used in the U.S.A. are met using LED Arrays that are complimented with “Reflective Cones” (we call them) in order to meet EPLLA requirements here and in European countries. *Hopefully – quick answers!
©copyright 2006 TRUCK LITE “LED” Designs In one example (see attached photo), we estimated the “EPLLA” of the only American made LED Lamp that we are aware of that is made by “Truck Lite”, which officially has qualified for “ECE” (European Union) approval for a Brake, Turn, and/or Tail Lamp. It sells for ≈ $120 on the Internet and (probably) sells for 1/3rd this price to OEMs.
The Truck Lite® Brochure Sheet indicates that to get “ECE” approval for selling and using LED Brake and Turn Lights in the 15 European Union countries for under 80” Vehicles … this design must be producing at least 7-3/4in² of “EPLLA”, which in this case, takes 50 LEDs using “Reflective Cones” whereby the Reflective Cones probably produce ≈ 80% of the required “EPLLA”.
As noted in the Analysis (attached), we estimated the total “EPLLA” at ≈ 7-3/4in² for their Model #45 (shown), which not only uses Cone Reflectors but has 14 more LEDs than Truck Lite’s similar 36 LED Model #45 Version* (not shown). 7-3/4in²** of “EPLLA” is the same as is mandated in the U.S.A.** and Canada for under 80 inch wide vehicles (Autos). It’s also interesting to note that two (or more?) Model #45’s are sold by Truck Lite … one using only 36 LEDs and no Reflection Cones* and costing ≈$80, but not claiming to be “ECE” nor FMVSS #108 compliant. * Which has much less EPLLA because Reflective Cones are not used. ** “Harmonized” with the EU from 8in² to 7-3/4in² (50 cm²) a few years ago.
CADILLAC Designs Recent Cadillac LED designs also use LED Arrays that are supplemented with “Reflective Cones” (see attached). This approach is used to increase “EPLLA” similar to the Truck Lite® example. We point out in this analysis … that by using the FMVSS #108 mandated definitions for “Effective Projected Luminous Lens Area” and the official “Effective Light Emitting Surface” definition … how the 7-3/4in² EPLLA requirement is met for both U.S.A. and “ECE” compliances*. *for under 80” in width
Below are excerpt paragraphs from Document 2004-18794, page 48811, published in the Federal Register in 2004, where NHTSA apparently admits they don’t understand how the mandated “EPLLA” requirements were met for the discussed Cadillac “LED” design. Further, these NHTSA writings don’t take the effort to explain that the 2in² addition of EPLLA is, indeed, “Super-Imposed” over the already existing 7-3/4in² and 11-5/8in² mandates.
If NHTSA Rule Makers and Enforcers are admitting to us they don’t understand what’s going on – Who at NHTSA does?
The above excerpts from the Federal Register are referring to NHTSA's “optional* addition” of 2in² of EPLLA to the 20° to 45° Left & Right directions* so that Brake, Turn as well as Tail Lights? would now have at least 2in² of EPLLA projecting into adjacent lanes of traffic, which would greatly increase the chance for “to the Rear Side” and “Passing” drivers to better comprehend the other vehicle’s “Presence” and “Intentions”. *Vehicle Manufacturer’s choice! – Could also use Zero (no) EPLLA if desired for LEDs
Unfortunately, NHTSA allows all LED Lamps used for Tail Lights, Side Marker, Clearance and I.D. Lights to have Zero* “EPLLA”, which can (at the vehicle manufacturer’s discretion) result in only one or two RED DOTS, which is unbelievable sanctioned by NHTSA. This Zero EPLLA allowance, according to NHTSA’s own prior scientific tests … produces big safety problems for all of us!
COMMON AFTERMARKET BRAKE-TURN-TAIL LIGHT ASSEMBLY
We believe that this 2in² addition “option” for Tail Lights and Brake and Turn Lights from 20° to 45° … even if it’s eventually mandated (and it’s not yet) … is not enough for following and adjoining lane traffic to properly comprehend Brake, Turn, and Lane Changing Signals from other nearby vehicle.
Remember too, this tiny 2in² of EPLLA can be legally substituted for ZERO EPLLA … that is … the “Red Dot Option” for all Running Lights**, is legal if the vehicle manufacturer chooses to use this system, which again, is in direct violation of NHTSA’s “Acknowledgement and Reaction” testing that led to the Brake and Turn* Light minimal EPLLA mandates derived over 35 years ago. *I believe these original Acknowledgment and Reaction Tests included Tail Lights as well
“Comprehensible” Lamps representing “Presence” and “Intentions” are a “must” to following and adjoining lanes of traffic … (and to nearby pedestrians as well) … no matter what kind of lighting sources are used. Since LEDs project nearly all of their very limited light ≈ straight out, their Existence and Intentions are only obvious to following vehicles, whereas standard LEDs do nothing in the way of effectively warning traffic and pedestrians in adjoining areas and side lanes of “Presence”, “Braking”, “Turns” or “Lane Changes”.
LED Light Manufacturers actually brag about the “Focused Light” features provided by LEDs as if it was a great thing, which obviously it isn’t … it’s a safety liability for Vehicle Lighting users.
“Focused light” coming from a Headlight or from a Traffic Light is a good feature, but it’s not a good feature for Vehicle Rear and Side lighting because “Presence” and “Intentions” are not conspicuous to all the traffic and pedestrians in the Side and Rearward areas!
Realize too … that up to the advent of the “LED” … the typical Incandescent Tail Lamp Assembly was always “Optically Combined” with the Brake and/or Turn Signal and nearly always used the ≈50 year old #1157 Bulb in conjunction with the typical round “Fresnel Lens”. These combinations have always, inadvertently, produced much Tail Light EPLLA seeable in all directions between 45° to the LEFT and 45° to the Right*, which over all these years, has been used to warn traffic and pedestrians behind as well as to the sides of “Presence” and “Brake, Turn and Lane Change Intentions”. With the advent of LEDs, these bonus safety hedges have been eliminated. *Because Incandescents put out light in 100 times more directions than LEDs - they light up in all directions
By sharing the same #1157 bulb and the typical 7-3/4in² or 11-5/8in² EPLLA* producing Fresnel Lens meant that Tail Lights use to always have at least 7-3/4in² of EPLLA and therefore, there was no need to mandate an EPLLA requirement for Tail Lights and therefore, back then, this was a moot issue – now it’s not! LEDs have eliminated the Tail Light EPLLA as well as “to the Sides” warning light and now we must get legislation to retrieve these disappeared safety features for obvious, scientific and common sense reasoning. *Typical 4” round lens … EPLLA = P(2)² ≈ 12IN²
In conclusion, we must ask:
*Which NHTSA sent out (at random?) to all? LED Lighting Manufacturers and Importers
Anxiously waiting your reply,
Dennis G. Moore President
Sierra Products Inc. (Dry Launch Light Company)
Attachments
|
