[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 1994)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27152]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 93-15; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AE38
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
108 to specify that plastic materials used in reflex reflectors show
not more than 7 percent haze after a 3-year outdoor exposure test, a
level at which haze becomes discernable to the naked eye. This
amendment will not change the stringency of the standard as it has been
applied, but it will increase its objectivity. NHTSA has not adopted
its proposal that cumulative haze not exceed 7 percent when a plastic
lens is placed in front of a reflex reflector. Instead, the same haze
criterion is applied to the reflex reflector and outer lens material.
This approach will limit cumulative haze to about the same level
without the need to retest current materials.
DATES: The amendment is effective November 1, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Rulemaking
(202-366-6346).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sierra Products of Livermore, California
(``Sierra'') filed a ``Petition to Amend FMVSS 108 Updating Weather &
Heat Testing of Vehicle Lights & Reflectors.'' In granting the
petition, NHTSA considered that three principal issues and several
lesser issues merited public consideration and comment. An appropriate
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published on March 9, 1993,
and an opportunity afforded for comment (58 FR 13042). Its primary
subject concerned the permissibility of a minimum amount of haze. NHTSA
noted that if any of the other issues merited the initiation of
rulemaking, a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking would follow.
Comments on the NPRM were received from Trucklite, Truck Safety
Equipment Institute (TSEI), American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (AAMA), 3M, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company,
General Motors Corporation (GM), Japan Auto Parts Industries
Association (JAPIA), Peterson Manufacturing, Thomas Loughran, and
General Electric Plastics (GEP).
1. Haze Limit for Reflex Reflectors
The principal issue of the NPRM concerned the permissible amount of
haze after outdoor exposure testing of reflex reflectors. S5.1.2 of
Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for plastic materials used
for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors. One of the
requirements (subsection (c)) is that plastic materials used for reflex
reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of
SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, after the 3-year exposure
test specified in the Recommended Practice. Paragraph 4.2.2 states in
pertinent part that ``The exposed samples, when compared with the
unexposed control samples, shall not show * * * haze * * *.'' Whether a
sample shows haze has traditionally been determined by whether haze is
visible to the naked eye. However, all plastics will develop an amount
of haze during the weathering test that may not be visible to the naked
eye, but which is measurable by instrumentation.
General Electric, the manufacturer of ``Lexan,'' a polycarbonate
plastic resin used in reflex reflectors, has stated that its
polycarbonate plastic will not pass the weathering test for reflector
material unless the reflex reflector manufacturer coats the finished
product with an optical coating approved by GE. In its latest revision
of J576, SAE has replaced the visual inspection criterion for haze with
a 7-percent haze limit for measurement with a hazometer. The committee
recommending the change considered the new procedure equivalent to the
previous practice but more objective. Properly coated polycarbonates
develop about 6 percent haze, and acrylics develop about 3 percent haze
in exposure tests conducted in Florida. Such products are certified
under the present test and will remain in compliance. NHTSA notes that
7 percent haze is not difficult to discern visually.
Neither Standard No. 108 nor SAE J576c ``requires'' coating,
although that process may, in fact, be the most practicable way to meet
the requirements of both. The present requirement may imply the absence
of haze after weathering, but an absolute requirement of zero haze is
neither practicable nor appropriate. Industry studies used by the SAE
Lighting Committee have demonstrated that degradation of reflex
reflector performance can be limited to less than 17 percent by
preventing haze in excess of 7 percent, but that degradation increases
rapidly with further haze to a loss of over 80 percent of initial
performance at 21 percent haze. To control reflex reflector degradation
and to make the haze test more objective, the SAE amended its
Recommended Practice to establish a maximum allowable limit of 7
percent haze for plastics used for reflex reflectors.
The proposal was opposed by AAMA, Ford, Chrysler, GM, and JAPIA.
AAMA (supported in these views by Ford, Chrysler, GM, and GEP) believes
that the rulemaking is premature for two reasons. The first is that
``the agency has not identified any safety problem arising from
inadequacies'' in the existing requirement. The second is that ``there
is no currently available information [to motor vehicle manufacturers]
that relates haze test data for plastic materials currently used to the
performance of reflex reflectors.'' It recommended that the agency
withdraw its NPRM and issue an ANPRM on the subject. The comments of
JAPIA were similar in that it requested an effective date for the final
rule 5 years after its issuance to review its appropriateness.
NHTSA disagrees that the rulemaking is premature. The purpose of
the rulemaking is to ensure that an existing requirement will more
closely conform to that portion of the statutory definition of a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard that it ``provides objective
criteria.'' (15 U.S.C. 1391(2)). The ``inadequacy'', to use AAMA's
term, of the existing requirement is that it is subjective. As for the
second argument, the SAE considered industry data on reflector
performance with various haze filters fitted in front of a reflex
reflector to quantify performance loss with increased haze, and it
reported a subjective demonstration test also using haze filters (haze
filters were used in the experiments rather than reflectors in various
weathered states because reflector facets prevent the use of a
hazeometer to measure the degree of haze). NHTSA believes that the
needs for safety are met by the current requirement that plastic
materials used in optical parts such as lenses meet the weathering
test. Absent any treatment of the raw materials that affects its
ability to meet J576 (see discussion below), optical parts fashioned
from complying plastic materials ought to have the same haze
resistance.
AAMA also commented that the proposal would increase the stringency
of haze requirements: ``[w]hereas the current Standard calls for no
visually-perceptible change in haze resulting from outdoor exposure,
the proposed revision would set a limit on the total haze of the
exposed sample. Even unexposed samples exhibit some measurable haze
that would be additive to any incremental haze produced by the three
year outdoor exposure test.'' AAMA is not aware of any body of test
data demonstrating whether plastic materials used in current reflex
reflectors are capable of meeting a post-exposure limit of 7 percent.
The present requirement contained in 4.2.2 of SAE J576c states that
``the exposed samples, when compared with the unexposed control
samples, shall not show surface deterioration, crazing, haze,
dimensional changes, color bleeding, delamination, or loss of surface
luster.'' The determination of surface deterioration, dimensional
changes, and color bleeding require comparison with control samples.
But the SAE bases its interpretation of the haze requirement on the
premise that low levels of haze are invisible to the naked eye, and it
is certainly inappropriate for the samples to have visible haze before
exposure. Therefore, the haze test is actually absolute; the only
criterion is whether the exposed sample has visible haze. The
``comparison'' of visible haze to invisible haze is nothing more than a
determination of the visible haze. Implicit in the visual test
requirement is a mutually exclusive concept of haze--it is either
visible or it is not visible. The concept of relative haze has little
meaning unless the instrumentation of the proposed method of
measurement is used.
NHTSA presumes that the certification of present materials is based
on test data in the possession of material manufacturers. It is likely
that haze measurements as well as visual inspection have been performed
on current materials following exposure to weathering, but visual
inspections alone should be sufficient. It is not difficult to detect 7
percent haze visually and samples already found to endure weathering
without the development of visually perceptible haze are unlikely to
have developed more than 7 percent haze.
The proposal was supported by Trucklite, TSEI, and Peterson. They
pointed out that the SAE Lighting Committee haze task force unanimously
recommended the 7 percent haze limit in part because it did not affect
the use of plastic resins currently employed for reflex reflectors.
On balance, the agency has concluded that there is no demonstrable
reason not to adopt the 7 percent haze limitation for plastic materials
used for reflex reflectors.
The second part of the NPRM concerned a proposed cumulative haze
limit of 7 percent when a plastic reflex reflector is installed behind
a plastic outer lens and not exposed directly to sunlight. This was
based upon draft SAE language and was opposed by the commenters.
Subsequent to the NPRM the SAE modified its draft so that a cumulative
haze limit was an optional part of its specification. NHTSA has decided
not to impose a cumulative haze limit of 7 percent, but simply to adopt
the same criterion (7 percent haze limit with direct exposure). Thus,
S5.1.2(c) as amended by this notice will apply the limit and other
criteria to ``plastic materials used for reflex reflectors and for
lenses used in front of reflex reflectors.''
A comment from GE indicated that while uncoated ``Lexan'' would
develop in excess of 30 percent haze in a Florida exposure test, the
addition of a glass covering lens would limit haze to 4 to 6 percent.
GE also offered data to show that plastic covering lenses provided
similar benefits. In view of the vast reduction in ultraviolet exposure
of inner reflectors afforded by glass or plastic outer lenses, the
agency concluded that acrylic and coated polycarbonate materials, which
experience less than 7 percent haze under direct exposure, would
experience negligible haze when protected by an outer lens. Therefore,
it is not necessary to consider cumulative haze when material suitable
for direct exposure is used with a covering lens, also suitable for
direct exposure.
NHTSA's decision not to adopt the cumulative haze provision should
allay industry concerns regarding the lack of test data to continue
recertifying existing designs using covered reflex reflectors, but it
may have the effect of necessitating an optical coating on any
polycarbonate reflex reflectors which previously relied on an outer
lens to prevent the formation of visible haze.
The SAE haze task force had also considered applying the 7 percent
haze limit to plastic headlamp lenses as well as reflex reflectors, but
it decided that more work was required to define the safety needs of
headlamps. The revision of SAE J576 left the headlamp lens requirement
unchanged from previous versions. It states that ``plastic material
used for forward road illumination devices, excluding cornering lamps,
shall show no deterioration.'' It is not clear whether that
specification is meant to be more restrictive than the 7 percent haze
limit for reflectors, but it has the same effect in practice as the
visual inspection requirement had for reflex reflectors.
NHTSA notes that in Standard No. 108, plastic lenses of replaceable
bulb headlamps are subject to an abrasion resistance test, and that
most, if not all, lenses must be given an abrasion resistant coating to
meet it. It has been the agency's assumption that the hard coating
would also protect headlamps lenses against excessive haze. Standard
No. 108 does not require the abrasion test for plastic sealed beam
headlamps, but NHTSA believes that it is industry practice to coat
plastic sealed beam lamps. To pursue the subject of haze limitations
for headlamp lens material, NHTSA requested that commenters address
five specific issues. Ford was the sole commenter on the first four
issues. These issues and Ford's comments follow:
(1) Whether there are any replaceable bulb headlamps with plastic
lenses that do not use a hard coating to achieve abrasion resistance.
Ford's headlamps of this type all employ a hard coating.
(2) Whether all abrasion resistant coatings also prevent the
formation of more than 7 percent haze on samples of plastics used in
headlamp lenses which are subjected to the 3-year test.
In Ford's experience, coatings prevent formation of haze that
exceeds 7 percent.
(3) Whether there are any sealed beam headlamps with plastic lenses
that do not use a hard coating for either haze or abrasion resistance.
Ford used headlamps of this type in two model lines for one model
year each a decade and a half ago. The lamps used an acrylic coating to
prevent yellowing of the polycarbonate lens.
(4) Whether the adoption of a 7 percent haze limit for plastic
headlamp lenses would create a burden on industry, and if so, the
nature and severity of the burden.
Ford does not believe that it would create a burden ``except
possibly for some initial additional testing.''
(5) Whether the industry favors harmonization of Standard No. 108
with SAE J576 for haze resistance of plastic headlamp lens materials.
Ford and another commenter, Truck-Lite, supported application of
Standard No. 108 to materials for plastic headlamp lenses, albeit with
the more recent versions of SAE J576, those of 1986 and 1991.
It appears that the abrasion resistance requirements for
replaceable bulb headlamps and the industry practice of hard coating
sealed beams already act to prevent haze on plastic headlamp lenses
that exceed 7 percent. NHTSA remains interested in any SAE attempts to
establish an appropriate haze criterion for headlamp lenses, but it
appears that there is no safety need for rulemaking at present.
2. Thermal Degradation of Acrylic Reflex Reflectors
Sierra also claimed that current weathering tests do not address
the loss of reflector performance for causes other than haze. It
criticized the agency for deleting the lens warpage test in 1973 which
regulated distortion from heat. Before then, Standard No. 108
incorporated the heat test of SAE Standard J575d which consisted of
operating a lamp for one hour in a chamber heated to 120 degrees F. The
lamp would reach a temperature higher than that from the heat of the
filament. At the conclusion of the test, no warpage could result that
would ``affect the proper functioning of the device.'' Since the
requirement was ambiguous, NHTSA eliminated it. However, in light of
Sierra's complaint, NHTSA has reviewed the matter. When the heat test
was deleted, the principal concern of the test seemed to be gross
distortions of through-optic lenses. It appears that the heat damage to
a lens with an integral reflex reflector was not considered.
There are limited data indicating that acrylic reflex reflectors
may suffer from heat degradation. The General Electric Company (GE) has
reported (NHTSA Docket No. 108-PRM-000015-01) a weathering test in
Florida in which amber and yellow acrylic reflex reflectors decreased
in specific intensity by 18 to 32 percent after an exposure of one
year, regardless of the angle of exposure. GE attributed the decrease
in photometric performance to minute distortions of the reflex lens
(which the industry calls ``creep'') which occurred when the plastics
were exposed to direct sunlight (temperatures of 150 to 160 degrees F).
In view of this test, NHTSA sought comments on the potential
problem of heat degradation of acrylic plastic reflex reflectors. NHTSA
requested commenters to address the following:
(1) Whether the commenter has test or other data relating to the
performance of acrylic reflectors after exposure to heat.
(2) The threshold temperatures for creep and stress relaxation for
acrylic plastics used for lamp lenses.
(3) Whether creep will stabilize or continue indefinitely.
(4) The maximum temperature acrylic lenses may endure without
experiencing visible deformation.
(5) The length of exposure required for stability at slightly over
the threshold temperature and at the maximum temperature stated in
response to (4).
(6) The maximum loss of photometric performance to be expected if
the creep and stress relaxation eventually stabilize.
(7) The maximum operating temperature of multiple function rear
lamps on passenger cars, trucks, and trailers under realistic extreme
conditions.
(8) Whether integral reflex reflectors would degrade under the
conditions stated in response to (7).
(9) The test procedures that would be effective and practicable for
testing reflectors and lamps with integral reflectors for the purpose
of detecting which devices would degrade significantly in service.
Comments were received from TSEI, Peterson, 3M, Ford, and
Trucklite. They reported that acrylic devices are designed to operate
up to about 170 degrees F and that stress relaxation begins at about
180 degrees. A heat test of plastic samples at 175 degrees F is
incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. The amount of distortion
experienced at temperatures between 180 and 200 degrees F depends on
the residual stress at the particular location, and the speed at which
it stabilizes depends on the temperature. Unlike haze, creep is not
indefinitely progressive; stabilization occurs in a matter of hours at
elevated temperature.
All lamp manufacturers reported using a heat warpage test of some
sort, even though no longer required by Standard No. 108. Some test
more stringently than SAE J575d. Some commenters reported using
photometric testing after a heat warpage test while others used a
visual examination (the method set forth in SAE J575d). Peterson
reported that acrylic lenses with reflectors subjected to SAE J575d
show less than 5 percent losses in photometric brightness.
The agency eliminated the warpage test because it did not deem it
required for safety. The degradation of acrylic reflectors alleged by
Sierra would not be detected under SAE J575d which specifies a visual
inspection.
Creep would affect a reflex reflector in a way fundamentally
different from haze. Haze reduces the brightness of the reflector at
all light entrance angles. Creep may cause the reflex reflector to lose
brightness at some angles while gaining brightness at other angles. It
appears unlikely that the loss of brightness reported by General
Electric was the result of creep. GE did not test the acrylic
reflectors thoroughly enough to make well founded conclusions about
their performance.
In sum, there is no evidence that reflex reflectors degrade before
other visible damage occurs.
3. Dye Loss of Acrylic Reflectors and Lenses
Sierra claimed that the weathering test of Standard No. 108 is
inadequate because complying red and amber acrylic lenses lose their
color in use. NHTSA responded that the breakdown of the dye may not be
a property of the plastic but of the dye itself. Dyes with higher
temperature tolerance are frequently used in polycarbonate products
because they may be designed for higher temperature applications than
acrylic products, but there is no property of acrylic plastic which
contributes to fading. NHTSA understands, however, that the SAE adopted
the three-year test when plastic began to replace glass because of some
concern that plastic would not be as fade resistant as glass.
NHTSA requested that commenters provide information on the
following:
(1) Whether the commenter has test or other data relating to fading
or loss of dye color in acrylic or polycarbonate lenses through
exposure to heat or weathering.
(2) Whether any data exist indicating that acrylic or polycarbonate
lenses fade or do not fade under realistic operating conditions.
(3) The conditions under which fading could be expected.
(4) Whether there is any reason to believe that acrylic lenses are
more subject to this type of degradation than polycarbonate lenses.
(5) Whether the commenter has observed faded lenses in service and,
if so, what views the commenter has about the cause of the fading.
(6) Whether the three-year test of SAE J576, conducted in Florida
and Arizona, is sufficient to identify plastic materials prone to fade
in color.
(7) The kind of test procedure that would be effective and
practicable for testing lenses or plastic materials used in lenses to
detect any propensity to fade significantly in service.
Comments were received from TSEI, Peterson, 3M, Ford, Trucklite,
and Thomas Loughran. The commenters believe that the three year
weathering test of SAE J576 is adequate to identify plastic materials
that are prone to fading. Acrylic materials do not appear to have a
greater tendency to fade than polycarbonate materials. Peterson has
observed that dyes used in acrylic material darken slightly as a result
of sustained exposure to sunlight. TSEI reported that the only faded
lenses in service which have been observed by its membership have been
identified as made of noncomplying materials. Mr Loughran suggested
that faded lenses result from the practice of blending virgin and
reground material with additional dye at the time of molding.
Ford suggested that a modified xenon accelerated weathering test
would be effective for testing colored plastic materials for their
propensity to fade in service. This test would be configured to
correlate with the three year weathering test. The object of
accelerated testing with xenon lamps would be increased productivity
rather than increased accuracy of detection.
The comments were unanimous in supporting the existing rule as an
effective and sufficient test for dye loss of lamp and reflector
materials. However, it appears from Mr. Loughran's comment that the
uncontrolled use of reground material and added dye can create
noncomplying plastic material to a greater degree than the lamp
industry recognizes. NHTSA believes that the fading problem observed by
the petitioner is the likely result of lamp manufacturing practices
brought to its attention by Mr. Loughran. Accordingly, there appears to
be no reason to change the present weathering test.
With respect to Mr. Loughran's comments, NHTSA takes this
opportunity to present its views on the obligations of a manufacturer
of reflex reflectors. The haze requirement is imposed by S5.1.2 upon
``plastic materials used in optical parts''. SAE Standard J594f
``Reflex Reflectors'' January 1977 as incorporated into Standard No.
108 at 3.2 references the plastic material test of SAE J576. This
imposes an obligation upon the manufacturer of a reflex reflector to
use plastic materials meeting J576. Thus, the manufacturer has an
obligation to ensure that its acts do nothing to negate the conformance
of the raw material with the tests of J576 when it is fashioned into
reflectors.
A weathering test performed by NHTSA and comments to the docket
suggest that lamp manufacturers need to take care that their coating
practices actually meet the specifications used by plastic
manufacturers to certify material properties. NHTSA's test included
coated and uncoated ``Lexan'' samples exposed in Florida and Arizona.
The uncoated samples failed the test visually as well as by the
development of more than 7 percent haze before the end of the first
year at both exposure sites. At the end of the second year, the coated
Arizona sample had developed slightly less than 7 percent haze, but
haze was plainly visible. The coated Florida sample had failed in both
respects with 10.5 percent haze after a two-year exposure. Its uncoated
mate had developed 10.3 percent haze in one year. At the end of the
third year, the large haze reductions of the coated specimens, seen
after one- and two-years exposure, had disappeared. Both Arizona
specimens had slightly less than 20 percent haze and both Florida
specimens had slightly more than 30 percent haze. The 24-month results
were available at the time of the NPRM and were placed in the docket.
TSEI and Peterson commented on the 24-month test results, and
Thomas Loughran's comment is relevant to cases of premature
degradation. TSEI and Peterson consider the failure of coated sample to
be an anomaly, uncharacteristic of the performance of all other coated
polycarbonates in their experience. In their view, the failure is due
to a faulty coating. Peterson suggested that either the coating
thickness or the curing process was not performed in accordance with
the plastic manufacturer's specifications. The rapid surface
degradation of both coated samples occurring in the period between 24
and 36 months exposure and the apparent flaking of the coating of the
Arizona 18-month specimen support Peterson's opinion of faulty coating.
Mr. Loughran was concerned that coated polycarbonates may not meet
the 7 percent haze limit either as samples or as finished products. He
cited knowledge of Arizona exposure tests in which coated polycarbonate
reflectors suffered 60 percent to 70 percent losses in reflective
performance, and he suggested testing of finished products as well as
material.
Mr. Loughran's experience appears to be at odds with the confidence
of TSEI, Peterson, Trucklite, and the SAE haze task force that coated
polycarbonate plastic will haze less than 7 percent in a 3-year
exposure test. However, it is likely that departures from virgin
material and poor coating practices can combine to cause inferior
performance in products nominally made from certified materials.
These data suggest the beneficent effect of coating on
polycarbonate plastic will not be sufficiently durable to meet the
performance certified after the material unless the material
manufacturer's recommendations are followed rigorously. While the
presence of some coating material does not guarantee compliance, the
absence of coating seems to ensure that plastics such as polycarbonates
will quickly fail the haze test. Use of coatings with a tint element
visible under an ultraviolet inspection light affords a simple,
practicable way for regulatory bodies such as NHTSA to discern whether
relevant plastic materials have been coated. The 3-year test period
appears to be unnecessarily long in those instances where test failures
occur long in advance, such as samples that manifest haze at the end of
an exposure of only a year's duration. Failure to tint, and premature
hazing afforded a basis upon which NHTSA can determine noncompliance
without having to complete pro forma the 3-year test period and
unnecessarily delay the remedy of a noncompliant product.
4. Miscellaneous Issues
3M suggested that a test measuring reflective brightness before and
after exposure of retroreflective devices be established as an
alternative to haze testing so that sheeting material devices could
qualify as reflex reflectors. No specific test procedures or criteria
were included in the comment. Because this issue is beyond the scope of
the present rulemaking, it could not be not considered in formulating
the final rule.
Rulemaking Analyses
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking action has not been considered under E.O. 12866.
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action and has
determined that it is not significant under Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The stringency of
the haze requirement would not be changed. Further, manufacturers of
plastic materials are currently measuring the haze of weathered samples
by ASTM D 1003, which will govern the certification to the 7 percent
haze limit. In addition, according to the agency's observation that
haze not detectable by the human eye is also less than 7 percent,
conformance of a reflector with the haze requirement could still be
judged with the naked eye. Impacts of the final rule are, therefore, 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. I certify that
this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic effect
upon a substantial number of small entities. Manufacturers of plastic
materials are generally not small businesses within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further, small organizations and
governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected 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.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103 (formerly section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), 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. Forty-nine U.S.C. 30161
(formerly Section 105 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1394)) 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, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as
follows:
1. The authority section continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30161; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. In Sec. 571.108, S5.1.2(c) is revised to read:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S5.1.2 * * *
(c) After the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for
reflex reflectors and for lenses used in front of reflex reflectors
shall not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes,
color bleeding, delamination, loss of surface luster, or haze that
exceeds 7 percent as measured under ASTM D 1003-61.
Issued on: October 27, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-27152 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
