[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28382]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 21, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 93-57; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF00
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 notice responds to a notice of request for comments that
NHTSA published in 1993 implementing the grant of a petition by Robert
Bosch GmbH. It proposes an amendment to the Federal motor vehicle
standard on lighting that would permit replaceable lenses on integral
beam and replaceable bulb headlamps that incorporate on-board headlamp
aimers, provided that such headlamps meet more rigorous environmental
tests. The benefit of headlamps with replaceable lenses is that the
lens or reflector could be replaced in the event of breakage of either
without the present necessity to replace both components if only one is
damaged.
DATES: Comments are due February 21, 1995. The amendments would be
effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice
number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Rulemaking,
NHTSA (202-366-6346).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 1993, NHTSA published a Notice
of Request for Comments in implementation of a grant of a petition for
rulemaking submitted by Robert Bosch GmbH (58 FR 42924). The notice
sought views relevant to a decision on whether to proceed with
rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to allow the lens to be
replaceable on a replaceable bulb headlamp equipped with an on-vehicle
aiming device. In addition to comments on the five benefits ascribed by
Bosch to replaceable lens headlamps, NHTSA asked for comments on
fifteen relevant issues. The reader is referred to the notice for
further information.
Comments were submitted by 21 interested persons: Advocates for
Highway Safety (Advocates), American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (AAMA), American Honda, Fiat Auto R&D USA, Ford Motor
Company, General Electric Worldwide Automotive Lighting (GE), General
Motors Corp. (GM), Hella KG Hueck & Co., KC Hilites, Koito
Manufacturing Co. Inc., Oscar Lidstrom, Jr., Maine Bureau of Highway
Safety, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, Mercedes-Benz of
North America, Osram Sylvania, Inc., PACCAR, Inc., Stanley Electric Co.
Ltd., Virginia State Police, Volkswagen of North America (on behalf of
itself and Audi), Volvo of North America, and J. L. Witt. The concept
of replaceable lenses for certain headlamps was opposed by three
commenters: Advocates, GE, and KC Hilites. Six others expressed
reservations: AAMA, GM, Maine, Massachusetts, Stanley, and Koito. The
remaining 12 commenters either actively supported the concept or
submitted comments that did not indicate opposition to it. Where
appropriate, these comments are mentioned in the discussion of issues
that follows.
NHTSA's evaluation of the comments that were submitted has
synthesized agency concerns into three issues: the photometric
performance of headlamps after relensing, the durability performance of
headlamps before and after relensing, and the economic benefits to the
consumer of replaceable lens headlamps.
Photometric Performance of Headlamps After Relensing
The first issue of concern is whether a headlamp with a replaceable
lens will provide photometric performance equivalent to a headlamp
using the original lens. NHTSA had previously denied two petitions
(from GM and BMW of North America) for replaceable lens headlamps,
principally from concern for potential aiming problems and corroded
reflectors.
The potential for misaim has two bases. The first is relevant to
mechanically aimable headlamps, which have three alignment pads on the
lens to orient alignment tools. Some designs use pads ground to the
individual characteristics of each reflector/lens assembly. This
creates lamp-to-lamp differences in lenses, irrelevant when the lens is
permanently attached to the reflector assembly, but of possible concern
when lenses may be replaced. Even in designs without custom ground
pads, continuation of proper aim is dependent upon the repeatability of
the attachment of the lens to the reflector. Small differences in fit
or gasket crush could modify the interaction between the reflector and
the lens and thereby reorient the aiming pads.
The aiming pad issue does not arise under the Bosch petition
because it includes only headlamps with on-board aiming devices, which
aim the reflector without reference to the lens. Bosch provided data
from photometric tests demonstrating that, absent the aiming pad
considerations, headlamp photometry was insensitive to lens
replacement. The illumination at required test points produced by the
test reflector and bulb was nearly identical in each test, using five
replaceable lenses with different production dates. The differences
between lenses of the same part number and any variations in lens
alignment due to repeated replacement had no apparent effect on the
photometric performance of the combination of new components.
Advocates had criticized the minimum ``above-horizontal''
illumination requirements established by the agency for 1994 and newer
model vehicle headlamps as providing poorer performance than that of
sealed beam headlamps. It opposed lens replacement on the basis of a
potential for a further reduction in ``above-horizontal'' illumination
which it believed would result from deviations in lens alignment during
replacement. The Bosch data should allay Advocates' concern, as should
a comment by Osram Sylvania that headlamp photometry is not sensitive
to the slight misalignments possible during lens replacement. Although
Osram Sylvania had other criticisms of replaceable lenses, it reported
that common design practices for replaceable bulb headlamps limit the
sensitivity of photometric performance to lens misalignment and that
replacement lenses need not be identical to original lenses to maintain
equivalent photometric performance.
In summary, comments and data submitted to the docket are
persuasive that photometric performance of new lamps is not sensitive
to typical production variations of replacement lenses. For the reasons
expressed above, it appears that headlamps with on-vehicle aiming and
replaceable lenses are equivalent in photometric performance to
headlamps with on-vehicle aiming and bonded lenses.
Durability Performance of Headlamps Before and After Relensing
For new headlamps, Standard No. 108's tests for dust penetration,
corrosion, humidity, vibration, and water sealing should assure that
headlamps with replaceable lenses will have a lens-to-reflector sealing
that is equivalent to the protection provided by headlamps with bonded
lens/reflector assemblies. However, if the reflector of a headlamp is
affected by exposure during the period when the vehicle is operated
with a broken lens or by improper cleaning attempts during relensing,
there is a strong possibility that an owner may continue to use the
unit after relensing without being aware of its degraded performance.
Less than half of all states have periodic vehicle inspection, and
those that do differ in their rigor. Thus, inspection programs cannot
be expected to detect the decreased photometric performance of
headlamps with degraded reflectors. The second potential problem is
that the lens-seal integrity could be lost during relensing, and that
an otherwise good reflector would be subject to moisture and dust for
the remaining life of the vehicle.
Reflector degradation was not a concern before 1983 when
replaceable bulb headlamps were allowed. In a sealed beam lamp, a crack
in the lens large enough to admit moisture would cause the filament to
fail, necessitating the replacement of the entire headlamp. However,
replaceable bulb headlamps can continue to operate despite a broken
lens, and the possibility of degraded reflectors was considered by the
agency during the course of rulemaking that allowed them. The
requirement for a bonded lens was motivated in part by NHTSA's desire
to avoid creating a potential safety problem that had been impossible
when Standard No. 108 allowed only sealed beam headlamps. It is a
conservative requirement that results in the replacement of reflectors
when the condition of the lens indicates possible long term exposure of
the reflector to water and dirt. Even a small hole can cause the
headlamp to fill with water due to condensation during the heating and
cooling cycle of lamp use.
A potential safety disadvantage of the bonded lens requirement is
that the cost of replacing a headlamp rather than a lens may tend to
delay or to discourage repair altogether. However, the desire to
maintain the aesthetic quality of a newer vehicle and the obvious
performance problem of a cracked lamp containing moisture should
motivate many owners to make a replacement, even if costly. A more
powerful motivation is provided by the vehicle inspection programs
maintained by less than half of the states. Typically, the states
inspect for aim and for damaged lenses, and in some instances inspect
replaceable bulbs for maximum power to prevent the use of high powered
``off road'' aftermarket bulbs. But even strict states, such as
Virginia, do not inspect for the low light output that would identify
headlamps with degraded reflectors. Many commenters who favored the
concept of replaceable lenses voiced concerns about the potential loss
of performance of relensed units. AAMA suggested replaceable lenses for
integral beam headlamps as well as for those with replaceable bulbs,
but it commented that any rulemaking allowing replaceable lenses must
assure that reflectors are designed to be more resistant to abrasion
and solvents, with special durability and environmental qualification
requirements added. American Honda was concerned about technical
problems which may exist in ensuring that photometric performance is
equal to the level of performance before the lens was damaged, and
ensuring adequate sealing against dust and moisture after the lens
alone is replaced. GE commented that the average consumer or automotive
mechanic does not have the background and understanding to make the
decisions necessary to determine if a headlamp is safely repairable.
Osram Sylvania agreed with the Bosch petition that reflector surfaces
can be cleaned during lens replacement, but it cautioned that the
reflector can be damaged by improper cleaning and handling. It also
advised that the touch of human hands can deposit skin oil on the
reflector with the possible consequences of reflector fogging, reduced
output and increased glare. It further commented that the lens
replacement process could break the sealing coat, protecting the thin
aluminum coating on the reflector from moisture, which could lead to a
very rapid loss of reflecting area and photometric performance.
Volkswagen's comments also responded to questions about performance
loss of relensed lamps. It suggested that only specially trained dealer
service personnel should install lenses, presumably refusing to relens
degraded lamps, and that state inspections should monitor the condition
of reflectors. These steps may be feasible in Europe where reflector
corrosion, at least in older designs, is a problem requiring universal
inspection and where the manufacturers control the replacement lens
supply. But they are not effective in the United States. Less than half
the States have inspections, and those that do are not required to
cover the condition of the reflector because it was never a concern
during the long era in which sealed beams were the only type of
headlamps allowed. Also, the U.S. aftermarket would not be limited to
OEM lenses (conferring on dealers the power to refuse to repair
degraded lamps) because non-OEM manufacturers would be free to
manufacture components and sell them directly to vehicle owners.
Volkswagen and American Honda commented that replaceable lens
headlamps could be designed to require removal of the headlamp from the
vehicle in order to replace the lens. This would have the effect,
desirable to the commenters, of causing owners to rely on the vehicle
manufacturer's dealers for lens replacement. However, causing lens
replacement to be more expensive and less convenient diminishes the
prospect of greater headlamp maintenance in states without inspection.
Further, owners compelled by state inspection to replace parts often
insist on making their own repairs to minimize their burden. Making the
task unnecessarily complex only increases the chances that the owner
will make a poor repair. In the case of HID integral beam headlamps,
easy removal of the lens without disturbing the other components may
reduce high voltage hazards during owner repairs. The better solution,
suggested by the AAMA and others, is to adopt durability and
environmental requirements for replaceable lens headlamps to increase
the likelihood that relensed headlamps will perform satisfactorily
regardless of who services them. This solution minimizes the potential
loss of performance from degraded reflectors and maximizes the
potential for inexpensive voluntary lens repairs in states without
inspections.
The most detailed comments to the question of reflector durability
were those of Ford Motor Company. They contain a comprehensive
statement of the reflector durability problem and some general guidance
concerning appropriate test procedures. Ford commented:
Replaceable bulb headlamps currently incorporate reflective
surfaces not specifically designed to withstand direct environmental
exposure or abrasion. If the condition prompting replacement of a
lens has resulted in contamination or discoloration of the reflector
surface (e.g., as might occur due to a lens crack or loss of
integrity of the lens/reflector seal), a degradation in photometric
performance would be expected, as compared to a new replacement
headlamp. Attempts to clean a contaminated reflector, as by wiping,
could result in abrasion to the metallized surface, possibly
resulting in degraded photometric performance and/or increased
glare. Ford therefore recommends that rulemaking on replaceable lens
headlamps consider the need for the reflective surfaces of
replaceable lens headlamps to withstand appropriate environmental
exposure and cleaning operations.
Ford's recommendations were:
Ford recommends that headlamps with replaceable lenses, in
addition to present requirements applicable to replaceable bulb
headlamps, be subjected to salt-fog, moisture and dust exposure
without the lens in place. Additionally, the reflector surface
should be capable of withstanding resistance to chemicals that are
likely to be used by consumers or repair facilities to clean
contaminated reflector surfaces. Subsequent to appropriate
environmental and chemical exposure, the reflector should be cleaned
according to a prescribed procedure. When fitted with a lens
following exposure and cleaning, the headlamp should be capable of
meeting the same photometric requirements applicable to replaceable
bulb headlamps with bonded lenses. Aftermarket lens manufacturers
should be required to certify that any headlamp for which the lens
is intended is capable of meeting photometric requirements when
fitted with a lens of that design. Additionally, aftermarket
replacement lenses should be accompanied with complete instructions
for properly removing the old lens, cleaning the interior of the
headlamp body, cleaning and preparing the mating surface on the
headlamp body and installing the new lens on the headlamp body.
The durability and environmental requirements for the present
replaceable bulb headlamps and the deliberations that led to them may
be useful in considering reasonable requirements for the reflectors of
replaceable lens headlamps. When the agency amended Standard No. 108 to
permit replaceable bulb headlamps, it was aware that German vehicle
inspection data showed significant rejections due to dull, corroded and
damaged headlamp reflectors. Thus, NHTSA promulgated an appropriate
test of corrosion resistance for replaceable bulb headlamps for use in
the United States. The lamp assembly must be exposed for ten days in a
salt spray chamber, with the additional requirement than the bulb be
removed and the spray deactivated during the last hour of all but two
test days. The test put a premium on the ability of the lens to protect
the reflector from the salt spray. It also required a degree of direct
corrosion resistance exceeding the performance of some European
headlamps by having the lamps exposed to several hours of salty air in
the chamber without direct spray. In its original form, the rule
required that the headlamp pass the photometric test at the completion
of the corrosion test. The post-exposure photometric test was later
eliminated because of the possibility of salt deposits that could not
be removed easily from a headlamp with a bonded lens.
A corrosion test of increased rigor for reflectors of replaceable
lens headlamps would remove much of the safety concern about relensing
lamps that have become contaminated with dust and moisture. The agency
is proposing a specific environmental test for reflectors of
replaceable lens headlamps which it believes is consistent with Ford's
recommendations while imposing minimum testing burdens. NHTSA is
proposing an additional salt spray test with the following features for
new replaceable lens headlamps: (a) A 24 hour exposure to salt spray
with the lens removed, (b) a 48 hour drying period, (c) cleaning of the
reflector according to instructions to be furnished with replacement
lenses and included in the owner's manual, (d) a non-magnified
examination for corrosion, and (e) a photometric test of the headlamp
as reassembled with a new lens. The proposed exposed reflector test
mimics the existing test of headlamps with lenses but with a much
reduced duration since reflector exposure in service would not be
continuous. However, it makes use of the expected salt deposit
formation to test the durability of the reflector coating to cleaning.
Finally, it would require the manufacturer of a headlamp with a
replaceable lens to demonstrate photometric compliance of the
reassembled cleansed lamp.
Ford recommended three distinct tests of headlamp reflector
exposure to salt-fog, moisture, and dust, while the agency proposes a
single test. Comment from parties familiar with reflector construction
and exposure testing is sought. The following questions are of
particular interest:
(1) A cracked lens frequently causes a headlamp to partially fill
with water. Is the moisture and exposure time involved in an ASTM B
117-73 salt spray test sufficient to test moisture resistance of
reflectors? If not, what test would be sufficient?
(2) The present dust test for replaceable bulb headlamps uses
Portland cement as dust, and the agency presumes that Ford's comment
refers to the same kind of dust test. Cleaning the reflector after
Portland cement dust exposure may be equivalent to a rigorous abrasion
test. The agency believes that the proposed salt-spay test will coat
the headlamp reflector with salt deposits and that the subsequent
cleaning will provide an adequate abrasion test. However, does a 24-
hour salt spray test deposit enough salt to act as a de facto abrasion
test? Should a particular method of salt removal be required or should
the manufacturers' cleaning instructions dictate the test procedure, as
proposed? Is a Portland cement dust test as well as a salt spray test
of reflectors needed, and if so, why? Should a direct abrasion test be
used rather than the indirect abrasion of cleaning, and if so, what
procedure would be appropriate?
(3) Is the proposed 24-hour salt spray test followed by 48 hours
drying time sufficient to test the headlamp reflectors and the metal
light shields sometimes used? What corrosion criteria are appropriate
for light shields? Can rusty water dripping from metal light shields
eventually cause otherwise durable headlamp reflectors to fail because
of stains?
(4) The present standard for replaceable bulb headlamps exposes
lamp assemblies with the bulb removed (but the lens attached) for eight
hours to humid salty air in a salt spray chamber with the salt spray
turned off. Is this present test (followed by a photometric test and
whatever cleaning is necessary) sufficient to qualify headlamp
reflectors for use with replaceable lenses without the proposed direct
salt spray test or the moisture, dust and salt spray tests recommended
by Ford?
The existing Standard No. 108 also includes a chemical resistance
test of the exterior of the lamp to fuel, tar remover, power steering
fluid and antifreeze. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the test
should be extended to headlamp reflectors using chemicals suggested by
the manufacturer in the cleaning instructions or with a realistic
probability of use by vehicle owners despite the manufacturer's
instructions. Chemicals in the latter category would include tar
remover, lacquer thinner and mineral spirits. The manufacturer's
instructions may concentrate on water soluble contaminants because of
the salt spray test. The inclusion of the other chemicals gives the
owner a means to remove organic contaminants without resorting to
abrasion. Since mineral spirits is a major constituent of tar remover,
a separate test for mineral spirits appears unnecessary.
The plastic lenses on replaceable bulb headlamps manufactured for
use in the United States are given a hard protective coating that would
be expected to exceed the reflector coating requirements established by
the proposed tests. NHTSA expects that similar coating methods could be
used to create robust reflectors for replaceable lens headlamps. It
would be reasonable to expect successful lens replacement by vehicle
owners, especially if the lens attachments were designed to be
accessible without disturbing the headlamp aim. The requirement for
headlamp reflector durability also reduces concern about untrained
persons installing the lens seal. Should an owner install the seal
incorrectly, causing moisture to collect inside the lamp, the reflector
will not degrade quickly. The visible moisture would serve as a
telltale, and an owner motivated to replace the lens initially would be
motivated to disassemble, clean and reinstall the lens until the
desired repair was successful. If manufacturers choose to design
headlamps for ease and economy of lens replacement by owners, the
prospect of better lamp maintenance in non-inspection States is
realistic.
Economic Benefits to the Consumer of Replaceable Lenses
The cost to replace two replaceable bulb headlamps can equal 10
percent of the value of an entire car after it is 5 to 8 years old.
Consumers used to the cost of sealed beam headlamps are critical of
state vehicle inspection programs when they force the replacement of
headlamps at costs which far exceed those of sealed beams. When
Standard No. 108 was amended to permit replaceable bulb headlamps, the
economic consequences of lens/reflector assembly replacement were not
considered to be relevant to safety, and the ability to replace the
light source gave some promise of consumer benefit. Ironically, the
economic burden to consumers now fuels a safety debate about whether
the reluctance of owners to replace expensive cracked lamps or the
possibility of degraded performance of relensed lamps is the greater
threat to safety. The styling benefits of replaceable bulb headlamps
over sealed beams have resulted in large potential cost penalties and
an unquantifiable degree of performance loss when the headlamps are
damaged.
Volkswagen commented that the cost to replace a headlamp is 7 to 8
times that of the lens alone. It cited examples of lamps costing $215
to $270 and estimated the cost of replaceable lenses in the $30 to $40
range. Mercedes estimated the cost of replaceable lenses at $126 to
$150 and complete headlamps at $250 to $640 with on-board aiming. While
the cost of headlamps with the fasteners, gaskets, and indexing
features required for replaceable lens designs would be higher than the
cost of headlamps with simple bonded lenses, reductions in repair costs
of 50% to 85% appear to be likely.
The agency anticipates that replaceable lens designs would be
attractive only for headlamps using glass lenses. These are
predominantly used on imported vehicles. Replaceable bulb headlamps
which have coated polycarbonate plastic lenses are extremely resistant
to cracking and chipping. AAMA commented that the impact resistance of
plastic lenses significantly reduces any servicing need to provide
replaceable lenses. Glass lenses are less expensive than coated plastic
lenses, and they have greater resistance to high operating temperatures
and abrasion by headlamp wipers.
However, the additional cost of a replaceable lens design would
probably negate the economic advantage a manufacturer might achieve by
changing to a less expensive replaceable glass lens when it had been
using bonded plastic lenses. It is likely that the market for
replaceable bulb headlamps with replaceable lenses would be confined to
a small segment of the import market in which headlamp wipers or high
operating temperatures dictate the choice of glass lenses.
Bosch's petition covered only replaceable bulb headlamps. However,
AAMA commented that a greater economic benefit of replaceable lenses
could be found in integral beam headlamps. High Intensity Discharge
(HID) lamps are being developed for use as integral beam headlamps, and
their operating temperatures are expected to dictate the use of glass
lenses. An integral beam headlamp is required to be manufactured with
the lens, bulb, reflector, cable and high voltage source configured as
an indivisible whole. HID headlamps are much more costly than
replaceable bulb headlamps, and the prospect of replacing the whole
lamp (at perhaps $1000) in order to repair a cracked lens may be a
significant impediment to introduction of the technology. Since the
industry-imposed economic burden on the consumer is the agency's
primary reason for considering replaceable lens headlamps, it is
appropriate to include integral beam headlamps in the proposal.
Proposed Amendments
NHTSA is implementing its conclusions by proposing appropriate
amendments to Standard No. 108. As noted above, the proposed amendments
cover integral beam headlamps as well as those with replaceable bulbs.
The proposal requires redefinitions of ``integral beam headlamp'' and
``replaceable bulb headlamp'' to clarify that some types of these
headlamps need not have a bonded lens reflector assembly, those with a
vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) conforming to Standard No. 108.
Under the proposal, each replacement lens would also have to be
accompanied by an appropriate replacement seal, and instructions to the
user on how to remove and replace the lens, clean the reflector, and
seal the lens to the lamp. Manufacturers of replacement lenses would
mark them with a DOT symbol which will be the manufacturer's
certification that installation of the lens on the headlamp for which
it is intended will not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. A
new section is proposed that would add the chemical and corrosion
resistance tests discussed above.
The greatest impact of the proposal will be on future HID integral
beam headlamps which may require heat resistant glass lenses rather
than impact resistant plastic lenses. These head-lamps will be very
costly and their replacement will involve high voltage components. The
development of durable reflectors to make them suitable for replaceable
lens will be an important step in making HID lamps practical.
Additionally, should future changes to the standard accommodate HID
light sources in replaceable bulb headlamps, the ability to have
replaceable lenses would enhance their economic viability as well.
The comments suggest that it is not critical to require replacement
lenses to be identical to original lenses in order to maintain
photometric performance in compliance with the standard. The only
necessary requirement is that the replacement lens maintain compliance
of an otherwise compliant headlamp in all respects including sealing.
An additional practical requirement is that a replacement lens be
supplied with a new seal and instructions for cleaning the reflector
and installing the lens and seal.
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 forth
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
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The 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 self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Effective Date
The effective date of the final rule would be [30 days after
publication in the Federal Register]. Because the final rule
establishes no additional burden on any party, it is hereby tentatively
found for good cause shown that an effective date for the amendments to
Standard No. 108 that is earlier than 180 days after their issuance
would be in the public interest.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This action has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It
has been determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The
purpose of the rulemaking action is to afford a further optional means
of compliance with the headlamp requirements of Standard No. 108. While
a final rule could result in higher prices for buyers of glass-lensed
headlamps of certain types, these initial costs could be offset by
reduced repair costs during the life of the vehicle or the headlamp.
These cost impacts are not deemed significant and preparation of a full
regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that a final
rule based on this proposal would have a significant effect upon the
environment. The design and composition of headlamps which take
advantage of this option may change from those presently in production
but it is anticipated that the kind of materials used will be the same.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that
this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis has been prepared. Manufacturers of motor vehicles
and headlamps, those affected by the rulemaking action, are generally
not small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would
not be significantly affected because the price of new vehicles and the
optional headlamps would be only minimally impacted. While the price of
new vehicle equipment might be somewhat higher if the optional headlamp
is used, the cost of repair of such equipment will be significantly
lessened.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice
A final rule based on this proposal 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. Section
30163 (formerly 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.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended
as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 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.
Sec. 571.108 [Amended]
2. Section 571.108 would be amended as follows:
a. The definitions of ``Integral Beam Headlamp'' and ``Replaceable
Bulb Headlamp'' in Paragraph S4 would be revised to read as set forth
below.
b. Paragraphs S5.8.11, S7.2(e), S8.10.1 and S8.10.2 would be added
to read as set forth below.
c. Paragraphs S7.4(g), S7.4(h)(2), S7.4(h)(3), S7.5(h), and S8.1
would be revised to read as set forth below.
Sec. 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment.
* * * * *
S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
Integral Beam Headlamp means a headlamp (other than a standardized
sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 or a
replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5)
comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens,
reflector, and light source, except that the lens may be designed to be
replaceable if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming
device that conforms to S7.8.5.2. An ``integral beam headlamp'' may
incorporate light sources that are replaceable that are used for
purposes other than headlighting.
* * * * *
Replaceable bulb headlamp means a headlamp comprising a bonded lens
reflector assembly and one or two replaceable headlamp light sources,
except that the lens may be designed to be replaceable if the headlamp
incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device that conforms to
S7.8.5.2. A ``replaceable bulb headlamp'' may incorporate light sources
that are replaceable that are used for purposes other than
headlighting.
* * * * *
S5.8 Replacement equipment.
* * * * *
S5.8.11 A replacement lens for a replaceable bulb headlamp or an
integral beam headlamp that is not required to have a bonded lens shall
be provided with a replacement seal in a package that includes
instructions for the removal and replacement of the lens, the cleaning
of the reflector, and the sealing of the replacement lens to the
reflector assembly.
S7 Headlighting requirements.
* * * * *
S7.2 (a) * * *
* * * * *
(e) Each replacement headlamp lens with seal, provided in
accordance with S5.8.11, when installed according to the lens
manufacturer's instructions on an integral beam or replaceable bulb
headlamp, shall not cause the headlamp to fail to comply with any of
the requirements of this standard. Each replacement headlamp lens shall
be marked with the symbol ``DOT'', either horizontally or vertically,
to constitute certification. Each replacement headlamp lens shall also
be marked with the manufacturer and the part or trade number of the
headlamp for which it is intended, and with the name and/or trademark
of the lens manufacturer or importer that is registered with the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office. Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to authorize the marking of any such name and/or trademark by
one who is not the owner, unless the owner has consented to it.
* * * * *
S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. * * *
* * * * *
(g) A headlamp with a glass lens need not meet the abrasion
resistance test (S8.2). It need not meet the chemical resistance test
(S8.3) unless it incorporates a replaceable lens. If, in addition to a
glass lens, the headlamp uses a non-plastic reflector, it need not meet
the internal heat test of paragraph S8.6.2. A headlamp of sealed design
as verified in paragraph S8.9 Sealing need not meet the corrosion
(S8.4), dust (S8.5), or humidity (S8.7) tests; however, the headlamp
shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 4.1, 4.1.2, 4.4 and 5.1.4 for
corrosion and connector of SAE Standard J580 DEC86 Sealed Beam Headlamp
Assembly. An integral beam headlamp may incorporate light sources that
are replaceable that are used for purposes other than headlighting.
(h) * * *
* * * * *
(2) After the chemical resistance tests of paragraphs S8.3 and
S8.10.1, there shall be no surface deterioration, coating delamination,
fractures, deterioration of bonding or sealing materials, color
bleeding or color pickup visible without magnification, and the
headlamp shall meet the photometric requirements applicable to the
headlamp system under test.
(3) After corrosion tests conducted in accordance with paragraphs
S8.4 and S8.10.2, there shall be no evidence of external or internal
corrosion or rust visible without magnification. Loss of adhesion of
any applied coating shall not occur more than 0.125 in. (3.2 mm) from
any sharp edge on the inside or outside. Corrosion may occur on
terminals only if the current produced during the test of paragraph
S8.4(c) is not less than 9.7 amperes.
* * * * *
S7.5 Replaceable Bulb Headlamp System. * * *
* * * * *
(h) The system shall be aimable in accordance with paragraph S7.8.
* * * * *
S8 Tests and Procedures for Integral Beam and Replaceable Bulb
Headlighting Systems. * * *
S8.1 Photometry. Each headlamp to which paragraph S8 applies shall
be tested according to paragraphs 4.1 and 4.1.4 of SAE Standard J1383
APR85 for meeting the applicable photometric requirements, after each
test specified in paragraphs S8.2, S8.3, S8.5, S8.6.1, S8.6.2, S8.7,
and S8.10.1 and S8.10.2 if applicable. A 1/4 degree reaim is permitted
in any direction at any test point.
* * * * *
S8.10 Chemical and corrosion resistance of reflectors of
replaceable lens headlamps.
S8.10.1 Chemical resistance. (a) The entire optical surface of the
reflector of the headlamp in the headlamp test fixture with the lens
removed shall be wiped once to the left and once to the right with a 6-
inch square soft cotton cloth (with pressure equally applied) which has
been saturated once in a container with 2 ounces of one of the test
fluids listed in paragraph (b). The lamp shall be wiped within 5
seconds after removal of the cloth from the test fluid.
(b) The test fluids are:
(1) Tar remover (consisting by volume of 45% xylene and 55%
petroleum base mineral spirits);
(2) Lacquer thinner; or
(3) Fluids other than water contained in the manufacturer's
instructions for cleaning the reflector.
(c) After the headlamp has been wiped with the test fluid, it shall
be stored in its designed operating attitude for 48 hours at a
temperature of 73 deg.F7 deg. (23 deg.C4 deg.)
and a relative humidity of 3010 percent. At the end of the
48-hour period, the headlamp shall be wiped clean with a soft dry
cotton cloth and visually inspected.
S8.10.2 Corrosion. (a) The headlamp with the lens removed,
unfixtured and in its designed operating attitude with all drain holes,
breathing devices or other designed openings in their normal operating
positions, shall be subjected to a salt spray (fog) test in accordance
with ASTM B117-73, Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing, for 24 hours,
while mounted in the middle of the chamber.
(b) Afterwards, the headlamp shall be stored in its designed
operating attitude for 48 hours at a temperature of
73 deg.F7 deg. (23 deg.C4 deg.) and a relative
humidity of 3010 percent and allowed to dry by natural
convection only. At the end of the 48-hour period, the reflector shall
be cleaned according to the instructions supplied with the headlamp
manufacturer's replacement lens, and inspected. The lens and seal shall
then be attached according to these instructions and the headlamp
tested for photometric performance.
Issued on November 9, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-28382 Filed 11-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
