[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57948-57953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28625]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57949]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 93-57; Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF00
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends Standard No. 108, the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard on lighting, to 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: The amendments are effective December 26, 1995.
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 seeking 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 (58 FR 42924). On the basis of comments received,
NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 21,
1994, to amend Standard No. 108 in the manner discussed in the Request
for Comments, for both integral beam and replaceable bulb headlamps
with the on-board aiming feature, provided that such headlamps meet
more rigorous environmental tests (59 FR 59975). The reader is referred
to those notices (Docket No. 93-57; Notices 1 and 2) for further
information on the background of this rulemaking action.
Proposed Amendments
In Notice 2, NHTSA proposed 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,
i.e., 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 would be the
manufacturer's certification that installation of the lens on the
headlamp for which it is intended would not create a noncompliance with
Standard No. 108. A new section was proposed, S8.10, that would add
chemical and corrosion resistance tests for reflectors of replaceable
lens headlamps. NHTSA also asked specific questions related to these
proposals.
Comments were received from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(``Advocates''), American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(``AAMA''), Chrysler Corporation (``Chrysler''), Ford Motor Company
(``Ford''), General Motors Corporation (``GM''), Koito Manufacturing,
Inc. (``Koito''), Mercedes-Benz of North America (``Mercedes''), and
Volvo of North America (``Volvo'').
AAMA, Chrysler, Ford, GM, Volvo and Koito supported the proposal in
its entirety. Because Mercedes offered a helpful suggestion (discussed
below), NHTSA interprets its comment as one of support. Hella, Bosch
and VW favored replaceable lenses but opposed requirements for improved
reflector durability. Advocates opposed the proposal.
General Comments
In paragraph S8.10.1, NHTSA proposed a chemical resistance test for
reflectors which would include lacquer thinner as one of the test
fluids. Mercedes suggested that mineral spirits be substituted because
lacquer thinner is becoming less common in shops, causes a fire hazard,
and may damage plastic reflectors and other parts. NHTSA believes that
lacquer thinner is still common in body shops which may be expected to
perform lens replacements. However, it is not appropriate to expose the
surface of the reflector to a substance likely to attack the plastic
base material of the reflector and other lamp components. Therefore, in
the final rule, NHTSA is substituting mineral spirits for lacquer
thinner. However, it would be appropriate for a manufacturer's lens
replacement instructions to warn against the use of cleaning agents
that would harm lamp components.
Having conducted the proposed type of corrosion test on a
production headlamp, Mercedes also asked that lamps be permitted to be
used with replaceable lenses if the lamps either show no visible
corrosion damage or continue to meet photometric requirements despite
visible corrosion damage. This comment appears based upon the
presumption that a one-day salt spray test is equivalent to a
reasonable worst case of reflector exposure over the life of a vehicle.
However, the agency has no evidence that reflectors which are subject
to corrosion will not degrade in service to a greater degree or in more
critical locations than do a limited number of samples which have
undergone a one-day severe exposure test. If a reflector cannot meet
the test criterion of no corrosion visible without magnification, in
NHTSA's view there can be no assurance that such a reflector is
essentially corrosion-proof for indeterminant exposures before lens
replacement after the lens is broken.
Hella, Bosch, and VW opposed requirements for improved reflector
durability. These commenters did not dispute the agency's assumption
that the reflectors of present replaceable bulb headlamps may degrade
when lens integrity is lost. However, they believe that new lenses will
not be installed on lamps with degraded reflectors, because either the
dealer will refuse to do so or the owner, guided by the operator's
manual, will not seek it. For much the same reasons, VW doubts that an
aftermarket demand for headlamp lenses will develop. NHTSA disagrees
with these comments. The rationale behind this rulemaking is to afford
a less expensive way of repairing headlamp damage, by replacement of
the lens alone rather than the entire lens reflector assembly. The
potential savings create an incentive on the part of the vehicle owner
to minimize replacement costs, and on the part of dealers or repair
shops to meet the vehicle owner's demands.
Advocates opposed the proposal. In its opinion, NHTSA's amendments
of Standard No. 108 since 1983 have reduced headlamp safety and thus is
reluctant to see another final rule which continues the trend. It
states that ``the agency has nothing in the record of this rulemaking
assessing the safety consequences of its proposed amendment to permit
replaceable lenses.'' Terming NHTSA's intended rulemaking effect as
``safety-neutral'', Advocates comments that the agency's arguments are
speculative and that NHTSA assumes that ``its additional testing
requirements coupled with good-faith installation design innovations
and directions to consumers will somehow offset any increase in
detrimental safety consequences.'' Advocates argues that these
assumptions are ``devoid of support in the record and, therefore, would
be considered by the courts to be
[[Page 57950]]
conclusory.'' In Advocates' view, ``where a pending decision arguably
has direct implications for vehicle and traffic safety, the agency must
evaluate the issue with sufficient empirical evidence in the record to
support its decision.'' In support of this argument, it cites Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety v. Federal Highway Administration, 28 F.3d
1288 (D.C. Cir. 1994) at 1294, quoting Competitive Enterprise Institute
v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 956 F.2d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1992):
``The (agency), however, cannot `ma[ke] conclusory assertions that its
decision have no safety impact at all'.''
In responding to Advocates, NHTSA first observes that neither of
the cases cited above construed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, whose successor, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, is the authority
for the present rulemaking. The former case involves actions of the
Federal Highway Administration; the latter, actions under this agency's
statutory provisions relating to fuel economy standards.
Under Chapter 301, NHTSA's Federal motor vehicle safety standards
are ``minimum standards for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
performance'', and must ``meet the need for motor vehicle safety.''
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles
to have headlighting systems meeting specified safety performance
levels. A headlamp system may consist of sealed beam headlamps (a
manufacturer may choose between seven different systems), replaceable
bulb headlamps (at least six different types at present), combination
headlamp systems (a mixture of sealed beam and replaceable bulb
headlamps), and integral beam headlamps (headlamps other than sealed
beam or replaceable bulb types). The Standard formerly contained design
specifications which restricted headlamps to two sizes of sealed beam
headlamps. NHTSA has only permitted an additional type of headlamp
system after first satisfying itself that the new system would provide
at least the same minimum level of safety performance required of those
existing systems that are certified as meeting Standard No. 108. In
this sense, NHTSA's headlamp rulemakings have indeed been ``safety
neutral.''
The present rulemaking carves out a very narrow exception to the
existing requirement that replaceable bulb headlamps and integral beam
headlamps have lenses bonded to the reflector assembly. To ensure that
the amended standard continues to ``meet the need for motor vehicle
safety,'' NHTSA has imposed requirements to counter any potential
negative effects upon safety. First, to ensure the ability of a
headlamp to be aimed properly after lens replacement, the amendment is
restricted to headlamps with on-board aiming devices. Second, to ensure
the ability to install properly a replacement lens, the lens
manufacturer is required to provide 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. Finally, to ensure
the integrity of the reflector after exposure in an unsealed
environment, new durability tests are prescribed for the reflector.
NHTSA agrees that it does not have empirical evidence indicating
how headlamps designed to conform to Standard No. 108 would perform
with replaceable lenses. Such evidence is not available because
headlamps with replaceable lenses have not been permitted in the United
States. The agency believes that the requirements for on-board aiming
devices, instructions, and durability testing contained in the final
rule will result in an overall level of safety that is not less than
the level of safety provided by headlamps with non-replaceable lenses.
NHTSA believes that the discussions and analysis in this rulemaking
action provide adequate support for the amendment.
The following discussion centers around four questions NHTSA asked
in the proposal and the responses received. The discussion also
indicates the points at which the final rule responds to these
comments.
1. Whether the moisture of the ASTM B 117-73 salt spray test, when
conducted for 24 hours, is sufficient to test the moisture resistance
of headlamp reflectors. If not, what test would be sufficient?
Because a cracked lens frequently causes a lamp to partially fill
with water, NHTSA proposed a salt spray test to be conducted on a
headlamp with its lens removed. In its response to the previous request
for comments (58 FR 42924), Ford cited separately the need to test for
corrosion resistance and for moisture resistance. Since the corrosion
test proposed by the agency features considerable moisture, NHTSA asked
if that test would also satisfy the need for testing moisture
resistance for aspects other than corrosion. Ford commented that the
moisture content and duration of the proposed corrosion test was indeed
sufficient to test for moisture resistance.
2. Whether the proposed corrosion test is also acceptable to
demonstrate the abrasion resistance of headlamp reflectors.
The dust test that applies to replaceable bulb headlamps utilizes
Portland cement as the agent. But it is conducted on the outside of
lamps with the lens and bulbs in place. The abrasion of principal
concern in this instance would occur when the reflector was being
cleaned in the process of replacing the lens. In the belief that the
proposed corrosion test would coat the reflector with salt deposits,
and that the subsequent cleaning would provide the appropriate abrasion
test, NHTSA asked whether, in fact, a 24-hour salt spray test would
deposit enough salt for this purpose, and whether a particular method
of salt removal should be specified or left to the manufacturer's
instructions included with a replacement lens. The agency also asked
whether both a Portland cement dust test and corrosion test should be
conducted. It also asked whether a direct abrasion test would be more
appropriate (contrasted with the indirect one of cleaning an agent from
the reflector), and, if so, what procedure would be appropriate.
Ford concurred in the agency's belief that the salt spray test
alone would be adequate to demonstrate abrasion resistance. It also
commented that the salt should be removed according to the
manufacturer's instructions to consumers for cleaning reflectors. Koito
commented that the corrosion and chemical resistance tests could
substitute for a dust test. Mercedes also concurred, with the comment
that it found the deposited salts difficult to remove (and NHTSA found
evidence of scratches on the reflector that Mercedes had cleaned). This
comment confirms NHTSA's belief that the proposed test is adequate to
demonstrate abrasion resistance of the reflector, and is amending the
standard as proposed.
Although the standard is being amended to specify salt removal
according to the manufacturer's instructions, the agency will
reconsider the point if the instructions impose unrealistic burdens
upon consumers or serve to defeat the intent of the test. Examples of
such instructions are ones that would call for the removal of the
headlamp from the vehicle for cleaning the reflector or for the use of
methods, such as ultrasonic cleaning, which are unrealistically gentle.
3. Whether the duration of the proposed test is sufficient to test
reflectors and the metal light shields sometime used; appropriate
criteria for testing light shields; stains from corroded light shields.
[[Page 57951]]
Ford commented that it had no specific test data using the proposed
corrosion test procedure for headlamp reflectors, but that it believed
such a test would be sufficient to provide adequate assurance that the
reflective surface is robust enough to withstand exposure to
environmental conditions due to a cracked or otherwise damaged lens.
The sufficiency of the proposed test appears borne out by the fact that
the Mercedes lamp did not meet the test criterion after being subjected
to the 24-hour salt spray and 48-hour drying time.
Ford commented that rusty water stains would most likely affect the
bottom of the reflector which has little influence on the beam.
However, NHTSA's random observation of headlamps on vehicles in use
show clear examples in which a corroded light shield has deposited
extensive rust stains over the active part of the reflector as well as
at the bottom. Even a small puncture of the lens can result in
sufficient water entering the headlamp to splash over and stain much of
the reflector if rust is present. Thus, NHTSA is adopting its proposed
prohibition on metal light shield corrosion.
Koito remarked that the beam is mostly insensitive to light shield
corrosion and that corrosion within \1/8\ inch of sharp edges should be
discounted. Koito also asked that NHTSA define the optical surface of
the reflector to exclude parts that do not contribute to the headlamp
beam and parts which affect other lighting functions.
The agency agrees with Koito that the NPRM was not specific enough
about the area of the reflector to be inspected for corrosion.
Certainly the back of the reflector and parts covered by the lamp body
have no optical role even though they may have a shiny plating. But it
would be unwise to define the important parts of the reflector too
narrowly. Parts that are blacked out, for example, would cause glare if
their finish were lost to corrosion. A reasonable specification of the
part of the reflector to be inspected includes all areas of the
reflector exposed to light from the headlamp light source. Thus, with
respect to integral beam headlighting systems, NHTSA is amending
S7.4(g)(3) as proposed, but adding the requirement that after corrosion
tests conducted in accordance with S8.10.2, ``there shall be no
evidence of corrosion or rust visible without magnification on any part
of the headlamp reflector that receives light from a headlamp light
source, on any metal light or heat shield assembly, or on a metal
reflector of any other lamp not sealed from the headlamp reflector.''
The prohibitions against metal corrosion are intended to prevent the
staining of otherwise satisfactory reflectors.
4. Whether the present salt spray test of replaceable bulb
headlamps with lenses attached is sufficient to qualify reflectors for
use with replaceable lenses without further environmental testing.
Ford commented that the present test is likely to be insufficient
to replicate the possible exposure of lamps with damaged lenses prior
to repair since it is conducted with the lens attached, thus sparing
the reflector direct exposure to the elements. NHTSA agrees, and finds
this a further reason in support of the corrosion and abrasion
resistance tests adopted in the final rule.
Hella, Bosch, and VW commented that improved reflectors are not
necessary because warnings placed in the owners manual and the actions
of dealers are sufficient to prevent the releasing of degraded lamps.
NHTSA disagrees with these comments; as was noted above, a vehicle
owner is more likely to replace a lens than a lens reflector assembly
because of cost savings. Therefore, an improved reflector is required
to assure its ability to resist exposure to the environment during the
period of lost lens integrity.
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. Bosch submitted data demonstrating that repeated lens
changes did not change the photometrics of the lamp; this 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.
Effective Date
The effective date of the final rule is December 26, 1995. Because
the final rule permits an option to an existing requirement, and an
early effective date will permit the benefits of the final rule to be
immediately available, it is hereby 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 is 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
the final rule may result in higher prices attributable to an improved
reflector, NHTSA believes that this will not add more than a few
dollars to the retail price of the type of headlamp which presently
costs $250 to $600. This initial cost increase could be more than
offset by reduced repair costs during the life of the vehicle or the
headlamp. These cost impacts are so minimal that the 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 the final
rule based will 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 will 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. 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
[[Page 57952]]
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
This final rule has no retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103,
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 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 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.108 [Amended]
2. Section 571.108 is amended as follows:
a. The definitions of ``Integral Beam Headlamp'' and ``Replaceable
Bulb Headlamp'' in Paragraph S4 are revised as set forth below.
b. Paragraphs S5.8.11, S7.2(e), S8.10.1 and S8.10.2 are 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
are revised to read as set forth below.
Sec. 571.108 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 a headlamp incorporating a
vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2 may have a lens
designed to be replaceable. 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 a headlamp incorporating a vehicle headlamp aiming device
conforming to S7.8.5.2 may have a lens designed to be replaceable. 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). A headlamp with a nonreplaceable glass lens
need not meet the chemical resistance test (S8.3). A headlamp with a
glass lens and a non-plastic reflector 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.l, 4.l.2, 4.4 and 5.l.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 and are used for purposes other than headlighting.
(h) * * *
* * * * *
(2) After the chemical resistance tests of paragraphs S8.3 and
S8.10.1, the headlamp shall have 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 a corrosion test conducted in accordance with paragraph
S8.4, there shall be no evidence of external or internal corrosion or
rust visible without magnification. After a corrosion test conducted in
accordance with paragraph S8.10.2, there shall be no evidence of
corrosion or rust visible without magnification on any part of the
headlamp reflector that receives light from a headlamp light source, on
any metal light or heat shield assembly, or on a metal reflector of any
other lamp not sealed from the headlamp reflector. Loss of adhesion of
any applied coating shall not occur more than 0.l25 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
[[Page 57953]]
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) With the headlamp in the headlamp
test fixture and the lens removed, the entire surface of the reflector
that receives light from a headlamp light source 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) Mineral spirits; 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.F 7 deg. (23 deg.C
4 deg.) and a relative humidity of 30 10 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.F
7 deg. (23 deg.C 4 deg.) and a relative
humidity of 30 10 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 16, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-28625 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
