[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 136 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36378-36380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17434]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition from Koito Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. for rulemaking to permit an alternative performance requirement
(allowing permissible moisture presence) for certain types of headlamps
after completion of the humidity test. The humidity test of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment, was shortened in duration in 1991 to accommodate
another petition from Koito; thus, this petition is somewhat
repetitive. The requirement of no visible moisture inside the headlamp
has existed for replaceable bulb headlamps since their inception in
1983. The claim by Koito that the requirement is not a performance
standard but a design standard is without merit. Koito's proposed
supplementary corrosion test for headlamps with visible moisture
present after a humidity test does not seem to support its claim of no
long-term photometric degradation in these headlamps passing the test.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking,
NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Medlin's
telephone number is: (202) 366-5276; FAX (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 19, 1995, Koito Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. (Koito) petitioned for a change to the humidity test performance
requirements for replaceable bulb, integral beam, and some types of
combination headlighting systems. The present humidity performance
requirement originated in 1983 and requires that no evidence of
delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation be present to the eye
(without magnification) upon completion of the humidity test sequence.
Koito proposed an alternative requirement for those headlamps that
cannot pass this requirement. Koito did not provide any test data to
substantiate its claim that there is no long-term performance
degradation in photometric
[[Page 36379]]
output from allowing moisture in headlamps over long periods. Koito
claims that such headlamps perform adequately in Europe and Japan.
In 1991, the humidity test was changed as a result of a petition by
Koito and Robert Bosch GmbH. The duration of the test was shortened
from 20 consecutive 6-hour cycles to 24 consecutive 3-hour cycles; the
photometric test immediately after the humidity test was deleted and
other test details were changed. The sole remaining requirement was
that ``the headlamp show no evidence of delamination or moisture,
fogging or condensation visible without magnification.''
Now, Koito states that the requirement that no visible moisture be
present inside the headlamp following the humidity test is a design
restriction and that the criteria are excessively stringent ``design
standards'' as opposed to ``performance standards.''
Koito also states that the present humidity test requirement causes
it to design its headlamps with long vent tubes, which it states has
increased the cost to the consumer. Koito furnished no data to support
its claim of increased costs or burden.
Koito recommended that the new corrosion test set forth in Docket
No. 93-57; Notice 2, (59 FR 59975 of November 21, 1994) be applied to
lamps failing the humidity test. In that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
the agency proposed only for replaceable lens headlamps, to set forth
additional requirements for headlamps that would have replaceable
lenses. Such lamps would be designed not to corrode if the interiors
were exposed briefly to the outside environment until such time that a
lens replacement occurred (lens replacement is not now permitted). That
lens replacement proposal had an additional chemical resistance test on
the reflector, an additional 24-hour salt spray and 48-hour storage
tests (all with the lens removed), and a cleaning test in accordance
with the instructions supplied by the manufacturer with the headlamp. A
final amendment to FMVSS No. 108 on this subject has not been issued
yet.
In response to Koito's claims, NHTSA's technical review follows.
Regarding the claim that headlamps that have visible moisture that are
in use in Europe and Japan perform adequately, those regions have a
greater preponderance of vehicle inspection performed than in the
United States (U.S.) Timely headlamp replacement after failure is
assisted by the routine inspection process. As a consequence, history
has shown that the dominant cause of headlamp inspection failure and
lamp replacement in Europe has been corroded reflectors. While it is
possible that this situation may have changed, NHTSA is not aware of
any change. The U.S. permitted replaceable bulb headlamps that are
conceptually similar to those in Europe and Japan on the premise that
headlamps introduced into the U.S. market would not exhibit the
traditionally poor resistance to environmental degradation that had
been typical of non-U.S. code headlamps. Additionally, because of the
fewer and less thorough inspections in the U.S., there is the
likelihood that lamps of reduced or failed performance would continue
to be used on U.S. highways in greater numbers than in Europe or Japan.
Thus, Koito's claim that adequate performance can be achieved by using
lamps of non-U.S. market design is not substantiated.
Koito did not provide any data to show that headlamps would not
eventually degrade over the life of the vehicle when they are
occasionally or perpetually wet from moisture that is purposefully
allowed to be in the interior of the lamp. The existence of visible
moisture as an acceptable operational condition for headlamps is
contrary to all State and Federal efforts to date to maintain a safe
level of headlamp illumination performance, against a history of
environmental degradation. It is difficult to accept that water in
headlamps is not deleterious to headlamp performance; although, if lamp
cost is no object, then it is conceivable that headlamps could be made
to perform under such duress. NHTSA is not convinced that the public is
ready to accept or understand that it is acceptable for water to be in
certain headlamps and not be in others.
This is the second time that Koito has requested that the humidity
requirements be amended to accommodate its needs. The last time was
four years ago. While the present request is of a subtly different
nature, the fact is that it is repetitive in nature: the humidity test
prevents Koito from selling a design that cannot comply with the
humidity requirements. NHTSA is not persuaded by Koito's claims that it
is prevented from selling headlamps that have acceptable performance.
The standard's requirements determine acceptable performance for the
U.S. Unsubstantiated claims of real-world performance in some other
region of the world, cannot be used as a basis for changing U.S. safety
standards.
Koito claims that the present requirement is design restrictive and
establishes a design and not a performance standard. The requirement is
intended to address a headlamp's susceptibility to the ingress of
moisture, which over the life of the lamp will cause deterioration of
the lamp's photometric performance. The requirement is not solely for
the purpose of testing in the instant the loss or failure of
photometric performance as Koito believes. The test was never intended
to simulate a lifetime of heating/cooling/dry/wet events that could
occur with a lamp installed on a real vehicle. The test appears to
discriminate well against lamps that are susceptible to the ingress of
moisture, as evidenced by Koito's concern that traditional Japanese and
European headlamp designs, susceptible to interior damage, cannot
comply. While the test can be characterized as restrictive of certain
headlamp designs, it is because those design cannot meet the
performance demanded of them for passing the test. NHTSA does not view
the requirement as a design standard, because the standard does not
dictate to lamp manufacturers the design characteristics which they
must choose. Manufacturers have complete freedom of design as long as
the performance (not allowing moisture) is met.
Koito claims that the newly proposed corrosion test for headlamps
that have removable lenses is an appropriate requirement for lamps to
pass should they first fail the present humidity test. This is an
incorrect application of that requirement. The newly proposed corrosion
test is to address a headlamp's susceptibility to corrosion from the
effects of having a broken lens. The exposure time due to a broken lens
may vary widely case to case, but it is not continual for the life of
the vehicle. This corrosion test is not an adequate requirement for
headlamps that by their design could have very open interiors, as if
they had broken lenses, over their entire existence. A very different
and more stringent requirement would appear to be appropriate for such
lamps. However, such a test would not determine lamps' susceptibility
to condensing moisture that could disrupt photometry in the instant.
Thus, it does not fulfill the safety need either.
In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's
technical review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there
is no reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking
proceeding. The possible value of the requested amendment is
particularly small in view of the petitioner's ability to build
complying headlamps under the existing requirements and the lack of any
inhibition in the standard against
[[Page 36380]]
innovative solutions for achieving compliance. After considering all
relevant factors, including the need to allocate and prioritize scarce
agency resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the
agency has decided to deny the petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: July 12, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-17434 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
