[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46064-46067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21865]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 94-37; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF 22
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 adopts amendments to the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard on lighting to replace the currently incorporated SAE
J576c with the more recent SAE J576 JUL91 as the referenced standard on
plastics materials, to replace ASTM D 1003-61 with the more recent ASTM
D 1003-92 in the test procedures, and to allow alternative processing
techniques, sample sizes and thickness tolerances to those presently
specified. These amendments represent the choice of Option 1 from the
notice of proposed rulemaking published in November 1994.
DATES: The effective date of the final rule is March 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of
Rulemaking, NHTSA (202-366-6987).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Heraeus DSET Laboratories, Inc. (``DSET''),
of Phoenix, Arizona, petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Specifically, DSET asked that paragraph S5.1.2 be
amended ``to update the test specimen processing requirements of
plastic material used for optical parts such as lenses and
reflectors.'' Currently, these materials are required to conform to
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J576c, May
1970. DSET wants NHTSA
to allow alternative processing techniques besides injection molding
to produce test specimens, to allow test specimen sizes other than a
3 inch diameter disc and to change the specimen thickness tolerances
from 0.005 inch to .010 inch.
Those requirements for injection molding and for the diameter and
thickness of the test specimen are set forth in J576c, May 1970.
NHTSA granted the petition and published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in response to it on November 2, 1994 (59 FR 54881). The
notice proposed two alternative amendments of S5.1.2 as a means of
implementing its grant of DSET's petition. The agency asked commenters
for their views on each of the alternatives.
Option 1. This option would substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for SAE
J576c, May 1970, and make conforming amendments in the text of S5.1.2.
Option 1 would also replace American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D 1003-61 with ASTM D 1003-92 with respect to measurement of
haze (which, as currently specified, would not exceed 7 percent). A
specimen thickness tolerance of 0.25 mm (0.010 in.) would
also be allowed as there is no technical reason to limit the test
specimen thickness tolerance to 0.005 in., and the value
proposed by NHTSA as recommended by DSET appears to be a more
reasonable tolerance for test specimens.
Option 2. This option would retain the current SAE and ASTM
specifications but would allow processing techniques other than
injection molding to produce equivalent test specimens, test specimens
other than a disc of 3-inch diameter, and a test specimen thickness
tolerance of 0.010 inch.
Seven comments were received, five of which supported Option 1.
These were from Flxible Corporation (``Flxible''), Transportation
Safety Equipment Institute (``TSEI''), Robert Bosch, GmbH (``Bosch''),
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (``AAMA''), and Ford
Motor Company (``Ford''). Miles, Inc. opposed Option 1 and supported
Option 2. The Plastics Division of General Electric Corporation
(``GE'') did not express a preference for either alternative.
Each of the commenters supporting Option 1 had a different concern.
Flxible suggested that NHTSA adopt the base number of each SAE and ASTM
standard/recommended practice, with the suffix notation ``Latest
Revision.'' In the company's view, this would eliminate the need to
revise older materials and ensure that the safety standards reflect
contemporary industry practice.
While this is an attractive notion, there are legal constraints
against it. The SAE and ASTM materials per se are only guidelines and
advisory in nature. Once they are incorporated into the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, they become ``the law of the land'', and a
manufacturer must comply with them or face civil sanctions. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act, a regulation imposing a substantive
burden cannot be adopted in the absence of adequate public notice and
an opportunity to comment. Under the approach suggested by Flxible,
automatic updating of the safety standards to incorporate the latest
SAE and ASTM revisions would occur with no prior public notice or
opportunity to comment, and hence violate the Administrative Procedure
Act. Further, NHTSA has found that many updated and revised materials
change the previous materials in substantive ways. Some changes may not
be in the interests of safety; the elimination of the heat test from
SAE J576 JUL91 is one example of this. Other changes may increase,
rather than reduce, a substantive burden upon industry. Regulated
persons and the public must
[[Page 46065]]
be apprised of these changes before they are adopted.
NHTSA may, however, adopt an updated version without prior notice
where there appears to be no substantive change since such an adoption
is in the nature of a technical amendment. The agency is adopting an
updated version in this final rule on the basis of a comment from TSEI.
Under proposed paragraph S5.1.2(e), after exposure to the heat test,
the samples shall conform to the color requirements of SAE J578a
October 1966. TSEI pointed out that current paragraph S5.1.5 references
SAE J578c February 1977. It recommended that NHTSA change both
references to the specification of J578 MAY88.
NHTSA has compared the 1988 and 1977 versions of J578 with that of
1966. It finds no substantive difference between the 1966 and 1977
versions. The 1988 version, however, contains a third method of color
measurement to be used ``as a referee approach when the commonly used
methods produce questionable results.'' In addition, the Appendix in
the latter has added a section of ``Color Measurements of Gaseous
Discharge Lighting Devices.'' NHTSA ought to have comment on these
changes before adopting SAE J578 MAY88, and, for this reason, has not
followed TSEI's suggestion. On the other hand, because of the lack of
substantive change between the other two versions, paragraph S5.1.2(e)
is added with an update of the J578 reference to 1977 from the 1966
version which was proposed.
The wording of present paragraph S5.2.1 concerned Ford and AAMA.
Under this paragraph, phrases such as ``It is recommended that'' and
``should be,'' which appear in materials incorporated by reference, are
to be read as setting forth mandatory requirements. Ford and AAMA
commented that these phrases should not be interpreted as applying to
SAE J576 JUL91. In NHTSA's view, the result of adopting Ford's and
AAMA's comments would be to make compliance of plastic materials used
for optical parts a voluntary affair. This would defeat the purpose of
the rulemaking.
Proposed paragraph S5.1.2(e) would require test samples, after the
heat test, to ``show no discernable change in shape and general
appearance when compared with an unexposed specimen.'' This language
comes from J576 itself, with the exception that the SAE uses
``significant'' rather than ``discernable.'' Ford and AAMA objected to
this substitution, arguing that it would establish a higher standard to
be met by plastics, and that there is no need to change language that
has been a requirement for years. They recommended use of the word
``significant.'' In their view, a change that is ``discernable'' is not
necessarily one that is ``significant.''
In its proposal, NHTSA had no intention of increasing the burden on
any regulated party. The agency proposed the word ``discernable'' with
care, because it is objective, while ``significant'' is not. Motor
vehicle safety standards are required by law to be ``objective'', 49
U.S.C. 30111(a). The agency has concluded that ``discernable'' is more
appropriate for a requirement specifically expressed in the text of
Standard No. 108 (as compared with one incorporated by reference).
However, NHTSA wishes to make clear that it views the words as
essentially synonymous in this context. If a post-test change in shape
or general appearance is discernable, NHTSA considers that to be
significant. Such a change indicates the potential for degradation of a
lens in use, with a corresponding effect upon color and photometrics of
the lamp on which it is installed. To add even greater objectivity, the
final rule expresses the requirement as ``discernable to the naked
eye.'' Should a change be discernable to the naked eye after testing,
and a manufacturer believe that such a change is not ``significant,''
the manufacturer may file a Part 573 Noncompliance Notification Report
simultaneously with an application to NHTSA for a determination that
the change resulting from that testing is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
GE did not choose between the alternatives in its comment. It did,
however, recommend the adoption of SAE J576 JUL91 in its entirety, and
that NHTSA not carry over the heat test from the previous version of
J576. In its view, the heat tests of SAE J575 are adequate until
further work is done on thermal issues suitable for incorporation into
J576.
Having considered the comments in response to the NPRM, NHTSA is
amending Standard No. 108 to add the two new paragraphs proposed,
maintaining the performance requirements required of plastic materials
by SAE J576c for the heat test and specifying positioning of test
samples during the test. These have been omitted by the SAE from J576
JUL91. NHTSA has chosen to retain the existing heat test as one that is
familiar to industry and one which meets the need for motor vehicle
safety. It is a minimum requirement, intended to establish a margin of
safety between the temperatures at which plastic reflectors and lenses
may fail from internal heat, and temperatures on the exterior surface
induced by exposure to sunlight. Lamp manufacturers use J575 or similar
tests to determine whether the particular design characteristics of
their lamps require use of premium materials in the lenses. It is a
test of the finished lens as installed on the lamp, rather than a test
of the materials used in finished products. Use of material with
insufficient high temperature performance can result in reflectors that
lose color and reflectivity.
The positioning of test samples will allow the sample to droop if
its strength is adversely affected by the test.
In order to retain the current 3-year outdoor exposure time test
requirements for plastic lenses used or covered by another material and
not exposed directly to sunlight, NHTSA is adding a new paragraph
S5.1.2(g) to specify that paragraph 3.3.3.1 of SAE J576 JUL91 does not
apply as regards protected materials. For the same reason, NHTSA is not
adopting paragraph 3.3.3.2. of SAE J576 JUL91 which allows an
accelerated 6-month outdoor exposure test time. New paragraph S5.1.2(g)
will not change the stringency or flexibility of the standard as it
exists, but will ensure that the integrity of plastic materials is
maintained by not permitting a lesser exposure time for materials which
may be protected when in use.
Miles, Inc., a manufacturer of polycarbonate resin used as a
material in lenses and reflectors, objected to Option 1. In its view,
this alternative places an additional testing burden on the resin
manufacturer, as compared with the present requirements. For this
reason, it supported Option 2. Specifically, Miles opposes SAE J576
JUL91 because of Section 3.1 Materials to be Tested. This section
reads:
Outdoor exposure tests shall be made on each material * * *
offered for use in optical parts * * *. Concentrations of polymer
components and additives such as plasticizer, lubricants, colorants,
weathering stabilizers, and antioxidants in plastic materials and/or
coatings may be changed without outdoor exposure testing if: the
changes are within the limits of composition represented by higher
and lower concentrations of these polymer components and additives
have been tested in accordance with 3.3 and found to meet the
requirements of Section 4.
Miles interprets this language to mean that changes in dye
concentrations would only be permissible if samples containing lower
and higher concentrations of dye had been exposure tested. Miles
believes that this, in effect, would double the samples to
[[Page 46066]]
be tested when compared with the present requirements.
The present requirements are those of section 3.1 of SAE J576c, May
1970. These state, in pertinent part, that ``[a] test of one color and
formulation shall cover variations in dye concentration, but shall not
cover changes in dye materials or changes in polymers.'' Miles
interprets this as meaning that a new exposure test need not be
conducted under the 1970 version if the only change in the product is a
variation in dye concentration. Its present practice is to test for
exposure materials incorporating new dyes only at the expected
concentration level of the dye. One exposure test covers each new dye,
but Miles will accept the test results as valid when there are small
variations in dye concentration.
Miles is correct that SAE J576c allows a single test to cover
variations in dye concentration. SAE J576 JUL91 may be interpreted as
calling for the testing of two samples by specifying that dye
concentrations in material to be used in motor vehicle optical parts
must fall within the upper and lower limits of dye concentrations
tested if there are variations in dye concentration. Miles believes the
newer requirement will double its testing burden.
NHTSA does not agree that this is the inevitable result of the
adoption of this portion of SAE J576 JUL 91. What paragraph S5.1.2 is
intended to ensure is that lenses and reflectors, as manufactured for
use on motor vehicles, are fabricated from plastic materials that meet
SAE J576. The key issue is whether the equipment satisfies the
performance requirements of the standard, not the number of tests
conducted on the materials used in the equipment. Ultimately, the
manufacturer of the vehicle in certifying compliance with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, is certifying that
the lenses and reflectors on the vehicle are made from plastics
materials that meet J576. If the lens or reflector is manufactured as
replacement equipment, the certification responsibility is that of the
manufacturer of the equipment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the vehicle
or equipment manufacturer to assure itself that the materials it
obtains from the plastics manufacturer comply with SAE J576 (and,
furthermore, not to change the composition of the plastics materials so
obtained in a manner that would cause it to be noncomplying). The
documentation needed for such assurance, including the quantum of
testing performed by the plastics manufacturer and by the vehicle or
equipment manufacturer, is a decision that each equipment or vehicle
manufacturer must make under the particular circumstances. NHTSA, of
course, expects manufacturers to exercise reasonable care in certifying
their products, and, in the event of a noncompliance, the manufacturer
may claim that it had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable
care, that the vehicle or equipment failed to comply. However, the
allocation of that responsibility is a matter of contract between the
manufacturer with the Federal certification responsibility and its
plastic materials supplier. Plastic materials are not completed items
of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108 so the Federal
certification responsibility does not fall upon Miles. If Miles or
other materials manufacturers are satisfied, based on their extensive
experience with dyes, that changes in dye concentration would not cause
the plastic material to fail the specified performance requirements,
they may be able to persuade their purchasers that additional testing
is not needed.
Effective Date
The effective date of the final rule is March 1, 1996.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
This final rule was not 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 update testing procedures. Since
the final rule will have no significant cost or other impacts,
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. The final rule will not have a significant effect upon the
environment. The composition of plastic materials used in optical parts
will not change from those presently in production.
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 does 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 motor vehicle equipment,
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 will not be
significantly affected because the price of new vehicles and vehicle
equipment will not be impacted.
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. The final rule will not have any 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. 49 U.S.C. 30161 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 citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising paragraph S5.1.2, to read
as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment.
* * * * *
S5.1.2 Plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and
reflectors shall conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91, except
that:
(a) Plastic lenses (other than those incorporating reflex
reflectors) used for inner lenses or those covered by another material
and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JULY91 when covered by the outer
lens or other material;
(b) After the outdoor exposure test, the haze and loss of surface
luster of
[[Page 46067]]
plastic materials (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors)
used for outer lenses shall not be greater than 30 percent haze as
measured by ASTM D 1003-92, Haze and Luminous Transmittance of
Transparent Plastic;
(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 1003-92.
(d) The thickness of the test specimens specified in paragraph
3.2.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 may vary by as much as 0.25 mm.
(e) After exposure to the heat test as specified in subparagraph
(f) of this paragraph, and after cooling to room ambient temperature, a
test specimen shall show no change in shape and general appearance
discernable to the naked eye when compared with an unexposed specimen.
The trichromatic coefficients of the samples shall conform to the
requirements of SAE J578c, ``Color Specification for Electric Signal
Lighting Devices'', February 1977.
(f) Two samples of each thickness of each plastic material are used
in the heat test. Each sample is supported at the bottom, with at least
51 mm. of the sample above the support, in the vertical position in
such a manner that, on each side, the minimum uninterrupted area of
exposed surface is not less than 3225 sq. mm. The samples are placed
for two hours in a circulating air oven at 79 3 degrees C.
(g) All outdoor exposure tests shall be 3 years in duration,
whether the material is exposed or protected. Accelerated weathering
procedures are not permitted.
* * * * *
Issued on August 29, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-21865 Filed 9-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
