Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93-15; Notice 2]

RIN 2127-AE38

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Lamps, Reflective Devices,

and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

108 to specify that plastic materials used in reflex reflectors show

not more than 7 percent haze after a 3-year outdoor exposure test, a

level at which haze becomes discernable to the naked eye. This

amendment will not change the stringency of the standard as it has been

applied, but it will increase its objectivity. NHTSA has not adopted

its proposal that cumulative haze not exceed 7 percent when a plastic

lens is placed in front of a reflex reflector. Instead, the same haze

criterion is applied to the reflex reflector and outer lens material.

This approach will limit cumulative haze to about the same level

without the need to retest current materials.

DATES: The amendment is effective November 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Rulemaking

(202-366-6346).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sierra Products of Livermore, California

(``Sierra'') filed a ``Petition to Amend FMVSS 108 Updating Weather &

Heat Testing of Vehicle Lights & Reflectors.'' In granting the

petition, NHTSA considered that three principal issues and several

lesser issues merited public consideration and comment. An appropriate

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published on March 9, 1993,

and an opportunity afforded for comment (58 FR 13042). Its primary

subject concerned the permissibility of a minimum amount of haze. NHTSA

noted that if any of the other issues merited the initiation of

rulemaking, a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking would follow.

Comments on the NPRM were received from Trucklite, Truck Safety

Equipment Institute (TSEI), American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA), 3M, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company,

General Motors Corporation (GM), Japan Auto Parts Industries

Association (JAPIA), Peterson Manufacturing, Thomas Loughran, and

General Electric Plastics (GEP).

1. Haze Limit for Reflex Reflectors

The principal issue of the NPRM concerned the permissible amount of

haze after outdoor exposure testing of reflex reflectors. S5.1.2 of

Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for plastic materials used

for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors. One of the

requirements (subsection (c)) is that plastic materials used for reflex

reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of

SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, after the 3-year exposure

test specified in the Recommended Practice. Paragraph 4.2.2 states in

pertinent part that ``The exposed samples, when compared with the

unexposed control samples, shall not show * * * haze * * *.'' Whether a

sample shows haze has traditionally been determined by whether haze is

visible to the naked eye. However, all plastics will develop an amount

of haze during the weathering test that may not be visible to the naked

eye, but which is measurable by instrumentation.

General Electric, the manufacturer of ``Lexan,'' a polycarbonate

plastic resin used in reflex reflectors, has stated that its

polycarbonate plastic will not pass the weathering test for reflector

material unless the reflex reflector manufacturer coats the finished

product with an optical coating approved by GE. In its latest revision

of J576, SAE has replaced the visual inspection criterion for haze with

a 7-percent haze limit for measurement with a hazometer. The committee

recommending the change considered the new procedure equivalent to the

previous practice but more objective. Properly coated polycarbonates

develop about 6 percent haze, and acrylics develop about 3 percent haze

in exposure tests conducted in Florida. Such products are certified

under the present test and will remain in compliance. NHTSA notes that

7 percent haze is not difficult to discern visually.

Neither Standard No. 108 nor SAE J576c ``requires'' coating,

although that process may, in fact, be the most practicable way to meet

the requirements of both. The present requirement may imply the absence

of haze after weathering, but an absolute requirement of zero haze is

neither practicable nor appropriate. Industry studies used by the SAE

Lighting Committee have demonstrated that degradation of reflex

reflector performance can be limited to less than 17 percent by

preventing haze in excess of 7 percent, but that degradation increases

rapidly with further haze to a loss of over 80 percent of initial

performance at 21 percent haze. To control reflex reflector degradation

and to make the haze test more objective, the SAE amended its

Recommended Practice to establish a maximum allowable limit of 7

percent haze for plastics used for reflex reflectors.

The proposal was opposed by AAMA, Ford, Chrysler, GM, and JAPIA.

AAMA (supported in these views by Ford, Chrysler, GM, and GEP) believes

that the rulemaking is premature for two reasons. The first is that

``the agency has not identified any safety problem arising from

inadequacies'' in the existing requirement. The second is that ``there

is no currently available information [to motor vehicle manufacturers]

that relates haze test data for plastic materials currently used to the

performance of reflex reflectors.'' It recommended that the agency

withdraw its NPRM and issue an ANPRM on the subject. The comments of

JAPIA were similar in that it requested an effective date for the final

rule 5 years after its issuance to review its appropriateness.

NHTSA disagrees that the rulemaking is premature. The purpose of

the rulemaking is to ensure that an existing requirement will more

closely conform to that portion of the statutory definition of a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard that it ``provides objective

criteria.'' (15 U.S.C. 1391(2)). The ``inadequacy'', to use AAMA's

term, of the existing requirement is that it is subjective. As for the

second argument, the SAE considered industry data on reflector

performance with various haze filters fitted in front of a reflex

reflector to quantify performance loss with increased haze, and it

reported a subjective demonstration test also using haze filters (haze

filters were used in the experiments rather than reflectors in various

weathered states because reflector facets prevent the use of a

hazeometer to measure the degree of haze). NHTSA believes that the

needs for safety are met by the current requirement that plastic

materials used in optical parts such as lenses meet the weathering

test. Absent any treatment of the raw materials that affects its

ability to meet J576 (see discussion below), optical parts fashioned

from complying plastic materials ought to have the same haze

resistance.

AAMA also commented that the proposal would increase the stringency

of haze requirements: ``[w]hereas the current Standard calls for no

visually-perceptible change in haze resulting from outdoor exposure,

the proposed revision would set a limit on the total haze of the

exposed sample. Even unexposed samples exhibit some measurable haze

that would be additive to any incremental haze produced by the three

year outdoor exposure test.'' AAMA is not aware of any body of test

data demonstrating whether plastic materials used in current reflex

reflectors are capable of meeting a post-exposure limit of 7 percent.

The present requirement contained in 4.2.2 of SAE J576c states that

``the exposed samples, when compared with the unexposed control

samples, shall not show surface deterioration, crazing, haze,

dimensional changes, color bleeding, delamination, or loss of surface

luster.'' The determination of surface deterioration, dimensional

changes, and color bleeding require comparison with control samples.

But the SAE bases its interpretation of the haze requirement on the

premise that low levels of haze are invisible to the naked eye, and it

is certainly inappropriate for the samples to have visible haze before

exposure. Therefore, the haze test is actually absolute; the only

criterion is whether the exposed sample has visible haze. The

``comparison'' of visible haze to invisible haze is nothing more than a

determination of the visible haze. Implicit in the visual test

requirement is a mutually exclusive concept of haze--it is either

visible or it is not visible. The concept of relative haze has little

meaning unless the instrumentation of the proposed method of

measurement is used.

NHTSA presumes that the certification of present materials is based

on test data in the possession of material manufacturers. It is likely

that haze measurements as well as visual inspection have been performed

on current materials following exposure to weathering, but visual

inspections alone should be sufficient. It is not difficult to detect 7

percent haze visually and samples already found to endure weathering

without the development of visually perceptible haze are unlikely to

have developed more than 7 percent haze.

The proposal was supported by Trucklite, TSEI, and Peterson. They

pointed out that the SAE Lighting Committee haze task force unanimously

recommended the 7 percent haze limit in part because it did not affect

the use of plastic resins currently employed for reflex reflectors.

On balance, the agency has concluded that there is no demonstrable

reason not to adopt the 7 percent haze limitation for plastic materials

used for reflex reflectors.

The second part of the NPRM concerned a proposed cumulative haze

limit of 7 percent when a plastic reflex reflector is installed behind

a plastic outer lens and not exposed directly to sunlight. This was

based upon draft SAE language and was opposed by the commenters.

Subsequent to the NPRM the SAE modified its draft so that a cumulative

haze limit was an optional part of its specification. NHTSA has decided

not to impose a cumulative haze limit of 7 percent, but simply to adopt

the same criterion (7 percent haze limit with direct exposure). Thus,

S5.1.2(c) as amended by this notice will apply the limit and other

criteria to ``plastic materials used for reflex reflectors and for

lenses used in front of reflex reflectors.''

A comment from GE indicated that while uncoated ``Lexan'' would

develop in excess of 30 percent haze in a Florida exposure test, the

addition of a glass covering lens would limit haze to 4 to 6 percent.

GE also offered data to show that plastic covering lenses provided

similar benefits. In view of the vast reduction in ultraviolet exposure

of inner reflectors afforded by glass or plastic outer lenses, the

agency concluded that acrylic and coated polycarbonate materials, which

experience less than 7 percent haze under direct exposure, would

experience negligible haze when protected by an outer lens. Therefore,

it is not necessary to consider cumulative haze when material suitable

for direct exposure is used with a covering lens, also suitable for

direct exposure.

NHTSA's decision not to adopt the cumulative haze provision should

allay industry concerns regarding the lack of test data to continue

recertifying existing designs using covered reflex reflectors, but it

may have the effect of necessitating an optical coating on any

polycarbonate reflex reflectors which previously relied on an outer

lens to prevent the formation of visible haze.

The SAE haze task force had also considered applying the 7 percent

haze limit to plastic headlamp lenses as well as reflex reflectors, but

it decided that more work was required to define the safety needs of

headlamps. The revision of SAE J576 left the headlamp lens requirement

unchanged from previous versions. It states that ``plastic material

used for forward road illumination devices, excluding cornering lamps,

shall show no deterioration.'' It is not clear whether that

specification is meant to be more restrictive than the 7 percent haze

limit for reflectors, but it has the same effect in practice as the

visual inspection requirement had for reflex reflectors.

NHTSA notes that in Standard No. 108, plastic lenses of replaceable

bulb headlamps are subject to an abrasion resistance test, and that

most, if not all, lenses must be given an abrasion resistant coating to

meet it. It has been the agency's assumption that the hard coating

would also protect headlamps lenses against excessive haze. Standard

No. 108 does not require the abrasion test for plastic sealed beam

headlamps, but NHTSA believes that it is industry practice to coat

plastic sealed beam lamps. To pursue the subject of haze limitations

for headlamp lens material, NHTSA requested that commenters address

five specific issues. Ford was the sole commenter on the first four

issues. These issues and Ford's comments follow:

(1) Whether there are any replaceable bulb headlamps with plastic

lenses that do not use a hard coating to achieve abrasion resistance.

Ford's headlamps of this type all employ a hard coating.

(2) Whether all abrasion resistant coatings also prevent the

formation of more than 7 percent haze on samples of plastics used in

headlamp lenses which are subjected to the 3-year test.

In Ford's experience, coatings prevent formation of haze that

exceeds 7 percent.

(3) Whether there are any sealed beam headlamps with plastic lenses

that do not use a hard coating for either haze or abrasion resistance.

Ford used headlamps of this type in two model lines for one model

year each a decade and a half ago. The lamps used an acrylic coating to

prevent yellowing of the polycarbonate lens.

(4) Whether the adoption of a 7 percent haze limit for plastic

headlamp lenses would create a burden on industry, and if so, the

nature and severity of the burden.

Ford does not believe that it would create a burden ``except

possibly for some initial additional testing.''

(5) Whether the industry favors harmonization of Standard No. 108

with SAE J576 for haze resistance of plastic headlamp lens materials.

Ford and another commenter, Truck-Lite, supported application of

Standard No. 108 to materials for plastic headlamp lenses, albeit with

the more recent versions of SAE J576, those of 1986 and 1991.

It appears that the abrasion resistance requirements for

replaceable bulb headlamps and the industry practice of hard coating

sealed beams already act to prevent haze on plastic headlamp lenses

that exceed 7 percent. NHTSA remains interested in any SAE attempts to

establish an appropriate haze criterion for headlamp lenses, but it

appears that there is no safety need for rulemaking at present.

2. Thermal Degradation of Acrylic Reflex Reflectors

Sierra also claimed that current weathering tests do not address

the loss of reflector performance for causes other than haze. It

criticized the agency for deleting the lens warpage test in 1973 which

regulated distortion from heat. Before then, Standard No. 108

incorporated the heat test of SAE Standard J575d which consisted of

operating a lamp for one hour in a chamber heated to 120 degrees F. The

lamp would reach a temperature higher than that from the heat of the

filament. At the conclusion of the test, no warpage could result that

would ``affect the proper functioning of the device.'' Since the

requirement was ambiguous, NHTSA eliminated it. However, in light of

Sierra's complaint, NHTSA has reviewed the matter. When the heat test

was deleted, the principal concern of the test seemed to be gross

distortions of through-optic lenses. It appears that the heat damage to

a lens with an integral reflex reflector was not considered.

There are limited data indicating that acrylic reflex reflectors

may suffer from heat degradation. The General Electric Company (GE) has

reported (NHTSA Docket No. 108-PRM-000015-01) a weathering test in

Florida in which amber and yellow acrylic reflex reflectors decreased

in specific intensity by 18 to 32 percent after an exposure of one

year, regardless of the angle of exposure. GE attributed the decrease

in photometric performance to minute distortions of the reflex lens

(which the industry calls ``creep'') which occurred when the plastics

were exposed to direct sunlight (temperatures of 150 to 160 degrees F).

In view of this test, NHTSA sought comments on the potential

problem of heat degradation of acrylic plastic reflex reflectors. NHTSA

requested commenters to address the following:

(1) Whether the commenter has test or other data relating to the

performance of acrylic reflectors after exposure to heat.

(2) The threshold temperatures for creep and stress relaxation for

acrylic plastics used for lamp lenses.

(3) Whether creep will stabilize or continue indefinitely.

(4) The maximum temperature acrylic lenses may endure without

experiencing visible deformation.

(5) The length of exposure required for stability at slightly over

the threshold temperature and at the maximum temperature stated in

response to (4).

(6) The maximum loss of photometric performance to be expected if

the creep and stress relaxation eventually stabilize.

(7) The maximum operating temperature of multiple function rear

lamps on passenger cars, trucks, and trailers under realistic extreme

conditions.

(8) Whether integral reflex reflectors would degrade under the

conditions stated in response to (7).

(9) The test procedures that would be effective and practicable for

testing reflectors and lamps with integral reflectors for the purpose

of detecting which devices would degrade significantly in service.

Comments were received from TSEI, Peterson, 3M, Ford, and

Trucklite. They reported that acrylic devices are designed to operate

up to about 170 degrees F and that stress relaxation begins at about

180 degrees. A heat test of plastic samples at 175 degrees F is

incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. The amount of distortion

experienced at temperatures between 180 and 200 degrees F depends on

the residual stress at the particular location, and the speed at which

it stabilizes depends on the temperature. Unlike haze, creep is not

indefinitely progressive; stabilization occurs in a matter of hours at

elevated temperature.

All lamp manufacturers reported using a heat warpage test of some

sort, even though no longer required by Standard No. 108. Some test

more stringently than SAE J575d. Some commenters reported using

photometric testing after a heat warpage test while others used a

visual examination (the method set forth in SAE J575d). Peterson

reported that acrylic lenses with reflectors subjected to SAE J575d

show less than 5 percent losses in photometric brightness.

The agency eliminated the warpage test because it did not deem it

required for safety. The degradation of acrylic reflectors alleged by

Sierra would not be detected under SAE J575d which specifies a visual

inspection.

Creep would affect a reflex reflector in a way fundamentally

different from haze. Haze reduces the brightness of the reflector at

all light entrance angles. Creep may cause the reflex reflector to lose

brightness at some angles while gaining brightness at other angles. It

appears unlikely that the loss of brightness reported by General

Electric was the result of creep. GE did not test the acrylic

reflectors thoroughly enough to make well founded conclusions about

their performance.

In sum, there is no evidence that reflex reflectors degrade before

other visible damage occurs.

3. Dye Loss of Acrylic Reflectors and Lenses

Sierra claimed that the weathering test of Standard No. 108 is

inadequate because complying red and amber acrylic lenses lose their

color in use. NHTSA responded that the breakdown of the dye may not be

a property of the plastic but of the dye itself. Dyes with higher

temperature tolerance are frequently used in polycarbonate products

because they may be designed for higher temperature applications than

acrylic products, but there is no property of acrylic plastic which

contributes to fading. NHTSA understands, however, that the SAE adopted

the three-year test when plastic began to replace glass because of some

concern that plastic would not be as fade resistant as glass.

NHTSA requested that commenters provide information on the

following:

(1) Whether the commenter has test or other data relating to fading

or loss of dye color in acrylic or polycarbonate lenses through

exposure to heat or weathering.

(2) Whether any data exist indicating that acrylic or polycarbonate

lenses fade or do not fade under realistic operating conditions.

(3) The conditions under which fading could be expected.

(4) Whether there is any reason to believe that acrylic lenses are

more subject to this type of degradation than polycarbonate lenses.

(5) Whether the commenter has observed faded lenses in service and,

if so, what views the commenter has about the cause of the fading.

(6) Whether the three-year test of SAE J576, conducted in Florida

and Arizona, is sufficient to identify plastic materials prone to fade

in color.

(7) The kind of test procedure that would be effective and

practicable for testing lenses or plastic materials used in lenses to

detect any propensity to fade significantly in service.

Comments were received from TSEI, Peterson, 3M, Ford, Trucklite,

and Thomas Loughran. The commenters believe that the three year

weathering test of SAE J576 is adequate to identify plastic materials

that are prone to fading. Acrylic materials do not appear to have a

greater tendency to fade than polycarbonate materials. Peterson has

observed that dyes used in acrylic material darken slightly as a result

of sustained exposure to sunlight. TSEI reported that the only faded

lenses in service which have been observed by its membership have been

identified as made of noncomplying materials. Mr Loughran suggested

that faded lenses result from the practice of blending virgin and

reground material with additional dye at the time of molding.

Ford suggested that a modified xenon accelerated weathering test

would be effective for testing colored plastic materials for their

propensity to fade in service. This test would be configured to

correlate with the three year weathering test. The object of

accelerated testing with xenon lamps would be increased productivity

rather than increased accuracy of detection.

The comments were unanimous in supporting the existing rule as an

effective and sufficient test for dye loss of lamp and reflector

materials. However, it appears from Mr. Loughran's comment that the

uncontrolled use of reground material and added dye can create

noncomplying plastic material to a greater degree than the lamp

industry recognizes. NHTSA believes that the fading problem observed by

the petitioner is the likely result of lamp manufacturing practices

brought to its attention by Mr. Loughran. Accordingly, there appears to

be no reason to change the present weathering test.

With respect to Mr. Loughran's comments, NHTSA takes this

opportunity to present its views on the obligations of a manufacturer

of reflex reflectors. The haze requirement is imposed by S5.1.2 upon

``plastic materials used in optical parts''. SAE Standard J594f

``Reflex Reflectors'' January 1977 as incorporated into Standard No.

108 at 3.2 references the plastic material test of SAE J576. This

imposes an obligation upon the manufacturer of a reflex reflector to

use plastic materials meeting J576. Thus, the manufacturer has an

obligation to ensure that its acts do nothing to negate the conformance

of the raw material with the tests of J576 when it is fashioned into

reflectors.

A weathering test performed by NHTSA and comments to the docket

suggest that lamp manufacturers need to take care that their coating

practices actually meet the specifications used by plastic

manufacturers to certify material properties. NHTSA's test included

coated and uncoated ``Lexan'' samples exposed in Florida and Arizona.

The uncoated samples failed the test visually as well as by the

development of more than 7 percent haze before the end of the first

year at both exposure sites. At the end of the second year, the coated

Arizona sample had developed slightly less than 7 percent haze, but

haze was plainly visible. The coated Florida sample had failed in both

respects with 10.5 percent haze after a two-year exposure. Its uncoated

mate had developed 10.3 percent haze in one year. At the end of the

third year, the large haze reductions of the coated specimens, seen

after one- and two-years exposure, had disappeared. Both Arizona

specimens had slightly less than 20 percent haze and both Florida

specimens had slightly more than 30 percent haze. The 24-month results

were available at the time of the NPRM and were placed in the docket.

TSEI and Peterson commented on the 24-month test results, and

Thomas Loughran's comment is relevant to cases of premature

degradation. TSEI and Peterson consider the failure of coated sample to

be an anomaly, uncharacteristic of the performance of all other coated

polycarbonates in their experience. In their view, the failure is due

to a faulty coating. Peterson suggested that either the coating

thickness or the curing process was not performed in accordance with

the plastic manufacturer's specifications. The rapid surface

degradation of both coated samples occurring in the period between 24

and 36 months exposure and the apparent flaking of the coating of the

Arizona 18-month specimen support Peterson's opinion of faulty coating.

Mr. Loughran was concerned that coated polycarbonates may not meet

the 7 percent haze limit either as samples or as finished products. He

cited knowledge of Arizona exposure tests in which coated polycarbonate

reflectors suffered 60 percent to 70 percent losses in reflective

performance, and he suggested testing of finished products as well as

material.

Mr. Loughran's experience appears to be at odds with the confidence

of TSEI, Peterson, Trucklite, and the SAE haze task force that coated

polycarbonate plastic will haze less than 7 percent in a 3-year

exposure test. However, it is likely that departures from virgin

material and poor coating practices can combine to cause inferior

performance in products nominally made from certified materials.

These data suggest the beneficent effect of coating on

polycarbonate plastic will not be sufficiently durable to meet the

performance certified after the material unless the material

manufacturer's recommendations are followed rigorously. While the

presence of some coating material does not guarantee compliance, the

absence of coating seems to ensure that plastics such as polycarbonates

will quickly fail the haze test. Use of coatings with a tint element

visible under an ultraviolet inspection light affords a simple,

practicable way for regulatory bodies such as NHTSA to discern whether

relevant plastic materials have been coated. The 3-year test period

appears to be unnecessarily long in those instances where test failures

occur long in advance, such as samples that manifest haze at the end of

an exposure of only a year's duration. Failure to tint, and premature

hazing afforded a basis upon which NHTSA can determine noncompliance

without having to complete pro forma the 3-year test period and

unnecessarily delay the remedy of a noncompliant product.

4. Miscellaneous Issues

3M suggested that a test measuring reflective brightness before and

after exposure of retroreflective devices be established as an

alternative to haze testing so that sheeting material devices could

qualify as reflex reflectors. No specific test procedures or criteria

were included in the comment. Because this issue is beyond the scope of

the present rulemaking, it could not be not considered in formulating

the final rule.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking action has not been considered under E.O. 12866.

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action and has

determined that it is not significant under Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The stringency of

the haze requirement would not be changed. Further, manufacturers of

plastic materials are currently measuring the haze of weathered samples

by ASTM D 1003, which will govern the certification to the 7 percent

haze limit. In addition, according to the agency's observation that

haze not detectable by the human eye is also less than 7 percent,

conformance of a reflector with the haze requirement could still be

judged with the naked eye. Impacts of the final rule are, therefore, be

so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory

evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking

action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that

this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic effect

upon a substantial number of small entities. Manufacturers of plastic

materials are generally not small businesses within the meaning of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further, small organizations and

governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected as the

price of new motor vehicles should not be impacted. Accordingly, no

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 on ``Federalism.'' It has

been determined that the rulemaking action does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act. The rulemaking action would not have

a significant effect upon the environment.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103 (formerly section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain

a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is

not identical to the Federal standard. Forty-nine U.S.C. 30161

(formerly Section 105 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1394)) sets forth a

procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not

require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as

follows:

1. The authority section continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30161; delegation

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. In Sec. 571.108, S5.1.2(c) is revised to read:

Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and

associated equipment.

* * * * *

S5.1.2 * * *

(c) After the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for

reflex reflectors and for lenses used in front of reflex reflectors

shall not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes,

color bleeding, delamination, loss of surface luster, or haze that

exceeds 7 percent as measured under ASTM D 1003-61.

Issued on: October 27, 1994.

Christopher A. Hart,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-27152 Filed 11-1-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P