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. 93-57; Notice 2]

RIN 2127-AF00

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices

and Associated Equipment

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice responds to a notice of request for comments that

NHTSA published in 1993 implementing the grant of a petition by Robert

Bosch GmbH. It proposes an amendment to the Federal motor vehicle

standard on lighting that would permit replaceable lenses on integral

beam and replaceable bulb headlamps that incorporate on-board headlamp

aimers, provided that such headlamps meet more rigorous environmental

tests. The benefit of headlamps with replaceable lenses is that the

lens or reflector could be replaced in the event of breakage of either

without the present necessity to replace both components if only one is

damaged.

DATES: Comments are due February 21, 1995. The amendments would be

effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice

number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to

4:00 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Rulemaking,

NHTSA (202-366-6346).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 1993, NHTSA published a Notice

of Request for Comments in implementation of a grant of a petition for

rulemaking submitted by Robert Bosch GmbH (58 FR 42924). The notice

sought views relevant to a decision on whether to proceed with

rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to allow the lens to be

replaceable on a replaceable bulb headlamp equipped with an on-vehicle

aiming device. In addition to comments on the five benefits ascribed by

Bosch to replaceable lens headlamps, NHTSA asked for comments on

fifteen relevant issues. The reader is referred to the notice for

further information.

Comments were submitted by 21 interested persons: Advocates for

Highway Safety (Advocates), American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA), American Honda, Fiat Auto R&D USA, Ford Motor

Company, General Electric Worldwide Automotive Lighting (GE), General

Motors Corp. (GM), Hella KG Hueck & Co., KC Hilites, Koito

Manufacturing Co. Inc., Oscar Lidstrom, Jr., Maine Bureau of Highway

Safety, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, Mercedes-Benz of

North America, Osram Sylvania, Inc., PACCAR, Inc., Stanley Electric Co.

Ltd., Virginia State Police, Volkswagen of North America (on behalf of

itself and Audi), Volvo of North America, and J. L. Witt. The concept

of replaceable lenses for certain headlamps was opposed by three

commenters: Advocates, GE, and KC Hilites. Six others expressed

reservations: AAMA, GM, Maine, Massachusetts, Stanley, and Koito. The

remaining 12 commenters either actively supported the concept or

submitted comments that did not indicate opposition to it. Where

appropriate, these comments are mentioned in the discussion of issues

that follows.

NHTSA's evaluation of the comments that were submitted has

synthesized agency concerns into three issues: the photometric

performance of headlamps after relensing, the durability performance of

headlamps before and after relensing, and the economic benefits to the

consumer of replaceable lens headlamps.

Photometric Performance of Headlamps After Relensing

The first issue of concern is whether a headlamp with a replaceable

lens will provide photometric performance equivalent to a headlamp

using the original lens. NHTSA had previously denied two petitions

(from GM and BMW of North America) for replaceable lens headlamps,

principally from concern for potential aiming problems and corroded

reflectors.

The potential for misaim has two bases. The first is relevant to

mechanically aimable headlamps, which have three alignment pads on the

lens to orient alignment tools. Some designs use pads ground to the

individual characteristics of each reflector/lens assembly. This

creates lamp-to-lamp differences in lenses, irrelevant when the lens is

permanently attached to the reflector assembly, but of possible concern

when lenses may be replaced. Even in designs without custom ground

pads, continuation of proper aim is dependent upon the repeatability of

the attachment of the lens to the reflector. Small differences in fit

or gasket crush could modify the interaction between the reflector and

the lens and thereby reorient the aiming pads.

The aiming pad issue does not arise under the Bosch petition

because it includes only headlamps with on-board aiming devices, which

aim the reflector without reference to the lens. Bosch provided data

from photometric tests demonstrating that, absent the aiming pad

considerations, headlamp photometry was insensitive to lens

replacement. The illumination at required test points produced by the

test reflector and bulb was nearly identical in each test, using five

replaceable lenses with different production dates. The differences

between lenses of the same part number and any variations in lens

alignment due to repeated replacement had no apparent effect on the

photometric performance of the combination of new components.

Advocates had criticized the minimum ``above-horizontal''

illumination requirements established by the agency for 1994 and newer

model vehicle headlamps as providing poorer performance than that of

sealed beam headlamps. It opposed lens replacement on the basis of a

potential for a further reduction in ``above-horizontal'' illumination

which it believed would result from deviations in lens alignment during

replacement. The Bosch data should allay Advocates' concern, as should

a comment by Osram Sylvania that headlamp photometry is not sensitive

to the slight misalignments possible during lens replacement. Although

Osram Sylvania had other criticisms of replaceable lenses, it reported

that common design practices for replaceable bulb headlamps limit the

sensitivity of photometric performance to lens misalignment and that

replacement lenses need not be identical to original lenses to maintain

equivalent photometric performance.

In summary, comments and data submitted to the docket are

persuasive that photometric performance of new lamps is not sensitive

to typical production variations of replacement lenses. For the reasons

expressed above, it appears that headlamps with on-vehicle aiming and

replaceable lenses are equivalent in photometric performance to

headlamps with on-vehicle aiming and bonded lenses.

Durability Performance of Headlamps Before and After Relensing

For new headlamps, Standard No. 108's tests for dust penetration,

corrosion, humidity, vibration, and water sealing should assure that

headlamps with replaceable lenses will have a lens-to-reflector sealing

that is equivalent to the protection provided by headlamps with bonded

lens/reflector assemblies. However, if the reflector of a headlamp is

affected by exposure during the period when the vehicle is operated

with a broken lens or by improper cleaning attempts during relensing,

there is a strong possibility that an owner may continue to use the

unit after relensing without being aware of its degraded performance.

Less than half of all states have periodic vehicle inspection, and

those that do differ in their rigor. Thus, inspection programs cannot

be expected to detect the decreased photometric performance of

headlamps with degraded reflectors. The second potential problem is

that the lens-seal integrity could be lost during relensing, and that

an otherwise good reflector would be subject to moisture and dust for

the remaining life of the vehicle.

Reflector degradation was not a concern before 1983 when

replaceable bulb headlamps were allowed. In a sealed beam lamp, a crack

in the lens large enough to admit moisture would cause the filament to

fail, necessitating the replacement of the entire headlamp. However,

replaceable bulb headlamps can continue to operate despite a broken

lens, and the possibility of degraded reflectors was considered by the

agency during the course of rulemaking that allowed them. The

requirement for a bonded lens was motivated in part by NHTSA's desire

to avoid creating a potential safety problem that had been impossible

when Standard No. 108 allowed only sealed beam headlamps. It is a

conservative requirement that results in the replacement of reflectors

when the condition of the lens indicates possible long term exposure of

the reflector to water and dirt. Even a small hole can cause the

headlamp to fill with water due to condensation during the heating and

cooling cycle of lamp use.

A potential safety disadvantage of the bonded lens requirement is

that the cost of replacing a headlamp rather than a lens may tend to

delay or to discourage repair altogether. However, the desire to

maintain the aesthetic quality of a newer vehicle and the obvious

performance problem of a cracked lamp containing moisture should

motivate many owners to make a replacement, even if costly. A more

powerful motivation is provided by the vehicle inspection programs

maintained by less than half of the states. Typically, the states

inspect for aim and for damaged lenses, and in some instances inspect

replaceable bulbs for maximum power to prevent the use of high powered

``off road'' aftermarket bulbs. But even strict states, such as

Virginia, do not inspect for the low light output that would identify

headlamps with degraded reflectors. Many commenters who favored the

concept of replaceable lenses voiced concerns about the potential loss

of performance of relensed units. AAMA suggested replaceable lenses for

integral beam headlamps as well as for those with replaceable bulbs,

but it commented that any rulemaking allowing replaceable lenses must

assure that reflectors are designed to be more resistant to abrasion

and solvents, with special durability and environmental qualification

requirements added. American Honda was concerned about technical

problems which may exist in ensuring that photometric performance is

equal to the level of performance before the lens was damaged, and

ensuring adequate sealing against dust and moisture after the lens

alone is replaced. GE commented that the average consumer or automotive

mechanic does not have the background and understanding to make the

decisions necessary to determine if a headlamp is safely repairable.

Osram Sylvania agreed with the Bosch petition that reflector surfaces

can be cleaned during lens replacement, but it cautioned that the

reflector can be damaged by improper cleaning and handling. It also

advised that the touch of human hands can deposit skin oil on the

reflector with the possible consequences of reflector fogging, reduced

output and increased glare. It further commented that the lens

replacement process could break the sealing coat, protecting the thin

aluminum coating on the reflector from moisture, which could lead to a

very rapid loss of reflecting area and photometric performance.

Volkswagen's comments also responded to questions about performance

loss of relensed lamps. It suggested that only specially trained dealer

service personnel should install lenses, presumably refusing to relens

degraded lamps, and that state inspections should monitor the condition

of reflectors. These steps may be feasible in Europe where reflector

corrosion, at least in older designs, is a problem requiring universal

inspection and where the manufacturers control the replacement lens

supply. But they are not effective in the United States. Less than half

the States have inspections, and those that do are not required to

cover the condition of the reflector because it was never a concern

during the long era in which sealed beams were the only type of

headlamps allowed. Also, the U.S. aftermarket would not be limited to

OEM lenses (conferring on dealers the power to refuse to repair

degraded lamps) because non-OEM manufacturers would be free to

manufacture components and sell them directly to vehicle owners.

Volkswagen and American Honda commented that replaceable lens

headlamps could be designed to require removal of the headlamp from the

vehicle in order to replace the lens. This would have the effect,

desirable to the commenters, of causing owners to rely on the vehicle

manufacturer's dealers for lens replacement. However, causing lens

replacement to be more expensive and less convenient diminishes the

prospect of greater headlamp maintenance in states without inspection.

Further, owners compelled by state inspection to replace parts often

insist on making their own repairs to minimize their burden. Making the

task unnecessarily complex only increases the chances that the owner

will make a poor repair. In the case of HID integral beam headlamps,

easy removal of the lens without disturbing the other components may

reduce high voltage hazards during owner repairs. The better solution,

suggested by the AAMA and others, is to adopt durability and

environmental requirements for replaceable lens headlamps to increase

the likelihood that relensed headlamps will perform satisfactorily

regardless of who services them. This solution minimizes the potential

loss of performance from degraded reflectors and maximizes the

potential for inexpensive voluntary lens repairs in states without

inspections.

The most detailed comments to the question of reflector durability

were those of Ford Motor Company. They contain a comprehensive

statement of the reflector durability problem and some general guidance

concerning appropriate test procedures. Ford commented:

Replaceable bulb headlamps currently incorporate reflective

surfaces not specifically designed to withstand direct environmental

exposure or abrasion. If the condition prompting replacement of a

lens has resulted in contamination or discoloration of the reflector

surface (e.g., as might occur due to a lens crack or loss of

integrity of the lens/reflector seal), a degradation in photometric

performance would be expected, as compared to a new replacement

headlamp. Attempts to clean a contaminated reflector, as by wiping,

could result in abrasion to the metallized surface, possibly

resulting in degraded photometric performance and/or increased

glare. Ford therefore recommends that rulemaking on replaceable lens

headlamps consider the need for the reflective surfaces of

replaceable lens headlamps to withstand appropriate environmental

exposure and cleaning operations.

Ford's recommendations were:

Ford recommends that headlamps with replaceable lenses, in

addition to present requirements applicable to replaceable bulb

headlamps, be subjected to salt-fog, moisture and dust exposure

without the lens in place. Additionally, the reflector surface

should be capable of withstanding resistance to chemicals that are

likely to be used by consumers or repair facilities to clean

contaminated reflector surfaces. Subsequent to appropriate

environmental and chemical exposure, the reflector should be cleaned

according to a prescribed procedure. When fitted with a lens

following exposure and cleaning, the headlamp should be capable of

meeting the same photometric requirements applicable to replaceable

bulb headlamps with bonded lenses. Aftermarket lens manufacturers

should be required to certify that any headlamp for which the lens

is intended is capable of meeting photometric requirements when

fitted with a lens of that design. Additionally, aftermarket

replacement lenses should be accompanied with complete instructions

for properly removing the old lens, cleaning the interior of the

headlamp body, cleaning and preparing the mating surface on the

headlamp body and installing the new lens on the headlamp body.

The durability and environmental requirements for the present

replaceable bulb headlamps and the deliberations that led to them may

be useful in considering reasonable requirements for the reflectors of

replaceable lens headlamps. When the agency amended Standard No. 108 to

permit replaceable bulb headlamps, it was aware that German vehicle

inspection data showed significant rejections due to dull, corroded and

damaged headlamp reflectors. Thus, NHTSA promulgated an appropriate

test of corrosion resistance for replaceable bulb headlamps for use in

the United States. The lamp assembly must be exposed for ten days in a

salt spray chamber, with the additional requirement than the bulb be

removed and the spray deactivated during the last hour of all but two

test days. The test put a premium on the ability of the lens to protect

the reflector from the salt spray. It also required a degree of direct

corrosion resistance exceeding the performance of some European

headlamps by having the lamps exposed to several hours of salty air in

the chamber without direct spray. In its original form, the rule

required that the headlamp pass the photometric test at the completion

of the corrosion test. The post-exposure photometric test was later

eliminated because of the possibility of salt deposits that could not

be removed easily from a headlamp with a bonded lens.

A corrosion test of increased rigor for reflectors of replaceable

lens headlamps would remove much of the safety concern about relensing

lamps that have become contaminated with dust and moisture. The agency

is proposing a specific environmental test for reflectors of

replaceable lens headlamps which it believes is consistent with Ford's

recommendations while imposing minimum testing burdens. NHTSA is

proposing an additional salt spray test with the following features for

new replaceable lens headlamps: (a) A 24 hour exposure to salt spray

with the lens removed, (b) a 48 hour drying period, (c) cleaning of the

reflector according to instructions to be furnished with replacement

lenses and included in the owner's manual, (d) a non-magnified

examination for corrosion, and (e) a photometric test of the headlamp

as reassembled with a new lens. The proposed exposed reflector test

mimics the existing test of headlamps with lenses but with a much

reduced duration since reflector exposure in service would not be

continuous. However, it makes use of the expected salt deposit

formation to test the durability of the reflector coating to cleaning.

Finally, it would require the manufacturer of a headlamp with a

replaceable lens to demonstrate photometric compliance of the

reassembled cleansed lamp.

Ford recommended three distinct tests of headlamp reflector

exposure to salt-fog, moisture, and dust, while the agency proposes a

single test. Comment from parties familiar with reflector construction

and exposure testing is sought. The following questions are of

particular interest:

(1) A cracked lens frequently causes a headlamp to partially fill

with water. Is the moisture and exposure time involved in an ASTM B

117-73 salt spray test sufficient to test moisture resistance of

reflectors? If not, what test would be sufficient?

(2) The present dust test for replaceable bulb headlamps uses

Portland cement as dust, and the agency presumes that Ford's comment

refers to the same kind of dust test. Cleaning the reflector after

Portland cement dust exposure may be equivalent to a rigorous abrasion

test. The agency believes that the proposed salt-spay test will coat

the headlamp reflector with salt deposits and that the subsequent

cleaning will provide an adequate abrasion test. However, does a 24-

hour salt spray test deposit enough salt to act as a de facto abrasion

test? Should a particular method of salt removal be required or should

the manufacturers' cleaning instructions dictate the test procedure, as

proposed? Is a Portland cement dust test as well as a salt spray test

of reflectors needed, and if so, why? Should a direct abrasion test be

used rather than the indirect abrasion of cleaning, and if so, what

procedure would be appropriate?

(3) Is the proposed 24-hour salt spray test followed by 48 hours

drying time sufficient to test the headlamp reflectors and the metal

light shields sometimes used? What corrosion criteria are appropriate

for light shields? Can rusty water dripping from metal light shields

eventually cause otherwise durable headlamp reflectors to fail because

of stains?

(4) The present standard for replaceable bulb headlamps exposes

lamp assemblies with the bulb removed (but the lens attached) for eight

hours to humid salty air in a salt spray chamber with the salt spray

turned off. Is this present test (followed by a photometric test and

whatever cleaning is necessary) sufficient to qualify headlamp

reflectors for use with replaceable lenses without the proposed direct

salt spray test or the moisture, dust and salt spray tests recommended

by Ford?

The existing Standard No. 108 also includes a chemical resistance

test of the exterior of the lamp to fuel, tar remover, power steering

fluid and antifreeze. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the test

should be extended to headlamp reflectors using chemicals suggested by

the manufacturer in the cleaning instructions or with a realistic

probability of use by vehicle owners despite the manufacturer's

instructions. Chemicals in the latter category would include tar

remover, lacquer thinner and mineral spirits. The manufacturer's

instructions may concentrate on water soluble contaminants because of

the salt spray test. The inclusion of the other chemicals gives the

owner a means to remove organic contaminants without resorting to

abrasion. Since mineral spirits is a major constituent of tar remover,

a separate test for mineral spirits appears unnecessary.

The plastic lenses on replaceable bulb headlamps manufactured for

use in the United States are given a hard protective coating that would

be expected to exceed the reflector coating requirements established by

the proposed tests. NHTSA expects that similar coating methods could be

used to create robust reflectors for replaceable lens headlamps. It

would be reasonable to expect successful lens replacement by vehicle

owners, especially if the lens attachments were designed to be

accessible without disturbing the headlamp aim. The requirement for

headlamp reflector durability also reduces concern about untrained

persons installing the lens seal. Should an owner install the seal

incorrectly, causing moisture to collect inside the lamp, the reflector

will not degrade quickly. The visible moisture would serve as a

telltale, and an owner motivated to replace the lens initially would be

motivated to disassemble, clean and reinstall the lens until the

desired repair was successful. If manufacturers choose to design

headlamps for ease and economy of lens replacement by owners, the

prospect of better lamp maintenance in non-inspection States is

realistic.

Economic Benefits to the Consumer of Replaceable Lenses

The cost to replace two replaceable bulb headlamps can equal 10

percent of the value of an entire car after it is 5 to 8 years old.

Consumers used to the cost of sealed beam headlamps are critical of

state vehicle inspection programs when they force the replacement of

headlamps at costs which far exceed those of sealed beams. When

Standard No. 108 was amended to permit replaceable bulb headlamps, the

economic consequences of lens/reflector assembly replacement were not

considered to be relevant to safety, and the ability to replace the

light source gave some promise of consumer benefit. Ironically, the

economic burden to consumers now fuels a safety debate about whether

the reluctance of owners to replace expensive cracked lamps or the

possibility of degraded performance of relensed lamps is the greater

threat to safety. The styling benefits of replaceable bulb headlamps

over sealed beams have resulted in large potential cost penalties and

an unquantifiable degree of performance loss when the headlamps are

damaged.

Volkswagen commented that the cost to replace a headlamp is 7 to 8

times that of the lens alone. It cited examples of lamps costing $215

to $270 and estimated the cost of replaceable lenses in the $30 to $40

range. Mercedes estimated the cost of replaceable lenses at $126 to

$150 and complete headlamps at $250 to $640 with on-board aiming. While

the cost of headlamps with the fasteners, gaskets, and indexing

features required for replaceable lens designs would be higher than the

cost of headlamps with simple bonded lenses, reductions in repair costs

of 50% to 85% appear to be likely.

The agency anticipates that replaceable lens designs would be

attractive only for headlamps using glass lenses. These are

predominantly used on imported vehicles. Replaceable bulb headlamps

which have coated polycarbonate plastic lenses are extremely resistant

to cracking and chipping. AAMA commented that the impact resistance of

plastic lenses significantly reduces any servicing need to provide

replaceable lenses. Glass lenses are less expensive than coated plastic

lenses, and they have greater resistance to high operating temperatures

and abrasion by headlamp wipers.

However, the additional cost of a replaceable lens design would

probably negate the economic advantage a manufacturer might achieve by

changing to a less expensive replaceable glass lens when it had been

using bonded plastic lenses. It is likely that the market for

replaceable bulb headlamps with replaceable lenses would be confined to

a small segment of the import market in which headlamp wipers or high

operating temperatures dictate the choice of glass lenses.

Bosch's petition covered only replaceable bulb headlamps. However,

AAMA commented that a greater economic benefit of replaceable lenses

could be found in integral beam headlamps. High Intensity Discharge

(HID) lamps are being developed for use as integral beam headlamps, and

their operating temperatures are expected to dictate the use of glass

lenses. An integral beam headlamp is required to be manufactured with

the lens, bulb, reflector, cable and high voltage source configured as

an indivisible whole. HID headlamps are much more costly than

replaceable bulb headlamps, and the prospect of replacing the whole

lamp (at perhaps $1000) in order to repair a cracked lens may be a

significant impediment to introduction of the technology. Since the

industry-imposed economic burden on the consumer is the agency's

primary reason for considering replaceable lens headlamps, it is

appropriate to include integral beam headlamps in the proposal.

Proposed Amendments

NHTSA is implementing its conclusions by proposing appropriate

amendments to Standard No. 108. As noted above, the proposed amendments

cover integral beam headlamps as well as those with replaceable bulbs.

The proposal requires redefinitions of ``integral beam headlamp'' and

``replaceable bulb headlamp'' to clarify that some types of these

headlamps need not have a bonded lens reflector assembly, those with a

vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) conforming to Standard No. 108.

Under the proposal, each replacement lens would also have to be

accompanied by an appropriate replacement seal, and instructions to the

user on how to remove and replace the lens, clean the reflector, and

seal the lens to the lamp. Manufacturers of replacement lenses would

mark them with a DOT symbol which will be the manufacturer's

certification that installation of the lens on the headlamp for which

it is intended will not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. A

new section is proposed that would add the chemical and corrosion

resistance tests discussed above.

The greatest impact of the proposal will be on future HID integral

beam headlamps which may require heat resistant glass lenses rather

than impact resistant plastic lenses. These head-lamps will be very

costly and their replacement will involve high voltage components. The

development of durable reflectors to make them suitable for replaceable

lens will be an important step in making HID lamps practical.

Additionally, should future changes to the standard accommodate HID

light sources in replaceable bulb headlamps, the ability to have

replaceable lenses would enhance their economic viability as well.

The comments suggest that it is not critical to require replacement

lenses to be identical to original lenses in order to maintain

photometric performance in compliance with the standard. The only

necessary requirement is that the replacement lens maintain compliance

of an otherwise compliant headlamp in all respects including sealing.

An additional practical requirement is that a replacement lens be

supplied with a new seal and instructions for cleaning the reflector

and installing the lens and seal.

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.

It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim

of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven

copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been

deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth

the information specified in the agency's confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the docket at the above address

both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too

late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered

as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal

will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue

to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket

after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons

continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped

postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Effective Date

The effective date of the final rule would be [30 days after

publication in the Federal Register]. Because the final rule

establishes no additional burden on any party, it is hereby tentatively

found for good cause shown that an effective date for the amendments to

Standard No. 108 that is earlier than 180 days after their issuance

would be in the public interest.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This action has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It

has been determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under

Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The

purpose of the rulemaking action is to afford a further optional means

of compliance with the headlamp requirements of Standard No. 108. While

a final rule could result in higher prices for buyers of glass-lensed

headlamps of certain types, these initial costs could be offset by

reduced repair costs during the life of the vehicle or the headlamp.

These cost impacts are not deemed significant and preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the

National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that a final

rule based on this proposal would have a significant effect upon the

environment. The design and composition of headlamps which take

advantage of this option may change from those presently in production

but it is anticipated that the kind of materials used will be the same.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking

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

this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact

upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory

flexibility analysis has been prepared. Manufacturers of motor vehicles

and headlamps, those affected by the rulemaking action, are generally

not small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would

not be significantly affected because the price of new vehicles and the

optional headlamps would be only minimally impacted. While the price of

new vehicle equipment might be somewhat higher if the optional headlamp

is used, the cost of repair of such equipment will be significantly

lessened.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with

the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and

NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have

sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice

A final rule based on this proposal would not have any retroactive

effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103 (formerly section 103(d) of the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not

adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of

performance which is not identical to the Federal standard. Section

30163 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended

as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec. 571.108 [Amended]

2. Section 571.108 would be amended as follows:

a. The definitions of ``Integral Beam Headlamp'' and ``Replaceable

Bulb Headlamp'' in Paragraph S4 would be revised to read as set forth

below.

b. Paragraphs S5.8.11, S7.2(e), S8.10.1 and S8.10.2 would be added

to read as set forth below.

c. Paragraphs S7.4(g), S7.4(h)(2), S7.4(h)(3), S7.5(h), and S8.1

would be revised to read as set forth below.

Sec. 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices, and Associated Equipment.

* * * * *

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Integral Beam Headlamp means a headlamp (other than a standardized

sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 or a

replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5)

comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens,

reflector, and light source, except that the lens may be designed to be

replaceable if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming

device that conforms to S7.8.5.2. An ``integral beam headlamp'' may

incorporate light sources that are replaceable that are used for

purposes other than headlighting.

* * * * *

Replaceable bulb headlamp means a headlamp comprising a bonded lens

reflector assembly and one or two replaceable headlamp light sources,

except that the lens may be designed to be replaceable if the headlamp

incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device that conforms to

S7.8.5.2. A ``replaceable bulb headlamp'' may incorporate light sources

that are replaceable that are used for purposes other than

headlighting.

* * * * *

S5.8 Replacement equipment.

* * * * *

S5.8.11 A replacement lens for a replaceable bulb headlamp or an

integral beam headlamp that is not required to have a bonded lens shall

be provided with a replacement seal in a package that includes

instructions for the removal and replacement of the lens, the cleaning

of the reflector, and the sealing of the replacement lens to the

reflector assembly.

S7 Headlighting requirements.

* * * * *

S7.2 (a) * * *

* * * * *

(e) Each replacement headlamp lens with seal, provided in

accordance with S5.8.11, when installed according to the lens

manufacturer's instructions on an integral beam or replaceable bulb

headlamp, shall not cause the headlamp to fail to comply with any of

the requirements of this standard. Each replacement headlamp lens shall

be marked with the symbol ``DOT'', either horizontally or vertically,

to constitute certification. Each replacement headlamp lens shall also

be marked with the manufacturer and the part or trade number of the

headlamp for which it is intended, and with the name and/or trademark

of the lens manufacturer or importer that is registered with the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office. Nothing in this paragraph shall be

construed to authorize the marking of any such name and/or trademark by

one who is not the owner, unless the owner has consented to it.

* * * * *

S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. * * *

* * * * *

(g) A headlamp with a glass lens need not meet the abrasion

resistance test (S8.2). It need not meet the chemical resistance test

(S8.3) unless it incorporates a replaceable lens. If, in addition to a

glass lens, the headlamp uses a non-plastic reflector, it need not meet

the internal heat test of paragraph S8.6.2. A headlamp of sealed design

as verified in paragraph S8.9 Sealing need not meet the corrosion

(S8.4), dust (S8.5), or humidity (S8.7) tests; however, the headlamp

shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 4.1, 4.1.2, 4.4 and 5.1.4 for

corrosion and connector of SAE Standard J580 DEC86 Sealed Beam Headlamp

Assembly. An integral beam headlamp may incorporate light sources that

are replaceable that are used for purposes other than headlighting.

(h) * * *

* * * * *

(2) After the chemical resistance tests of paragraphs S8.3 and

S8.10.1, there shall be no surface deterioration, coating delamination,

fractures, deterioration of bonding or sealing materials, color

bleeding or color pickup visible without magnification, and the

headlamp shall meet the photometric requirements applicable to the

headlamp system under test.

(3) After corrosion tests conducted in accordance with paragraphs

S8.4 and S8.10.2, there shall be no evidence of external or internal

corrosion or rust visible without magnification. Loss of adhesion of

any applied coating shall not occur more than 0.125 in. (3.2 mm) from

any sharp edge on the inside or outside. Corrosion may occur on

terminals only if the current produced during the test of paragraph

S8.4(c) is not less than 9.7 amperes.

* * * * *

S7.5 Replaceable Bulb Headlamp System. * * *

* * * * *

(h) The system shall be aimable in accordance with paragraph S7.8.

* * * * *

S8 Tests and Procedures for Integral Beam and Replaceable Bulb

Headlighting Systems. * * *

S8.1 Photometry. Each headlamp to which paragraph S8 applies shall

be tested according to paragraphs 4.1 and 4.1.4 of SAE Standard J1383

APR85 for meeting the applicable photometric requirements, after each

test specified in paragraphs S8.2, S8.3, S8.5, S8.6.1, S8.6.2, S8.7,

and S8.10.1 and S8.10.2 if applicable. A 1/4 degree reaim is permitted

in any direction at any test point.

* * * * *

S8.10 Chemical and corrosion resistance of reflectors of

replaceable lens headlamps.

S8.10.1 Chemical resistance. (a) The entire optical surface of the

reflector of the headlamp in the headlamp test fixture with the lens

removed shall be wiped once to the left and once to the right with a 6-

inch square soft cotton cloth (with pressure equally applied) which has

been saturated once in a container with 2 ounces of one of the test

fluids listed in paragraph (b). The lamp shall be wiped within 5

seconds after removal of the cloth from the test fluid.

(b) The test fluids are:

(1) Tar remover (consisting by volume of 45% xylene and 55%

petroleum base mineral spirits);

(2) Lacquer thinner; or

(3) Fluids other than water contained in the manufacturer's

instructions for cleaning the reflector.

(c) After the headlamp has been wiped with the test fluid, it shall

be stored in its designed operating attitude for 48 hours at a

temperature of 73 deg.F7 deg. (23 deg.C4 deg.)

and a relative humidity of 3010 percent. At the end of the

48-hour period, the headlamp shall be wiped clean with a soft dry

cotton cloth and visually inspected.

S8.10.2 Corrosion. (a) The headlamp with the lens removed,

unfixtured and in its designed operating attitude with all drain holes,

breathing devices or other designed openings in their normal operating

positions, shall be subjected to a salt spray (fog) test in accordance

with ASTM B117-73, Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing, for 24 hours,

while mounted in the middle of the chamber.

(b) Afterwards, the headlamp shall be stored in its designed

operating attitude for 48 hours at a temperature of

73 deg.F7 deg. (23 deg.C4 deg.) and a relative

humidity of 3010 percent and allowed to dry by natural

convection only. At the end of the 48-hour period, the reflector shall

be cleaned according to the instructions supplied with the headlamp

manufacturer's replacement lens, and inspected. The lens and seal shall

then be attached according to these instructions and the headlamp

tested for photometric performance.

Issued on November 9, 1994.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 94-28382 Filed 11-18-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P