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. 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