[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 136 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36378-36380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17434]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition from Koito Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. for rulemaking to permit an alternative performance requirement 
(allowing permissible moisture presence) for certain types of headlamps 
after completion of the humidity test. The humidity test of Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, was shortened in duration in 1991 to accommodate 
another petition from Koito; thus, this petition is somewhat 
repetitive. The requirement of no visible moisture inside the headlamp 
has existed for replaceable bulb headlamps since their inception in 
1983. The claim by Koito that the requirement is not a performance 
standard but a design standard is without merit. Koito's proposed 
supplementary corrosion test for headlamps with visible moisture 
present after a humidity test does not seem to support its claim of no 
long-term photometric degradation in these headlamps passing the test.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, 
NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Medlin's 
telephone number is: (202) 366-5276; FAX (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 19, 1995, Koito Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. (Koito) petitioned for a change to the humidity test performance 
requirements for replaceable bulb, integral beam, and some types of 
combination headlighting systems. The present humidity performance 
requirement originated in 1983 and requires that no evidence of 
delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation be present to the eye 
(without magnification) upon completion of the humidity test sequence. 
Koito proposed an alternative requirement for those headlamps that 
cannot pass this requirement. Koito did not provide any test data to 
substantiate its claim that there is no long-term performance 
degradation in photometric 

[[Page 36379]]
output from allowing moisture in headlamps over long periods. Koito 
claims that such headlamps perform adequately in Europe and Japan.
    In 1991, the humidity test was changed as a result of a petition by 
Koito and Robert Bosch GmbH. The duration of the test was shortened 
from 20 consecutive 6-hour cycles to 24 consecutive 3-hour cycles; the 
photometric test immediately after the humidity test was deleted and 
other test details were changed. The sole remaining requirement was 
that ``the headlamp show no evidence of delamination or moisture, 
fogging or condensation visible without magnification.''
    Now, Koito states that the requirement that no visible moisture be 
present inside the headlamp following the humidity test is a design 
restriction and that the criteria are excessively stringent ``design 
standards'' as opposed to ``performance standards.''
    Koito also states that the present humidity test requirement causes 
it to design its headlamps with long vent tubes, which it states has 
increased the cost to the consumer. Koito furnished no data to support 
its claim of increased costs or burden.
    Koito recommended that the new corrosion test set forth in Docket 
No. 93-57; Notice 2, (59 FR 59975 of November 21, 1994) be applied to 
lamps failing the humidity test. In that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
the agency proposed only for replaceable lens headlamps, to set forth 
additional requirements for headlamps that would have replaceable 
lenses. Such lamps would be designed not to corrode if the interiors 
were exposed briefly to the outside environment until such time that a 
lens replacement occurred (lens replacement is not now permitted). That 
lens replacement proposal had an additional chemical resistance test on 
the reflector, an additional 24-hour salt spray and 48-hour storage 
tests (all with the lens removed), and a cleaning test in accordance 
with the instructions supplied by the manufacturer with the headlamp. A 
final amendment to FMVSS No. 108 on this subject has not been issued 
yet.
    In response to Koito's claims, NHTSA's technical review follows. 
Regarding the claim that headlamps that have visible moisture that are 
in use in Europe and Japan perform adequately, those regions have a 
greater preponderance of vehicle inspection performed than in the 
United States (U.S.) Timely headlamp replacement after failure is 
assisted by the routine inspection process. As a consequence, history 
has shown that the dominant cause of headlamp inspection failure and 
lamp replacement in Europe has been corroded reflectors. While it is 
possible that this situation may have changed, NHTSA is not aware of 
any change. The U.S. permitted replaceable bulb headlamps that are 
conceptually similar to those in Europe and Japan on the premise that 
headlamps introduced into the U.S. market would not exhibit the 
traditionally poor resistance to environmental degradation that had 
been typical of non-U.S. code headlamps. Additionally, because of the 
fewer and less thorough inspections in the U.S., there is the 
likelihood that lamps of reduced or failed performance would continue 
to be used on U.S. highways in greater numbers than in Europe or Japan. 
Thus, Koito's claim that adequate performance can be achieved by using 
lamps of non-U.S. market design is not substantiated.
    Koito did not provide any data to show that headlamps would not 
eventually degrade over the life of the vehicle when they are 
occasionally or perpetually wet from moisture that is purposefully 
allowed to be in the interior of the lamp. The existence of visible 
moisture as an acceptable operational condition for headlamps is 
contrary to all State and Federal efforts to date to maintain a safe 
level of headlamp illumination performance, against a history of 
environmental degradation. It is difficult to accept that water in 
headlamps is not deleterious to headlamp performance; although, if lamp 
cost is no object, then it is conceivable that headlamps could be made 
to perform under such duress. NHTSA is not convinced that the public is 
ready to accept or understand that it is acceptable for water to be in 
certain headlamps and not be in others.
    This is the second time that Koito has requested that the humidity 
requirements be amended to accommodate its needs. The last time was 
four years ago. While the present request is of a subtly different 
nature, the fact is that it is repetitive in nature: the humidity test 
prevents Koito from selling a design that cannot comply with the 
humidity requirements. NHTSA is not persuaded by Koito's claims that it 
is prevented from selling headlamps that have acceptable performance. 
The standard's requirements determine acceptable performance for the 
U.S. Unsubstantiated claims of real-world performance in some other 
region of the world, cannot be used as a basis for changing U.S. safety 
standards.
    Koito claims that the present requirement is design restrictive and 
establishes a design and not a performance standard. The requirement is 
intended to address a headlamp's susceptibility to the ingress of 
moisture, which over the life of the lamp will cause deterioration of 
the lamp's photometric performance. The requirement is not solely for 
the purpose of testing in the instant the loss or failure of 
photometric performance as Koito believes. The test was never intended 
to simulate a lifetime of heating/cooling/dry/wet events that could 
occur with a lamp installed on a real vehicle. The test appears to 
discriminate well against lamps that are susceptible to the ingress of 
moisture, as evidenced by Koito's concern that traditional Japanese and 
European headlamp designs, susceptible to interior damage, cannot 
comply. While the test can be characterized as restrictive of certain 
headlamp designs, it is because those design cannot meet the 
performance demanded of them for passing the test. NHTSA does not view 
the requirement as a design standard, because the standard does not 
dictate to lamp manufacturers the design characteristics which they 
must choose. Manufacturers have complete freedom of design as long as 
the performance (not allowing moisture) is met.
    Koito claims that the newly proposed corrosion test for headlamps 
that have removable lenses is an appropriate requirement for lamps to 
pass should they first fail the present humidity test. This is an 
incorrect application of that requirement. The newly proposed corrosion 
test is to address a headlamp's susceptibility to corrosion from the 
effects of having a broken lens. The exposure time due to a broken lens 
may vary widely case to case, but it is not continual for the life of 
the vehicle. This corrosion test is not an adequate requirement for 
headlamps that by their design could have very open interiors, as if 
they had broken lenses, over their entire existence. A very different 
and more stringent requirement would appear to be appropriate for such 
lamps. However, such a test would not determine lamps' susceptibility 
to condensing moisture that could disrupt photometry in the instant. 
Thus, it does not fulfill the safety need either.
    In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's 
technical review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there 
is no reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the 
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking 
proceeding. The possible value of the requested amendment is 
particularly small in view of the petitioner's ability to build 
complying headlamps under the existing requirements and the lack of any 
inhibition in the standard against 

[[Page 36380]]
innovative solutions for achieving compliance. After considering all 
relevant factors, including the need to allocate and prioritize scarce 
agency resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the 
agency has decided to deny the petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: July 12, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-17434 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P