[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46064-46067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21865]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 94-37; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AF 22


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This notice adopts amendments to the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard on lighting to replace the currently incorporated SAE 
J576c with the more recent SAE J576 JUL91 as the referenced standard on 
plastics materials, to replace ASTM D 1003-61 with the more recent ASTM 
D 1003-92 in the test procedures, and to allow alternative processing 
techniques, sample sizes and thickness tolerances to those presently 
specified. These amendments represent the choice of Option 1 from the 
notice of proposed rulemaking published in November 1994.

DATES: The effective date of the final rule is March 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of 
Rulemaking, NHTSA (202-366-6987).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Heraeus DSET Laboratories, Inc. (``DSET''), 
of Phoenix, Arizona, petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to amend Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment. Specifically, DSET asked that paragraph S5.1.2 be 
amended ``to update the test specimen processing requirements of 
plastic material used for optical parts such as lenses and 
reflectors.'' Currently, these materials are required to conform to 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J576c, May 
1970. DSET wants NHTSA

to allow alternative processing techniques besides injection molding 
to produce test specimens, to allow test specimen sizes other than a 
3 inch diameter disc and to change the specimen thickness tolerances 
from 0.005 inch to .010 inch.

Those requirements for injection molding and for the diameter and 
thickness of the test specimen are set forth in J576c, May 1970.
    NHTSA granted the petition and published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in response to it on November 2, 1994 (59 FR 54881). The 
notice proposed two alternative amendments of S5.1.2 as a means of 
implementing its grant of DSET's petition. The agency asked commenters 
for their views on each of the alternatives.
    Option 1. This option would substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for SAE 
J576c, May 1970, and make conforming amendments in the text of S5.1.2. 
Option 1 would also replace American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) D 1003-61 with ASTM D 1003-92 with respect to measurement of 
haze (which, as currently specified, would not exceed 7 percent). A 
specimen thickness tolerance of 0.25 mm (0.010 in.) would 
also be allowed as there is no technical reason to limit the test 
specimen thickness tolerance to 0.005 in., and the value 
proposed by NHTSA as recommended by DSET appears to be a more 
reasonable tolerance for test specimens.
    Option 2. This option would retain the current SAE and ASTM 
specifications but would allow processing techniques other than 
injection molding to produce equivalent test specimens, test specimens 
other than a disc of 3-inch diameter, and a test specimen thickness 
tolerance of 0.010 inch.
    Seven comments were received, five of which supported Option 1. 
These were from Flxible Corporation (``Flxible''), Transportation 
Safety Equipment Institute (``TSEI''), Robert Bosch, GmbH (``Bosch''), 
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (``AAMA''), and Ford 
Motor Company (``Ford''). Miles, Inc. opposed Option 1 and supported 
Option 2. The Plastics Division of General Electric Corporation 
(``GE'') did not express a preference for either alternative.
    Each of the commenters supporting Option 1 had a different concern. 
Flxible suggested that NHTSA adopt the base number of each SAE and ASTM 
standard/recommended practice, with the suffix notation ``Latest 
Revision.'' In the company's view, this would eliminate the need to 
revise older materials and ensure that the safety standards reflect 
contemporary industry practice.
    While this is an attractive notion, there are legal constraints 
against it. The SAE and ASTM materials per se are only guidelines and 
advisory in nature. Once they are incorporated into the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards, they become ``the law of the land'', and a 
manufacturer must comply with them or face civil sanctions. Under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, a regulation imposing a substantive 
burden cannot be adopted in the absence of adequate public notice and 
an opportunity to comment. Under the approach suggested by Flxible, 
automatic updating of the safety standards to incorporate the latest 
SAE and ASTM revisions would occur with no prior public notice or 
opportunity to comment, and hence violate the Administrative Procedure 
Act. Further, NHTSA has found that many updated and revised materials 
change the previous materials in substantive ways. Some changes may not 
be in the interests of safety; the elimination of the heat test from 
SAE J576 JUL91 is one example of this. Other changes may increase, 
rather than reduce, a substantive burden upon industry. Regulated 
persons and the public must 

[[Page 46065]]
be apprised of these changes before they are adopted.
    NHTSA may, however, adopt an updated version without prior notice 
where there appears to be no substantive change since such an adoption 
is in the nature of a technical amendment. The agency is adopting an 
updated version in this final rule on the basis of a comment from TSEI. 
Under proposed paragraph S5.1.2(e), after exposure to the heat test, 
the samples shall conform to the color requirements of SAE J578a 
October 1966. TSEI pointed out that current paragraph S5.1.5 references 
SAE J578c February 1977. It recommended that NHTSA change both 
references to the specification of J578 MAY88.
    NHTSA has compared the 1988 and 1977 versions of J578 with that of 
1966. It finds no substantive difference between the 1966 and 1977 
versions. The 1988 version, however, contains a third method of color 
measurement to be used ``as a referee approach when the commonly used 
methods produce questionable results.'' In addition, the Appendix in 
the latter has added a section of ``Color Measurements of Gaseous 
Discharge Lighting Devices.'' NHTSA ought to have comment on these 
changes before adopting SAE J578 MAY88, and, for this reason, has not 
followed TSEI's suggestion. On the other hand, because of the lack of 
substantive change between the other two versions, paragraph S5.1.2(e) 
is added with an update of the J578 reference to 1977 from the 1966 
version which was proposed.
    The wording of present paragraph S5.2.1 concerned Ford and AAMA. 
Under this paragraph, phrases such as ``It is recommended that'' and 
``should be,'' which appear in materials incorporated by reference, are 
to be read as setting forth mandatory requirements. Ford and AAMA 
commented that these phrases should not be interpreted as applying to 
SAE J576 JUL91. In NHTSA's view, the result of adopting Ford's and 
AAMA's comments would be to make compliance of plastic materials used 
for optical parts a voluntary affair. This would defeat the purpose of 
the rulemaking.
    Proposed paragraph S5.1.2(e) would require test samples, after the 
heat test, to ``show no discernable change in shape and general 
appearance when compared with an unexposed specimen.'' This language 
comes from J576 itself, with the exception that the SAE uses 
``significant'' rather than ``discernable.'' Ford and AAMA objected to 
this substitution, arguing that it would establish a higher standard to 
be met by plastics, and that there is no need to change language that 
has been a requirement for years. They recommended use of the word 
``significant.'' In their view, a change that is ``discernable'' is not 
necessarily one that is ``significant.''
    In its proposal, NHTSA had no intention of increasing the burden on 
any regulated party. The agency proposed the word ``discernable'' with 
care, because it is objective, while ``significant'' is not. Motor 
vehicle safety standards are required by law to be ``objective'', 49 
U.S.C. 30111(a). The agency has concluded that ``discernable'' is more 
appropriate for a requirement specifically expressed in the text of 
Standard No. 108 (as compared with one incorporated by reference). 
However, NHTSA wishes to make clear that it views the words as 
essentially synonymous in this context. If a post-test change in shape 
or general appearance is discernable, NHTSA considers that to be 
significant. Such a change indicates the potential for degradation of a 
lens in use, with a corresponding effect upon color and photometrics of 
the lamp on which it is installed. To add even greater objectivity, the 
final rule expresses the requirement as ``discernable to the naked 
eye.'' Should a change be discernable to the naked eye after testing, 
and a manufacturer believe that such a change is not ``significant,'' 
the manufacturer may file a Part 573 Noncompliance Notification Report 
simultaneously with an application to NHTSA for a determination that 
the change resulting from that testing is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety.
    GE did not choose between the alternatives in its comment. It did, 
however, recommend the adoption of SAE J576 JUL91 in its entirety, and 
that NHTSA not carry over the heat test from the previous version of 
J576. In its view, the heat tests of SAE J575 are adequate until 
further work is done on thermal issues suitable for incorporation into 
J576.
    Having considered the comments in response to the NPRM, NHTSA is 
amending Standard No. 108 to add the two new paragraphs proposed, 
maintaining the performance requirements required of plastic materials 
by SAE J576c for the heat test and specifying positioning of test 
samples during the test. These have been omitted by the SAE from J576 
JUL91. NHTSA has chosen to retain the existing heat test as one that is 
familiar to industry and one which meets the need for motor vehicle 
safety. It is a minimum requirement, intended to establish a margin of 
safety between the temperatures at which plastic reflectors and lenses 
may fail from internal heat, and temperatures on the exterior surface 
induced by exposure to sunlight. Lamp manufacturers use J575 or similar 
tests to determine whether the particular design characteristics of 
their lamps require use of premium materials in the lenses. It is a 
test of the finished lens as installed on the lamp, rather than a test 
of the materials used in finished products. Use of material with 
insufficient high temperature performance can result in reflectors that 
lose color and reflectivity.
    The positioning of test samples will allow the sample to droop if 
its strength is adversely affected by the test.
    In order to retain the current 3-year outdoor exposure time test 
requirements for plastic lenses used or covered by another material and 
not exposed directly to sunlight, NHTSA is adding a new paragraph 
S5.1.2(g) to specify that paragraph 3.3.3.1 of SAE J576 JUL91 does not 
apply as regards protected materials. For the same reason, NHTSA is not 
adopting paragraph 3.3.3.2. of SAE J576 JUL91 which allows an 
accelerated 6-month outdoor exposure test time. New paragraph S5.1.2(g) 
will not change the stringency or flexibility of the standard as it 
exists, but will ensure that the integrity of plastic materials is 
maintained by not permitting a lesser exposure time for materials which 
may be protected when in use.
    Miles, Inc., a manufacturer of polycarbonate resin used as a 
material in lenses and reflectors, objected to Option 1. In its view, 
this alternative places an additional testing burden on the resin 
manufacturer, as compared with the present requirements. For this 
reason, it supported Option 2. Specifically, Miles opposes SAE J576 
JUL91 because of Section 3.1 Materials to be Tested. This section 
reads:

    Outdoor exposure tests shall be made on each material * * * 
offered for use in optical parts * * *. Concentrations of polymer 
components and additives such as plasticizer, lubricants, colorants, 
weathering stabilizers, and antioxidants in plastic materials and/or 
coatings may be changed without outdoor exposure testing if: the 
changes are within the limits of composition represented by higher 
and lower concentrations of these polymer components and additives 
have been tested in accordance with 3.3 and found to meet the 
requirements of Section 4.

    Miles interprets this language to mean that changes in dye 
concentrations would only be permissible if samples containing lower 
and higher concentrations of dye had been exposure tested. Miles 
believes that this, in effect, would double the samples to 

[[Page 46066]]
be tested when compared with the present requirements.
    The present requirements are those of section 3.1 of SAE J576c, May 
1970. These state, in pertinent part, that ``[a] test of one color and 
formulation shall cover variations in dye concentration, but shall not 
cover changes in dye materials or changes in polymers.'' Miles 
interprets this as meaning that a new exposure test need not be 
conducted under the 1970 version if the only change in the product is a 
variation in dye concentration. Its present practice is to test for 
exposure materials incorporating new dyes only at the expected 
concentration level of the dye. One exposure test covers each new dye, 
but Miles will accept the test results as valid when there are small 
variations in dye concentration.
    Miles is correct that SAE J576c allows a single test to cover 
variations in dye concentration. SAE J576 JUL91 may be interpreted as 
calling for the testing of two samples by specifying that dye 
concentrations in material to be used in motor vehicle optical parts 
must fall within the upper and lower limits of dye concentrations 
tested if there are variations in dye concentration. Miles believes the 
newer requirement will double its testing burden.
    NHTSA does not agree that this is the inevitable result of the 
adoption of this portion of SAE J576 JUL 91. What paragraph S5.1.2 is 
intended to ensure is that lenses and reflectors, as manufactured for 
use on motor vehicles, are fabricated from plastic materials that meet 
SAE J576. The key issue is whether the equipment satisfies the 
performance requirements of the standard, not the number of tests 
conducted on the materials used in the equipment. Ultimately, the 
manufacturer of the vehicle in certifying compliance with all 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, is certifying that 
the lenses and reflectors on the vehicle are made from plastics 
materials that meet J576. If the lens or reflector is manufactured as 
replacement equipment, the certification responsibility is that of the 
manufacturer of the equipment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the vehicle 
or equipment manufacturer to assure itself that the materials it 
obtains from the plastics manufacturer comply with SAE J576 (and, 
furthermore, not to change the composition of the plastics materials so 
obtained in a manner that would cause it to be noncomplying). The 
documentation needed for such assurance, including the quantum of 
testing performed by the plastics manufacturer and by the vehicle or 
equipment manufacturer, is a decision that each equipment or vehicle 
manufacturer must make under the particular circumstances. NHTSA, of 
course, expects manufacturers to exercise reasonable care in certifying 
their products, and, in the event of a noncompliance, the manufacturer 
may claim that it had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable 
care, that the vehicle or equipment failed to comply. However, the 
allocation of that responsibility is a matter of contract between the 
manufacturer with the Federal certification responsibility and its 
plastic materials supplier. Plastic materials are not completed items 
of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108 so the Federal 
certification responsibility does not fall upon Miles. If Miles or 
other materials manufacturers are satisfied, based on their extensive 
experience with dyes, that changes in dye concentration would not cause 
the plastic material to fail the specified performance requirements, 
they may be able to persuade their purchasers that additional testing 
is not needed.

Effective Date

    The effective date of the final rule is March 1, 1996.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 
This final rule was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It has 
been determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under 
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The 
purpose of the rulemaking action is to update testing procedures. Since 
the final rule will have no significant cost or other impacts, 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
    National Environmental Policy Act. NHTSA has analyzed this 
rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy 
Act. The final rule will not have a significant effect upon the 
environment. The composition of plastic materials used in optical parts 
will not change from those presently in production.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The agency has also considered the 
impacts of this rulemaking action in relation to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. I certify that this rulemaking action does not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been 
prepared. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 
those affected by the rulemaking action, are generally not small 
businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions will not be 
significantly affected because the price of new vehicles and vehicle 
equipment will not be impacted.
    Executive Order 12612 (Federalism). This rulemaking action has also 
been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained 
in Executive Order 12612, and NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking 
action does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a federalism Assessment.
    Civil Justice. The final rule will not have any retroactive effect. 
Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard 
applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to 
the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for 
judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require 
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising paragraph S5.1.2, to read 
as follows:


Sec. 571.108  Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective 
devices, and associated equipment.

* * * * *
    S5.1.2  Plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and 
reflectors shall conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91, except 
that:
    (a) Plastic lenses (other than those incorporating reflex 
reflectors) used for inner lenses or those covered by another material 
and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of 
paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JULY91 when covered by the outer 
lens or other material;
    (b) After the outdoor exposure test, the haze and loss of surface 
luster of 

[[Page 46067]]
plastic materials (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) 
used for outer lenses shall not be greater than 30 percent haze as 
measured by ASTM D 1003-92, Haze and Luminous Transmittance of 
Transparent Plastic;

    (c) After the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for 
reflex reflectors and for lenses used in front of reflex reflectors 
shall not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, 
color bleeding, delamination, loss of surface luster, or haze that 
exceeds 7 percent as measured under ASTM D 1003-92.

    (d) The thickness of the test specimens specified in paragraph 
3.2.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 may vary by as much as 0.25 mm.

    (e) After exposure to the heat test as specified in subparagraph 
(f) of this paragraph, and after cooling to room ambient temperature, a 
test specimen shall show no change in shape and general appearance 
discernable to the naked eye when compared with an unexposed specimen. 
The trichromatic coefficients of the samples shall conform to the 
requirements of SAE J578c, ``Color Specification for Electric Signal 
Lighting Devices'', February 1977.

    (f) Two samples of each thickness of each plastic material are used 
in the heat test. Each sample is supported at the bottom, with at least 
51 mm. of the sample above the support, in the vertical position in 
such a manner that, on each side, the minimum uninterrupted area of 
exposed surface is not less than 3225 sq. mm. The samples are placed 
for two hours in a circulating air oven at 79  3 degrees C.

    (g) All outdoor exposure tests shall be 3 years in duration, 
whether the material is exposed or protected. Accelerated weathering 
procedures are not permitted.

* * * * *

    Issued on August 29, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-21865 Filed 9-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P