[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57948-57953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28625]



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

[[Page 57949]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93-57; Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF00


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends Standard No. 108, the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard on lighting, to 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: The amendments are effective December 26, 1995.

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 seeking 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 (58 FR 42924). On the basis of comments received, 
NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 21, 
1994, to amend Standard No. 108 in the manner discussed in the Request 
for Comments, for both integral beam and replaceable bulb headlamps 
with the on-board aiming feature, provided that such headlamps meet 
more rigorous environmental tests (59 FR 59975). The reader is referred 
to those notices (Docket No. 93-57; Notices 1 and 2) for further 
information on the background of this rulemaking action.

Proposed Amendments

    In Notice 2, NHTSA proposed 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, 
i.e., 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 would be the 
manufacturer's certification that installation of the lens on the 
headlamp for which it is intended would not create a noncompliance with 
Standard No. 108. A new section was proposed, S8.10, that would add 
chemical and corrosion resistance tests for reflectors of replaceable 
lens headlamps. NHTSA also asked specific questions related to these 
proposals.
    Comments were received from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 
(``Advocates''), American Automobile Manufacturers Association 
(``AAMA''), Chrysler Corporation (``Chrysler''), Ford Motor Company 
(``Ford''), General Motors Corporation (``GM''), Koito Manufacturing, 
Inc. (``Koito''), Mercedes-Benz of North America (``Mercedes''), and 
Volvo of North America (``Volvo'').
    AAMA, Chrysler, Ford, GM, Volvo and Koito supported the proposal in 
its entirety. Because Mercedes offered a helpful suggestion (discussed 
below), NHTSA interprets its comment as one of support. Hella, Bosch 
and VW favored replaceable lenses but opposed requirements for improved 
reflector durability. Advocates opposed the proposal.

General Comments

    In paragraph S8.10.1, NHTSA proposed a chemical resistance test for 
reflectors which would include lacquer thinner as one of the test 
fluids. Mercedes suggested that mineral spirits be substituted because 
lacquer thinner is becoming less common in shops, causes a fire hazard, 
and may damage plastic reflectors and other parts. NHTSA believes that 
lacquer thinner is still common in body shops which may be expected to 
perform lens replacements. However, it is not appropriate to expose the 
surface of the reflector to a substance likely to attack the plastic 
base material of the reflector and other lamp components. Therefore, in 
the final rule, NHTSA is substituting mineral spirits for lacquer 
thinner. However, it would be appropriate for a manufacturer's lens 
replacement instructions to warn against the use of cleaning agents 
that would harm lamp components.
    Having conducted the proposed type of corrosion test on a 
production headlamp, Mercedes also asked that lamps be permitted to be 
used with replaceable lenses if the lamps either show no visible 
corrosion damage or continue to meet photometric requirements despite 
visible corrosion damage. This comment appears based upon the 
presumption that a one-day salt spray test is equivalent to a 
reasonable worst case of reflector exposure over the life of a vehicle. 
However, the agency has no evidence that reflectors which are subject 
to corrosion will not degrade in service to a greater degree or in more 
critical locations than do a limited number of samples which have 
undergone a one-day severe exposure test. If a reflector cannot meet 
the test criterion of no corrosion visible without magnification, in 
NHTSA's view there can be no assurance that such a reflector is 
essentially corrosion-proof for indeterminant exposures before lens 
replacement after the lens is broken.
    Hella, Bosch, and VW opposed requirements for improved reflector 
durability. These commenters did not dispute the agency's assumption 
that the reflectors of present replaceable bulb headlamps may degrade 
when lens integrity is lost. However, they believe that new lenses will 
not be installed on lamps with degraded reflectors, because either the 
dealer will refuse to do so or the owner, guided by the operator's 
manual, will not seek it. For much the same reasons, VW doubts that an 
aftermarket demand for headlamp lenses will develop. NHTSA disagrees 
with these comments. The rationale behind this rulemaking is to afford 
a less expensive way of repairing headlamp damage, by replacement of 
the lens alone rather than the entire lens reflector assembly. The 
potential savings create an incentive on the part of the vehicle owner 
to minimize replacement costs, and on the part of dealers or repair 
shops to meet the vehicle owner's demands.
    Advocates opposed the proposal. In its opinion, NHTSA's amendments 
of Standard No. 108 since 1983 have reduced headlamp safety and thus is 
reluctant to see another final rule which continues the trend. It 
states that ``the agency has nothing in the record of this rulemaking 
assessing the safety consequences of its proposed amendment to permit 
replaceable lenses.'' Terming NHTSA's intended rulemaking effect as 
``safety-neutral'', Advocates comments that the agency's arguments are 
speculative and that NHTSA assumes that ``its additional testing 
requirements coupled with good-faith installation design innovations 
and directions to consumers will somehow offset any increase in 
detrimental safety consequences.'' Advocates argues that these 
assumptions are ``devoid of support in the record and, therefore, would 
be considered by the courts to be 

[[Page 57950]]
conclusory.'' In Advocates' view, ``where a pending decision arguably 
has direct implications for vehicle and traffic safety, the agency must 
evaluate the issue with sufficient empirical evidence in the record to 
support its decision.'' In support of this argument, it cites Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety v. Federal Highway Administration, 28 F.3d 
1288 (D.C. Cir. 1994) at 1294, quoting Competitive Enterprise Institute 
v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 956 F.2d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1992): 
``The (agency), however, cannot `ma[ke] conclusory assertions that its 
decision have no safety impact at all'.''
    In responding to Advocates, NHTSA first observes that neither of 
the cases cited above construed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act, whose successor, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, is the authority 
for the present rulemaking. The former case involves actions of the 
Federal Highway Administration; the latter, actions under this agency's 
statutory provisions relating to fuel economy standards.
    Under Chapter 301, NHTSA's Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
are ``minimum standards for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
performance'', and must ``meet the need for motor vehicle safety.'' 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles 
to have headlighting systems meeting specified safety performance 
levels. A headlamp system may consist of sealed beam headlamps (a 
manufacturer may choose between seven different systems), replaceable 
bulb headlamps (at least six different types at present), combination 
headlamp systems (a mixture of sealed beam and replaceable bulb 
headlamps), and integral beam headlamps (headlamps other than sealed 
beam or replaceable bulb types). The Standard formerly contained design 
specifications which restricted headlamps to two sizes of sealed beam 
headlamps. NHTSA has only permitted an additional type of headlamp 
system after first satisfying itself that the new system would provide 
at least the same minimum level of safety performance required of those 
existing systems that are certified as meeting Standard No. 108. In 
this sense, NHTSA's headlamp rulemakings have indeed been ``safety 
neutral.''
    The present rulemaking carves out a very narrow exception to the 
existing requirement that replaceable bulb headlamps and integral beam 
headlamps have lenses bonded to the reflector assembly. To ensure that 
the amended standard continues to ``meet the need for motor vehicle 
safety,'' NHTSA has imposed requirements to counter any potential 
negative effects upon safety. First, to ensure the ability of a 
headlamp to be aimed properly after lens replacement, the amendment is 
restricted to headlamps with on-board aiming devices. Second, to ensure 
the ability to install properly a replacement lens, the lens 
manufacturer is required to provide 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. Finally, to ensure 
the integrity of the reflector after exposure in an unsealed 
environment, new durability tests are prescribed for the reflector.
    NHTSA agrees that it does not have empirical evidence indicating 
how headlamps designed to conform to Standard No. 108 would perform 
with replaceable lenses. Such evidence is not available because 
headlamps with replaceable lenses have not been permitted in the United 
States. The agency believes that the requirements for on-board aiming 
devices, instructions, and durability testing contained in the final 
rule will result in an overall level of safety that is not less than 
the level of safety provided by headlamps with non-replaceable lenses. 
NHTSA believes that the discussions and analysis in this rulemaking 
action provide adequate support for the amendment.
    The following discussion centers around four questions NHTSA asked 
in the proposal and the responses received. The discussion also 
indicates the points at which the final rule responds to these 
comments.
    1. Whether the moisture of the ASTM B 117-73 salt spray test, when 
conducted for 24 hours, is sufficient to test the moisture resistance 
of headlamp reflectors. If not, what test would be sufficient?
    Because a cracked lens frequently causes a lamp to partially fill 
with water, NHTSA proposed a salt spray test to be conducted on a 
headlamp with its lens removed. In its response to the previous request 
for comments (58 FR 42924), Ford cited separately the need to test for 
corrosion resistance and for moisture resistance. Since the corrosion 
test proposed by the agency features considerable moisture, NHTSA asked 
if that test would also satisfy the need for testing moisture 
resistance for aspects other than corrosion. Ford commented that the 
moisture content and duration of the proposed corrosion test was indeed 
sufficient to test for moisture resistance.
    2. Whether the proposed corrosion test is also acceptable to 
demonstrate the abrasion resistance of headlamp reflectors.
    The dust test that applies to replaceable bulb headlamps utilizes 
Portland cement as the agent. But it is conducted on the outside of 
lamps with the lens and bulbs in place. The abrasion of principal 
concern in this instance would occur when the reflector was being 
cleaned in the process of replacing the lens. In the belief that the 
proposed corrosion test would coat the reflector with salt deposits, 
and that the subsequent cleaning would provide the appropriate abrasion 
test, NHTSA asked whether, in fact, a 24-hour salt spray test would 
deposit enough salt for this purpose, and whether a particular method 
of salt removal should be specified or left to the manufacturer's 
instructions included with a replacement lens. The agency also asked 
whether both a Portland cement dust test and corrosion test should be 
conducted. It also asked whether a direct abrasion test would be more 
appropriate (contrasted with the indirect one of cleaning an agent from 
the reflector), and, if so, what procedure would be appropriate.
    Ford concurred in the agency's belief that the salt spray test 
alone would be adequate to demonstrate abrasion resistance. It also 
commented that the salt should be removed according to the 
manufacturer's instructions to consumers for cleaning reflectors. Koito 
commented that the corrosion and chemical resistance tests could 
substitute for a dust test. Mercedes also concurred, with the comment 
that it found the deposited salts difficult to remove (and NHTSA found 
evidence of scratches on the reflector that Mercedes had cleaned). This 
comment confirms NHTSA's belief that the proposed test is adequate to 
demonstrate abrasion resistance of the reflector, and is amending the 
standard as proposed.
    Although the standard is being amended to specify salt removal 
according to the manufacturer's instructions, the agency will 
reconsider the point if the instructions impose unrealistic burdens 
upon consumers or serve to defeat the intent of the test. Examples of 
such instructions are ones that would call for the removal of the 
headlamp from the vehicle for cleaning the reflector or for the use of 
methods, such as ultrasonic cleaning, which are unrealistically gentle.
    3. Whether the duration of the proposed test is sufficient to test 
reflectors and the metal light shields sometime used; appropriate 
criteria for testing light shields; stains from corroded light shields. 


[[Page 57951]]

    Ford commented that it had no specific test data using the proposed 
corrosion test procedure for headlamp reflectors, but that it believed 
such a test would be sufficient to provide adequate assurance that the 
reflective surface is robust enough to withstand exposure to 
environmental conditions due to a cracked or otherwise damaged lens. 
The sufficiency of the proposed test appears borne out by the fact that 
the Mercedes lamp did not meet the test criterion after being subjected 
to the 24-hour salt spray and 48-hour drying time.
    Ford commented that rusty water stains would most likely affect the 
bottom of the reflector which has little influence on the beam. 
However, NHTSA's random observation of headlamps on vehicles in use 
show clear examples in which a corroded light shield has deposited 
extensive rust stains over the active part of the reflector as well as 
at the bottom. Even a small puncture of the lens can result in 
sufficient water entering the headlamp to splash over and stain much of 
the reflector if rust is present. Thus, NHTSA is adopting its proposed 
prohibition on metal light shield corrosion.
    Koito remarked that the beam is mostly insensitive to light shield 
corrosion and that corrosion within \1/8\ inch of sharp edges should be 
discounted. Koito also asked that NHTSA define the optical surface of 
the reflector to exclude parts that do not contribute to the headlamp 
beam and parts which affect other lighting functions.
    The agency agrees with Koito that the NPRM was not specific enough 
about the area of the reflector to be inspected for corrosion. 
Certainly the back of the reflector and parts covered by the lamp body 
have no optical role even though they may have a shiny plating. But it 
would be unwise to define the important parts of the reflector too 
narrowly. Parts that are blacked out, for example, would cause glare if 
their finish were lost to corrosion. A reasonable specification of the 
part of the reflector to be inspected includes all areas of the 
reflector exposed to light from the headlamp light source. Thus, with 
respect to integral beam headlighting systems, NHTSA is amending 
S7.4(g)(3) as proposed, but adding the requirement that after corrosion 
tests conducted in accordance with S8.10.2, ``there shall be no 
evidence of corrosion or rust visible without magnification on any part 
of the headlamp reflector that receives light from a headlamp light 
source, on any metal light or heat shield assembly, or on a metal 
reflector of any other lamp not sealed from the headlamp reflector.'' 
The prohibitions against metal corrosion are intended to prevent the 
staining of otherwise satisfactory reflectors.
    4. Whether the present salt spray test of replaceable bulb 
headlamps with lenses attached is sufficient to qualify reflectors for 
use with replaceable lenses without further environmental testing.
    Ford commented that the present test is likely to be insufficient 
to replicate the possible exposure of lamps with damaged lenses prior 
to repair since it is conducted with the lens attached, thus sparing 
the reflector direct exposure to the elements. NHTSA agrees, and finds 
this a further reason in support of the corrosion and abrasion 
resistance tests adopted in the final rule.
    Hella, Bosch, and VW commented that improved reflectors are not 
necessary because warnings placed in the owners manual and the actions 
of dealers are sufficient to prevent the releasing of degraded lamps. 
NHTSA disagrees with these comments; as was noted above, a vehicle 
owner is more likely to replace a lens than a lens reflector assembly 
because of cost savings. Therefore, an improved reflector is required 
to assure its ability to resist exposure to the environment during the 
period of lost lens integrity.
    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. Bosch submitted data demonstrating that repeated lens 
changes did not change the photometrics of the lamp; this 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.

Effective Date

    The effective date of the final rule is December 26, 1995. Because 
the final rule permits an option to an existing requirement, and an 
early effective date will permit the benefits of the final rule to be 
immediately available, it is hereby 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 is 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 
the final rule may result in higher prices attributable to an improved 
reflector, NHTSA believes that this will not add more than a few 
dollars to the retail price of the type of headlamp which presently 
costs $250 to $600. This initial cost increase could be more than 
offset by reduced repair costs during the life of the vehicle or the 
headlamp. These cost impacts are so minimal that the 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 the final 
rule based will 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 will 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. 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 

[[Page 57952]]
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

    This final rule has no 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. 
Section 30163 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 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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


Sec. 571.108  [Amended]

    2. Section 571.108 is amended as follows:
    a. The definitions of ``Integral Beam Headlamp'' and ``Replaceable 
Bulb Headlamp'' in Paragraph S4 are revised as set forth below.
    b. Paragraphs S5.8.11, S7.2(e), S8.10.1 and S8.10.2 are 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 
are revised to read as set forth below.


Sec. 571.108  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 a headlamp incorporating a 
vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2 may have a lens 
designed to be replaceable. 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 a headlamp incorporating a vehicle headlamp aiming device 
conforming to S7.8.5.2 may have a lens designed to be replaceable. 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). A headlamp with a nonreplaceable glass lens 
need not meet the chemical resistance test (S8.3). A headlamp with a 
glass lens and a non-plastic reflector 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.l, 4.l.2, 4.4 and 5.l.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 and are used for purposes other than headlighting.
    (h) * * *
* * * * *
    (2) After the chemical resistance tests of paragraphs S8.3 and 
S8.10.1, the headlamp shall have 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 a corrosion test conducted in accordance with paragraph 
S8.4, there shall be no evidence of external or internal corrosion or 
rust visible without magnification. After a corrosion test conducted in 
accordance with paragraph S8.10.2, there shall be no evidence of 
corrosion or rust visible without magnification on any part of the 
headlamp reflector that receives light from a headlamp light source, on 
any metal light or heat shield assembly, or on a metal reflector of any 
other lamp not sealed from the headlamp reflector. Loss of adhesion of 
any applied coating shall not occur more than 0.l25 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 

[[Page 57953]]
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) With the headlamp in the headlamp 
test fixture and the lens removed, the entire surface of the reflector 
that receives light from a headlamp light source 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) Mineral spirits; 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.F  7 deg. (23 deg.C  
4 deg.) and a relative humidity of 30  10 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.F 
 7 deg. (23 deg.C  4 deg.) and a relative 
humidity of 30  10 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 16, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-28625 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P