[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60464-60470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 03-15651]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides an interpretation concerning how our 
standard for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment 
applies to replacement equipment. Our interpretation reflects 
consideration of the public comments on an earlier draft 
interpretation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Stas, Office of Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-
3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Role of the Chief Counsel

    One of the functions performed by NHTSA's Chief Counsel is to issue 
interpretations of the statutes administered by the agency and 
regulations issued by the agency under those statutes. See 49 CFR 
501.8(d)(5). These interpretations are typically issued in the form of 
a letter responding to a request for interpretation from a manufacturer 
or other interested person. Our interpretations have always been placed 
in public viewing files and, more recently, have been available to the 
public via the Internet.
    We believe that, in certain cases involving important, novel issues 
with potentially broad impacts, it is beneficial to publish draft 
interpretations in the Federal Register to provide an opportunity for 
public comment. This helps ensure that the agency has considered all 
relevant issues prior to publishing a final interpretation.

Requests for Interpretation by Calcoast-ITL

    On March 6, 2003, NHTSA received two requests for interpretation 
submitted by Calcoast-ITL (Calcoast), a testing company.\1\ Those 
letters asked a number of questions regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, applies to replacement equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15651-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first Calcoast letter asked whether replacement lamps are 
required to have all the functions of original lamps. The letter also 
asked whether replacement lamps for the rear of a vehicle may have the 
rear reflex reflectors in a location that is inboard from that in the 
original lamps.
    The second Calcoast letter asked a series of questions regarding 
the permissibility of using light sources in aftermarket lamps that are 
different from those specified by the original equipment (OE) 
manufacturer.

NHTSA's Notice of Draft Interpretation; Request for Comments

    Because the questions raised in the Calcoast letters raised 
significant issues concerning how FMVSS No. 108 applies to replacement 
lighting equipment, the agency decided to seek public comment regarding 
the agency's proposed response to Calcoast's interpretation requests. 
Accordingly, we published a notice of draft interpretation in the 
Federal Register on July 17, 2003.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 68 FR 42454. Initially, the comment period was scheduled to 
end on September 2, 2003, but that period was twice extended, 
ultimately to October 31, 2003 (see notices extending comment period 
at 68 FR 51635 (August 27, 2003); 68 FR 56041 (September 29, 2003)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for 
original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated 
equipment (see S1). The standard applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and 
motorcycles (see S3(a)). Under the standard, vehicle manufacturers are 
required to certify that a new vehicle meets, among other things, FMVSS 
No. 108's requirements with respect to lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment. In addition, FMVSS No. 108 also applies to lamps, 
reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like 
equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies (see S3(c)). Thus,

[[Page 60465]]

FMVSS No. 108 is both a vehicle standard and an equipment standard.
    Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides, ``Except as provided 
below, each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment 
manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of 
associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies 
shall be designed to conform to this standard.'' Interpretation of this 
provision is at the heart of all the questions raised by Calcoast.
    In preparing our draft response to Calcoast, two relatively recent 
interpretation letters provided relevant precedent in construing 
paragraph S5.8.1 of FMVSS No. 108.
    In a February 4, 2002 letter to Daniel Watt,\3\ NHTSA responded to 
a question regarding the permissibility of replacing an original, 
incandescent bulb in a truck's tail lamp with a red light emitting 
diode (LED). In that interpretation, we cited the requirements of 
S5.8.1 and stated that a replacement item must be designed to conform 
to the standard in the same manner as the original equipment installed 
on the vehicle. Our letter concluded that in the case presented, a 
replacement lamp equipped with LEDs would not be designed to conform to 
the standard in the same manner as the original equipment, and, 
therefore, would not comply with S5.8.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/23532.ztv.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a March 13, 2003 letter to Galen Chen,\4\ we were asked whether 
a replacement lamp (the ``Maxzone headlamp'') could be sold for model 
year (MY)1998-2001 Honda Accord passenger cars that incorporates a 
different headlamp light source than that originally installed on the 
vehicle. (Honda Accords of that range of model years were equipped with 
headlamps meeting the requirements of S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp 
systems.) In that interpretation, we interpreted S5.8.1 and S7.5(b) of 
the standard to require each replacement headlamp to conform to the 
standard's specified photometry requirements when using the type of 
replaceable light sources specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/maxzonenew.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the other features incorporated in the Maxzone 
headlamp, our letter to Mr. Chen further provided that we interpret 
S5.8.1 as requiring replacement lighting equipment designed for 
specific motor vehicles to incorporate, at a minimum, the same required 
functionality as included on the OE lamp it is intended to replace.
    With this background in mind, we turn to our draft interpretations 
responding to Calcoast. In our draft interpretations, we stated, as a 
general principle, that under S5.8.1, whenever a manufacturer designs a 
lamp to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which the standard applies, the 
manufacturer must design that lamp to ensure that the vehicle will 
continue to comply with FMVSS No. 108 when the replacement lamp is 
installed. This statement is a logical corollary to the language of 
S5.8.1, in that if an item of lighting equipment is certified under the 
standard, when incorporated in a vehicle, it must permit the entire 
vehicle to continue to comply with all relevant Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards.
    The draft interpretations stated that the specific requirements of 
FMVSS No. 108 that apply to an item of replacement equipment are 
determined by reference to the original equipment being replaced and 
the vehicle for which it was designed. The letters to Mr. Watt and Mr. 
Chen were cited in support of the proposition that replacement items 
must conform to the standard in the same manner as the original 
equipment for which the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance.
    We now turn to our response to the specific questions raised by 
Calcoast. The first draft interpretation letter responded to Calcoast's 
questions about replacement lamps that are modifications of rear OE 
lamps for various Honda Civics. Those lamps were paired lamps with a 
fender mount and deck lid mount, but in each case, the replacement lamp 
manufacturer moved the location of the reflex reflector from the fender 
mount replacement lamp to the deck lid mount replacement lamp (a change 
from the OE lighting system). Calcoast asked whether an individual 
replacement lamp must have all the functions of the original lamp and 
noted that a consumer could purchase or install only the outboard 
lamps, thereby losing the reflex reflector function. Calcoast also 
questioned whether moving the reflex reflector inboard violated the 
requirement in Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 that the reflex reflectors be 
``as far apart as practicable.''
    Our draft interpretation letter stated that the replacement lamp in 
question would not conform to FMVSS No. 108 because it does not include 
all of the functions provided in the original lamp. The draft letter 
stated that it is immaterial that the aftermarket manufacturer provides 
a reflex reflector in another lamp. We stated that under S5.8.1, ``each 
lamp'' manufactured to replace any lamp on any vehicle to which the 
standard applies must be designed to conform to the standard. As 
Calcoast had noted, a consumer might replace only a single lamp, and 
the reflex reflector function could be lost.
    Regarding the placement of the reflex reflector closer inboard than 
the reflectors on the OE lighting system, the draft interpretation 
concluded that this was impermissible under the standard. Specifically, 
because FMVSS No. 108 requires rear reflex reflectors to be ``as far 
apart as practicable,'' an aftermarket product that moves the reflex 
reflectors closer together would not conform to the requirements of the 
standard, since the OE equipment's placement was clearly practicable to 
achieve.
    The second draft interpretation responded to Calcoast's questions 
about allowable light source modifications of aftermarket lamps. The 
lamps in question included both front and rear combination lamps. In 
some cases, these replacement lamps utilized the OE wiring harness and 
sockets, and in other cases, the aftermarket manufacturer supplied a 
modified wiring harness and sockets along with the replacement lamp. 
Specifically, Calcoast asked whether it is permissible for an 
aftermarket manufacturer to design a lamp to use a different wattage 
bulb than the OE lamp contained. It also asked whether a replacement 
lamp could use a different color bulb from the OE system (e.g., switch 
from a clear bulb behind a red lens to a red bulb behind a clear lens). 
Calcoast stated that some lamp manufacturers are completely changing 
the bulbs used (including wattage, color, and base type) by providing a 
replacement wiring harness and sockets. Calcoast also asked whether it 
is permissible for an aftermarket manufacturer to change a replacement 
lamp's light source from incandescent to sealed LED. Finally, to the 
extent these changes are allowed, Calcoast asked how consumers should 
be informed of the changes.
    Our draft interpretation stated that replacement lamps must comply 
with FMVSS No. 108 using the same light sources as the original 
equipment. It further stated that each vehicle is certified to FMVSS 
No. 108 using a particular light source for a particular lamp, and the 
lamp's ability to meet the standard's requirements with that light 
source is an inherent part of the vehicle's certification. Thus, in 
order a conform to the standard, a replacement lamp must meet the 
standard's requirements using the same light source as in the original 
equipment.
    We stated that the lighting systems and overall electrical systems 
of

[[Page 60466]]

vehicles are designed with specific light sources in mind, to ensure 
proper beam patterns, levels of brightness and electrical performance, 
and to avoid overloads and risk of fire. In the owner's manual, vehicle 
manufacturers advise owners what replacement bulbs to use. We stated 
that if a replacement lamp were designed to use a different light 
source from that used in the original equipment lamp, it might not work 
properly, or at all, with the original equipment bulb or with the 
replacement bulbs specified by the vehicle manufacturer. Moreover, use 
of a different light source might adversely affect the performance of 
the vehicle's overall lighting and electrical systems, and possibly 
cause overloads and risk of fire.

Public Comments

    Comments on the draft interpretations were submitted by 25 
interested parties, representing automobile manufacturers, trailer 
manufacturers, motorcycle manufacturers, lighting manufacturers (both 
OE and aftermarket), manufacturers of other motor vehicle equipment, 
the trucking industry, associations of vehicle owners, and 
individuals.\5\
    In overview, there was general consensus among the commenters that 
replacement lighting equipment must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 
108 and that all required functions of the OE lamp(s) must be retained. 
Clearly, the installation of replacement equipment should not take a 
vehicle out of compliance with the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commenters included: (1) the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance), (2) the Truck Trailer Manufacturers 
Association (TTMA), (3) the Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-
Davidson), (4) Automotive Lighting, (5) Maxzone, (6) Osram Sylvania 
Products, Inc., (7) the Motor Vehicle Lighting Council, (8) Truck-
Lite Co., Inc., (9) American Products Company (APC), (10) Grote 
Industries, LLC, (11) Hella KG Hueck & Co. (Hella), (12) Valeo 
Sylvania, (13) Candlepower, Inc., (14) Valeo Lighting Systems, (15) 
Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C., (16) the Transportation Safety Equipment 
Institute (TSEI), (17) Sound Off, Inc., (18) Sierra Products, Inc., 
(19) the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), (20) the 
Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), (21) Peterson 
Manufacturing Company (Peterson), (22) Trainum, Snowdon, & Deane, 
P.C., (Trainum), (23) the Specialty Equipment Market Association 
(SEMA), (24) the American Trucking Associations (ATA), and (25) the 
Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America (SUVOA). There were also two 
anonymous comments from individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, none of the commenters supported the aspects of NHTSA's 
proposed interpretations that would require the replacement equipment 
to conform to the standard in the same manner as the original 
equipment. Instead, commenters argued that aftermarket manufacturers 
should be allowed to certify replacement lighting equipment under FMVSS 
No. 108 in any manner that would have been available to an OE 
manufacturer.
    Osram Sylvania, for example, cited the language of paragraph S5.8.1 
requiring replacement lighting equipment to be designed to conform to 
FMVSS No. 108 and argued that a customer may put an entirely different 
lamp system on a vehicle as long as it is designed to conform to that 
standard. It also argued that equipment manufacturers should have the 
same design freedom as vehicle manufacturers and should be held to the 
same safety performance standards. Valeo Sylvania stated that it 
believes that aftermarket replacement kits that change the style or 
appearance of the OE lamp are permitted according to FMVSS No. 108 as 
long as these lamps comply with FMVSS No. 108 and the vehicle continues 
to comply with FMVSS No. 108 after installation of the lamps.
    The Alliance cited the language of S5.8.1 requiring replacement 
lighting equipment to be designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108 and 
stated that the provision says nothing about also conforming to the 
design, materials or styling choices made by the original vehicle 
manufacturer and should not be interpreted to add those requirements.
    TSEI stated that in responding to questions such as whether lamp 
manufacturers may design replacement lamps that use different wattage 
bulbs, different color bulbs, different light sources, and modified 
wiring harnesses, the agency's response should be that these things are 
allowed only if the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108 after the 
replacement item is installed.
    Specific comments and issues are discussed below.

1. Retention of Required Functions

    The overwhelming majority of commenters agreed with NHTSA's 
position, as expressed in the proposed interpretation letters, that 
replacement lighting should be required to provide all of the same 
required functions that are present in the OE lighting equipment that 
it replaces. This view was expressed by Maxzone, Douglas Dynamics, 
Valeo Lighting Systems, the Motor Vehicle Lighting Council, Truck-Lite, 
Grote Industries, Hella, Candlepower, Peterson, Harley-Davidson, APC, 
and the Alliance.

2. Flexibility in Replacement Lamp Configuration

    The Alliance, Harley-Davidson, and APC suggested that manufacturers 
should be permitted flexibility to vary the configuration of functions 
in a given lamp set (i.e., through relocation, regrouping, separation, 
or reconfiguration) and should not be tied to the placement decision of 
the OE manufacturer. In contrast to the proposed interpretations that 
focus on an individual lamp, the Alliance and APC encouraged the agency 
to evaluate a set of lamps for compliance with FMVSS No. 108, provided 
that such lamps are sold to consumers in sets.
    To the extent that the draft interpretations called for replacement 
equipment to comply with the standard ``in the same manner'' as the 
original equipment being replaced, APC objected, if such interpretation 
means that the exact location of the reflex reflector must be 
maintained on the replacement lamp or the reflex reflector must remain 
in a combination lamp, rather than providing a separate reflex 
reflector. APC stated that requiring aftermarket manufacturers to 
``clone'' the design of OE manufacturers not only imposes unnecessary 
design restrictions for replacement lamps but also prevents vehicle 
owners from ever upgrading to new, improved lighting technology.
    Harley-Davidson stated that styling is an extremely important 
consideration, and aftermarket lighting helps the vehicle owner express 
that person's unique individuality. It argues that such benefits can be 
achieved without sacrificing legitimate safety concerns, provided that 
the manufacturer ``stays within certain, fairly reasonable parameters 
(such as minimum and maximum lamp height and lens area).'' Harley-
Davidson urged NHTSA to leave the decision of actual design and 
placement of equipment to the manufacturer, provided it meets certain 
performance requirements, rather than requiring exact duplication of 
the original equipment.
    The Alliance stated that a replacement lamp set should not be 
required to distribute and locate all required functions in the same 
manner as in the OE lamp. The Alliance argued, ``If manufacturers could 
not separate functions in replacement lamp sets and configure those 
sets differently for different world markets, manufacturers would be 
required to develop a `U.S.-only' replacement lamp, increasing consumer 
costs and depriving manufacturers of the benefits of a `performance' 
standard.''
    A number of commenters addressed the issue raised by Calcoast 
related to the specific requirements for placement of rear reflex 
reflectors, and whether such required functions can be moved inboard of 
their position on the original equipment. Specifically, Table IV of 
FMVSS No. 108 requires that such

[[Page 60467]]

reflectors be spaced ``as far apart as practicable.'' The comments 
submitted by the Alliance are illustrative. The Alliance argues that 
the standard permits such design flexibility and that the agency has 
never enforced such requirement literally. In support of its point, the 
Alliance quotes from our May 6, 1997 letter of interpretation to Marcin 
A. Gorzkowski, which states, ``all front and rear lighting equipment 
required to be provided in pairs must be located `as far apart as 
practicable.' Literal compliance with this requirement could mean that 
lamps and reflectors would have to be stacked vertically at the extreme 
edges of a vehicle. But we have never sought to enforce the location 
requirements of Standard 108 in that manner.'' The Alliance stated that 
NHTSA should continue to provide vehicle and lighting manufacturers 
discretion regarding the placement of required functions, or 
alternatively, the Alliance stated that the agency should undertake 
rulemaking if there is a need to more objectively specify the location 
of reflex reflectors or any other paired lighting equipment.
    Candlepower recommended ``adopting dimensionally-explicit 
specifications for the allowable mounting locations of devices and 
functions'' in order to resolve the issue of relocation/regrouping of 
functions. Specifically, Candlepower referenced the draft United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Proposed Draft Amendment 
for a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) for the installation of 
lighting and light-signaling devices (ECE-R48H).

3. Discouragement of New Technologies

    Several commenters stated that by interpreting S5.8.1 as requiring 
replacement lighting to comply with the standard in the same manner as 
the original equipment, NHTSA would retard or prevent the emergence of 
new technologies that may be both more economical and have better 
performance (e.g., improve vehicle conspicuity and driver night 
vision). Such arguments were raised by Automotive Lighting, SUVOA, 
TTMA, Grote Industries, Candlepower, Sound Off, Inc., AAIA, Peterson, 
and the Alliance.
    The Alliance argued that aftermarket manufacturers should be 
permitted to offer replacement headlamps for a vehicle that use a 
different type of light source than that used by the OE manufacturer. 
For example, the Alliance argued that it should be possible to replace 
a vehicle's original high intensity discharge (HID) head lamps with 
less expensive halogen lamps, as long as the vehicle continues to meet 
the photometric and other requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for those 
replacement lamps.
    In contrast to such situations where the entire lamp is replaced, 
the Alliance acknowledged that it would be impermissible to sell and 
install light sources or light source/socket combinations different 
from those designed for the original lamp. More specifically, the 
Alliance stated that it does not support modification kits that would 
override designs intended to ensure noninterchangeability of 
incompatible bulbs (per 49 CFR part 564, Replaceable Light Source 
Information); however, it suggested that NHTSA should deal with such 
cases through enforcement actions or a narrowly focused interpretation.
    Hella sought to make a distinction in the requirements for 
``replacement lamps'' which are designed solely for repair purposes 
(for which Hella would support the proposed interpretations) and 
``aftermarket lamps'' which are designed to improve lighting 
performance (for which Hella would oppose the proposed 
interpretations).

4. Discontinued Parts

    Harley-Davidson commented that sometimes OE parts used on vehicles 
are discontinued by the parts manufacturer. When this occurs, consumers 
must find an equivalent and compliant substitute. Harley-Davidson 
argues that under NHTSA's proposed interpretation, vehicle owners may 
be faced with a choice of replacing a lighting component with a non-
compliant part or prematurely removing the vehicle from service.

5. Recommended Exclusion for Heavy Vehicles

    The ATA requested that heavy vehicles be excluded from the 
requirement that replacement lighting be certified in the same manner 
as the original equipment, because commercial vehicles are designed 
with a high degree of commonality and standardization. According to 
ATA, such vehicles have electrical and lighting systems that follow 
proven industry guidelines, standards, and recommended practices 
established by the Society of Automotive Engineers \6\ (SAE), The 
Maintenance Council (TMC), and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
(CVSA). As a result, ATA stated that commercial vehicles are designed 
to accept replacement lighting designed for a variety of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ATA referenced the following SAE standards related to 
lighting: J163 (Low Tension Wiring and Cable Terminals and Splice 
Clips); J2202 (Heavy-Duty Wiring Systems for On-Highway Trucks); 
J2174 (Heavy-Duty Wiring Systems for Trailers); J1128 (Low Tension 
Primary Cable); J2030 (Heavy-Duty Electrical Connector Performance 
Standard), and J2139 (Tests for Signal and Marking Devices Use on 
Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TTMA, making the same arguments about trailers, recommended 
excluding vehicles with a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of more than 
10,000 pounds or with an overall width of 80 inches or wider. Truck-
Lite and Peterson also stated that heavy vehicles are distinguishable 
from passenger vehicles, in that heavy vehicles are compatible with a 
various types of replacement lighting.
    NTEA expressed concern about trucks that are converted to snow 
plows, which because of their purpose, require vehicle lighting to be 
relocated using aftermarket equipment.
    SEMA, by contrast, argued that treatment of light and heavy 
vehicles under FMVSS No. 108 should remain unified. SEMA recommended 
that replacement lighting for all weight classes be required to conform 
to the standard, but without a requirement for that equipment to be 
certified in the same manner as the OE lighting.

6. Other Issues

    Several commenters (Osram Sylvania, APC, Peterson, TSEI, Trainum, 
Harley-Davidson, and the Alliance) argued that the proposed 
interpretations are inconsistent with the current regulatory 
requirements, and that the agency would need to conduct rulemaking 
under the Administrative Procedure Act \7\ (APA) in order to impose 
such requirements, rather than rely on the interpretive process. 
Trainum stated that adoption of the proposed interpretation letters, 
which tie the design of aftermarket lighting equipment to that of the 
original equipment, would result in an unconstitutional delegation of 
agency authority to vehicle manufacturers; according to Trainum, even 
if such delegation were permissible, the manner in which NHTSA 
proceeded (i.e., through the interpretive process) denies affected 
parties due process under the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trainum and SEMA suggested that, presuming NHTSA's intent is to 
limit the proliferation of replacement lighting equipment that does not 
comply with FMVSS No. 108, the agency should pursue that objective 
through vigorous enforcement (e.g., use of recalls), rather than a 
restrictive interpretation of S5.8.1. The Alliance also argued that 
enforcement action is the appropriate mechanism for the agency to deal 
with

[[Page 60468]]

noncompliant lighting equipment, and, furthermore, the Alliance stated 
that it does not know of any safety need to prevent new technologies 
from entering the replacement lighting marketplace. SEMA stated that a 
design-based system would require local and State law enforcement 
officials to know the details of approved designs.
    The Alliance commented that the risk of overloading the vehicle's 
electrical system or causing a fire ``is not inherent to whether the 
light source matches the one selected by the vehicle manufacturer but 
rather is a function of proper circuit design and protection and robust 
lamp design.'' It did caution, however, that light sources that impose 
a larger electrical load than the original, or that modify the original 
electrical architecture may present a risk of overloading the vehicle 
electrical system. It also indicated that a smaller electrical load 
than the OE light sources could render inoperative the vehicle's 
compliance to S5.5.6 of the standard regarding turn signal lamp outage 
indication. The Alliance stated that any such compatibility problems 
should be treated as a safety defect.
    Several commenters (e.g., Osram Sylvania, APC, the Alliance) argued 
that the proposed interpretations would impose unnecessary design 
restrictions on aftermarket lighting manufacturers in contravention of 
the Safety Act's requirement that NHTSA promulgate performance 
standards. Some of these commenters stated that NHTSA lacks authority 
to impose such restrictions. SEMA stated that a design-based standard 
requirement could discriminate against certain technologies and 
companies, particularly those with fewer resources. Others argued that 
the approach taken in the proposed interpretations would stifle 
innovation in the lighting industry and reduce competition.
    The Alliance and Trainum argued that NHTSA's recent interpretations 
to Mr. Watt and Mr. Chen and its proposed interpretations to Calcoast 
are inconsistent with prior agency interpretations stating that 
replacement lighting is permissible so long as it meets the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 (see letters of interpretation to Shlomo 
Zadok \8\ (August 20, 1996), Eric Williamson \9\ (April 8, 1998), and 
the Department of California Highway Patrol \10\ (February 2, 1977)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/12247.ztv.html.
    \9\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/17258.ztv.html.
    \10\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/77/77-1.15.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance also stated that the proposed interpretations 
responding to Calcoast are ambiguous in requiring replacement lighting 
to comply with the standard ``in the same manner'' as the original 
equipment. The Alliance stated, ``Even if a replacement lamp was 
designed with the same light source, the same styling and the same 
materials as the original lamp, it is likely to comply `in a different 
manner' than the original lamp, due to variations in bulbs, lenses and 
other components. If the proposed interpretations would require the 
replacement lamps to have identical photometric output as the original 
lamps, that is an impossible compliance burden.''
    According to numerous commenters (Valeo Lighting Systems, APC, 
Sound Off, Inc., AAIA, Peterson, TSEI, Trainum, SEMA, Harley-Davidson, 
and the Alliance), implementation of the proposed interpretation 
letters would cause severe economic harm to manufacturers of 
aftermarket lighting equipment and could drive many such manufacturers 
out of business. In addition, it was argued that a requirement that 
replacement lighting equipment be certified in the same manner as the 
original equipment would allow vehicle manufacturers to monopolize the 
design of light sources. In addition, TSEI stated that the proposed 
interpretations may cause aftermarket lighting manufacturers to 
encounter patent infringement problems vis-[aacute]-vis the OE 
manufacturers. Commenters further stated that the above could result in 
decreased competition and increased prices for consumers.
    Some commenters (SUVOA, APC, Valeo Sylvania, and the Alliance) 
stated that consumer choice would be diminished as a result of the 
draft interpretations, as car enthusiasts would have fewer options for 
customizing their vehicles with replacement lighting.
    The Alliance also commented that the draft interpretations, if 
adopted, would set an unfavorable precedent for other types of 
replacement equipment (e.g., replacement tires, glazing, brake hoses, 
and brake fluid), which are currently required to simply meet the 
requirements of the relevant FMVSS.
    In lieu of the approach presented in the proposed interpretations, 
TSEI suggested that NHTSA should consider: (1) requiring that lamps be 
marked to indicate all of their included functions, and (2) requiring 
lamps using replaceable bulbs to be marked with the bulb type 
designation. TSEI stated that such marking requirements would enable 
installers (and State inspectors) to identify which functions are 
included as part of the original and replacement equipment.

Our Interpretation

    After consideration of the public comments, we have decided to make 
some modifications in our interpretation of S5.8.1, dealing with 
replacement lighting equipment, as articulated in the draft 
interpretations to Calcoast.
    We note that in stating in our draft interpretation that 
replacement equipment must comply with FMVSS No. 108 ``in the same 
manner'' as OE equipment, we were not intending to imply that 
replacement equipment must be exactly the same in every aspect of 
design as the OE equipment. We used that language as part of explaining 
our tentative view that S5.8.1 requires replacement lamps to use the 
same type of light source, meet the same applicable photometry 
requirements, be of the same color, and have all the same required 
functions as the original lamp. We agree with the commenters that the 
language ``in the same manner'' could be considered ambiguous and will 
not use that phrase further.
    As indicated earlier, paragraph S5.8.1 of FMVSS No. 108 provides 
that, ``Except as provided below, each lamp, reflective device, or item 
of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective 
device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this 
standard applies shall be designed to conform to this standard.''
    Given S5.8.1's language applying its requirements to ``each lamp, 
reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to 
replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment,'' 
under the existing language this requirement applies to each individual 
replacement lamp or other item of replacement equipment and not to sets 
of equipment. However, as explained below, we believe that it would be 
appropriate to consider the compliance of pairs of replacement lamps in 
certain circumstances and plan to conduct rulemaking during 2005 that 
will propose to amend FMVSS No. 108 to that effect.

Discussion

1. Retention of Required Functions

    In designing an item of replacement lighting equipment to conform 
to FMVSS No. 108, one important consideration is that the item of 
equipment must incorporate all required functions of the original 
equipment it is designed to replace. Otherwise, installation of the 
item of equipment, as designed, would take the vehicle out of 
compliance with the standard.

[[Page 60469]]

Moreover, we do not believe it can reasonably be argued that a lamp or 
other item of replacement lighting equipment that takes a vehicle out 
of compliance with FMVSS No. 108 can be said to have been ``designed to 
conform to'' the standard.
    If the item of equipment being replaced also includes other non-
required features, it would be left to the discretion of the lighting 
manufacturer as to whether to include these additional functions in the 
item of replacement equipment. The same reasoning would apply to an 
aftermarket manufacturer that wishes to provide additional optional 
functions in an item of replacement equipment that were not present in 
the OE equipment.

2. Location of Required Functions

    Another issue raised by Calcoast's letter is how compliance of 
replacement equipment with FMVSS No. 108 is assessed with respect to 
location requirements. In our draft interpretation, we stated that 
because FMVSS No. 108 requires rear reflex reflectors to be ``as far 
apart as practicable,'' an aftermarket product that moves the reflex 
reflectors closer together would not conform to the requirements of the 
standard, since the OE equipment's placement was clearly practicable to 
achieve.
    We have considered the argument made by some commenters, including 
the Alliance, that replacement lamp manufacturers should have 
flexibility in this area. However, given the language of the standard, 
we do not believe it would be appropriate to change our interpretation 
in this area.
    In particular, while there may be questions of fact in some 
situations as to what constitutes ``as far apart as practicable'' in 
the context of OE lighting, such questions are narrower for aftermarket 
lighting manufacturers. This is because the placement of the OE 
lighting sets a baseline for what is practicable. Again, an aftermarket 
product that moves the reflex reflectors closer together would not 
conform to the requirements of the standard, since the OE equipment's 
placement was clearly practicable to achieve.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Since each lamp must comply, moving a required function 
inboard would also cause the spacing to be different if only one 
replacement lamp were installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Use of Alternative Light Sources

    Under our revised interpretation, replacement lighting (other than 
headlamps) may utilize a different type of light source than that of 
the original equipment lighting, provided that the replacement lighting 
equipment meets the requirements of the standard and does not take the 
vehicle out of compliance. This interpretation supersedes our February 
4, 2002 interpretation to Mr. Daniel Watt. With respect to replacement 
headlamps, however, we adhere to our March 13, 2003 interpretation to 
Mr. Galen Chen, i.e., headlamps manufactured to replace OE headlamps 
must comply with all applicable photometry requirements using the 
replaceable light sources intended for use in the headlighting system 
on the vehicle for which the replacement headlamp is intended. Unlike 
other lamps, FMVSS No. 108 specifically regulates headlamp systems 
including their light sources.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See S7.1, S7.5, and S7.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that we had been concerned that certain different light 
sources could be incompatible with a vehicle's electrical system, and 
could lead to fires or other safety problems. Information provided by 
the commenters, especially the Alliance, leads us to believe that 
vehicles' electrical systems may not always safely accommodate 
different types of light sources in replacement signal lamps that meet 
the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108. We expect, of course, 
that replacement lighting manufacturers would keep in mind the 
potential limitations of a recipient vehicle's electrical system when 
designing replacement lighting to be used on that vehicle.
    We also recognize that there is a possibility of consumer confusion 
related to replacement bulbs for replacement lamps that differ from 
those originally installed on the vehicle. We note, in this regard, 
that Calcoast asked how consumers should be informed of such changes. 
We anticipate that manufacturers of replacement equipment would provide 
all necessary adapters, light sources, and instructions that would 
enable consumers to properly use the equipment. To the extent that they 
did not do so, we would evaluate compliance with the light source(s) 
that were provided with the OE lamps that the replacement lamps are 
designed to replace.

4. Determination of Compliance for Replacement Lamp Sets

    Calcoast raised the issue of how compliance with FMVSS No. 108 is 
assessed when a required function is moved from one lamp to another 
lamp and the lamps are sold in sets. In the Calcoast example, a 
required reflex reflector migrated from the fender mount lamp (the 
location in the OE lamp) to the decklid mount lamp. If compliance is 
determined based on individual lamps, this type of change is obviously 
not permitted, since replacement of the fender mount lamp alone would 
result in the loss of a required function.
    The issue of whether compliance is determined based on individual 
lamps versus sets of lamps has implications well beyond situations 
where a required function is moved from one lamp to another. FMVSS No. 
108 requires most front and rear mounted lighting equipment to be ``at 
the same height'' when more than one item is required, and to be of the 
same color. If compliance is determined based on individual lamps, this 
has the practical effect of preventing manufacturers of replacement 
equipment from making any changes in the height or color \13\ of these 
items, even if the OE manufacturer could have done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We note that OE manufacturers can choose amber or white 
color for parking lamps, and red or amber color for rear turn 
signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the agency adopted S5.8.1 at a time when replacement 
lighting equipment was very similar to OE equipment and expected to 
remain so, i.e., the purpose of replacement equipment was to replace 
broken or worn-out equipment. Now, however, a market has developed 
where manufacturers produce ``restyled'' lamps to enable consumers to 
customize the appearance of their vehicles.
    As indicated above, we have concluded that S5.8.1's language that 
``each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment 
manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of 
associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies 
shall be designed to conform to this standard'' requires compliance to 
be determined based solely on the properties and characteristics of the 
individual lamp or combination lamp and not of sets of lamps. Moreover, 
it is possible that a consumer might replace only a single lamp, even 
if the lamps are only sold in pairs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We note that the agency has never sought to enforce the 
location and color requirements for restyled lamps sold in pairs 
where each lamp contains all of the functions of the lamp it 
replaces and a vehicle would meet the location and color 
requirements with the pair of lamps installed. We have also never 
enforced the ``as far apart as practicable'' requirement literally 
against vehicle manufacturers and would not be inclined to do so 
against manufacturers of replacement equipment as long as the result 
was one that we would have permitted the vehicle manufacturer to 
utilize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, after careful consideration of this issue, we have decided 
to initiate rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to address issues related 
to restyled replacement equipment. In particular, we plan to propose to 
amend the

[[Page 60470]]

standard so that for lamps (other than headlamps) sold in pairs where 
each lamp contains all of the functions it replaces, compliance with 
location and color requirements would be determined based on the pair 
of lamps rather than the individual lamp, as long as the instructions 
to the purchaser make it clear that both lamps must be installed 
together.
    We believe that a complete prohibition of any change in location or 
color is unnecessarily design-restrictive. We also recognize that, in 
the case of restyled lamps sold in pairs, consumers generally purchase 
the lamps to customize their vehicles. Consumers are unlikely to 
replace only one of a pair of lamps in this situation, since it would 
give their vehicles an odd, unbalanced appearance.
    Pending completion of this rulemaking action, we will not enforce 
the location and color requirements for replacement lamps sold in pairs 
where each lamp or combination lamp contains all of the functions of 
the lamp it replaces and a vehicle would meet the location and color 
requirements with the pair of lamps installed.
    We do not intend to propose to permit required functions to be 
moved from one lamp to another lamp, as in the Calcoast example, even 
if the lamps are sold in sets. Therefore, we may take enforcement 
action, as appropriate, with respect to such equipment.
    This situation is not comparable to the one discussed earlier. 
There is a greater chance that a consumer may not use all of the lamps 
in such a replacement set, since the use of only some of the lamps 
would not necessarily give the vehicle an odd, unbalanced appearance. 
For example, if a replacement lamp set consisted of four lamps across 
the rear of a vehicle, a consumer might replace only the outer lamps.
    In addition, the safety consequences of a consumer not using all of 
the lamps would be much greater. In the case for which we intend to 
initiate rulemaking, the failure of a consumer to install both lamps 
could result in required functions being at different heights or having 
different colors on opposite sides of the vehicle. In this other case, 
however, a required safety function would be lost altogether.

5. Large Vehicles

    Our interpretation of S5.8.1 applies to all covered vehicles, 
regardless of vehicle size. Because that section does not make a 
distinction based upon vehicle size, we believe it would be 
inappropriate to have different interpretations of that provision based 
upon vehicle size.
    We recognize, however, that the part of our interpretation about 
replacement lighting equipment not taking a vehicle out of compliance 
with FMVSS No. 108 is likely to have a more limited application to 
aftermarket lighting equipment for large vehicles (those whose width is 
2032 mm (80 inches) or more) than to small vehicles. The specific 
context of the questions asked by Calcoast was aftermarket combination 
lamps for small vehicles, such as passenger cars. These lamps are 
typically designed for specific models and can only be installed on 
those models in the same location as the lamps they replace. In this 
type of situation, the issue of whether installation of the lamp will 
take a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108 (e.g., by not 
including a required function that was present on the lamp being 
replaced) is relatively straightforward.
    However, for large vehicles, lighting equipment is often generic 
and not designed for specific models. Truck-Lite, for example, 
commented that it sells many kinds of lighting devices through catalog 
sales to hundreds of vehicle manufacturers whose equipment it has no 
way of knowing about. Our interpretation was not intended to suggest 
that the manufacturer of generic lighting equipment has the 
responsibility for ensuring correct selection and installation of its 
equipment. On the other hand, under our interpretation, a manufacturer 
of aftermarket lighting equipment could not design or recommend 
lighting equipment for a specific vehicle if installation of the 
equipment (assuming it was done correctly) took a vehicle out of 
compliance with FMVSS No. 108.

    Issued on October 1, 2004.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 04-22623 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P