Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Replacement Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 65972-65976 [05-21725]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65972-65976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 03-15651]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of interpretation and termination of rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides an interpretation concerning how our 
standard for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment 
applies to replacement equipment. It represents the continuation of a 
process that began with the publication of a notice of draft 
interpretation in July 2003, and included the publication of a notice 
of interpretation in October 2004. We are providing this interpretation 
in response to requests that we reconsider the October 2004 notice of 
interpretation on this subject in several areas. This document also 
announces termination of a rulemaking announced in that notice of 
interpretation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Glancy, 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:

Background

    FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement 
lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard 
applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
buses, trailers, and motorcycles. 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 
manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of 
associated equipment on any vehicle to which the standard applies. 
Thus, FMVSS No. 108 is both a vehicle standard and an equipment 
standard.
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 108 is to reduce crashes and deaths and 
injuries from crashes, by providing adequate illumination of the 
roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the 
public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals 
understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of 
reduced visibility. The agency has addressed the safety need for the 
various requirements included in FMVSS No. 108 in many rulemakings over 
the years.

October 2004 Notice of Interpretation

    On October 8, 2004, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (69 FR 
60462) a notice of interpretation concerning how Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment, applies to replacement equipment. The 
interpretation addressed requests for interpretation in two letters 
submitted by Calcoast-ITL (Calcoast), a testing company. Our notice of 
interpretation reflected consideration of public comments on a July 
2003 notice of draft interpretation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 68 FR 42454; July 17, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requests for interpretation. 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 whether it is permissible 
for replacement lamps to use alternative light sources, i.e., those 
that are different from those specified by the original equipment (OE) 
manufacturer.
    Primary interpretation. In responding to the issues raised by 
Calcoast, our interpretation focused primarily on the meaning of the 
following language, set forth in paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard:

    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.

    We said that this language applies to individual replacement lamps 
or other items of replacement equipment, not sets of lamps or 
equipment. We concluded therefore that compliance of each individual 
replacement lamp or other item of replacement equipment is determined 
based solely on the properties and characteristics of the individual 
lamp or combination lamp, without consideration of other lamps that may 
be included as part of a set. That is, in the case of a replacement 
lamp designed or recommended for a particular vehicle and sold as part 
of a set of two lamps, the lamp would not comply with FMVSS No. 108 if, 
when installed on one side of the vehicle, it would take the vehicle 
out of compliance with the standard.
    Retention of required functions. We concluded that replacement 
lamps are required to have all the functions of the original lamps.
    Location of required functions. Given that FMVSS No. 108 requires 
that reflex reflectors be located ``as far apart as practicable,'' we 
concluded that replacement lamps that have the effect of moving the 
reflex reflectors closer together would clearly not be ``as far apart 
as practicable,'' and therefore would not conform to the standard.
    Use of alternative light sources. On the issue of use of 
alternative light sources for replacement lighting equipment, we 
concluded that replacement lighting (other than replacement 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 for that type of lamp and does 
not take the vehicle out of compliance.
    With respect to replacement headlamps, however, we stated that we 
were adhering to a March 13, 2003 letter of interpretation to Mr. Galen 
Chen. That letter stated that headlamps

[[Page 65973]]

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. We stated that, unlike other lamps, 
FMVSS No. 108 specifically regulates headlamp systems, including their 
light sources.
    Determination of compliance of paired replacement lamps. In our 
October 2004 notice of interpretation, we noted that the agency had 
adopted the existing language of S5.8.1 at a time when replacement 
lighting equipment was very similar to original 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, e.g., with redesigned 
and sometimes relocated functions, to enable consumers to customize the 
appearance of their vehicles.
    We explained that, after considering the comments on our draft 
interpretation, we had tentatively concluded that the existing 
requirement (as interpreted in the October 2004 notice) was 
unnecessarily design-restrictive in some situations. We stated in that 
notice that we believed it would be appropriate to consider the 
compliance of pairs of replacement lamps in certain circumstances, and 
announced that we planned to conduct rulemaking during 2005 that would 
propose to amend FMVSS No. 108 to that effect. We also stated that we 
would not enforce the standard in certain specific situations involving 
pairs of lamps pending completion of the rulemaking.
    Large vehicles. We stated that our interpretation of S5.8.1 applied 
to all covered vehicles, regardless of size. We noted further that a 
manufacturer of aftermarket lighting equipment could not design or 
recommend lighting equipment for a specific vehicle if installation of 
the equipment (assuming that it was done correctly) on a vehicle took 
that vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108.

Requests for Reconsideration

    After we published the October 2004 notice of interpretation, we 
received two requests for reconsideration. We note that while one of 
the requests was styled as a ``petition for reconsideration,'' a 
request that we reconsider an interpretation does not qualify as a 
petition under any of our regulations. Therefore, we are responding to 
both requests as letters requesting that we reconsider an 
interpretation. Given that the interpretation in question was published 
as a notice of interpretation, and since we are changing our 
interpretation in several respects, we decided to publish this document 
as a notice of interpretation as well.
    The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), the Motor 
Vehicle Lighting Council (MVLC) and the Transportation Safety Equipment 
Institute (TSEI) jointly submitted one request for reconsideration. (We 
will hereafter refer to these organizations as MEMA et al.) The 
Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) submitted the other 
request. In addition, we received a request for clarification/
interpretation from the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA).
    Subsequently, we received a letter from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance) concerning the requests for reconsideration. 
The Alliance stated that while it agrees with parts of our 
interpretation, it believes that the organizations requesting 
reconsideration have raised good points with respect to the decision to 
reaffirm the March 13, 2003 interpretation to Mr. Galen Chen relating 
to the necessity for using in replacement headlamps light sources 
intended for use in the headlighting system on the vehicle for which 
the replacement headlamp is intended, and asked us to reconsider that 
aspect of the interpretation.
    The organizations requesting reconsideration disagreed with our 
interpretation of S5.8.1 with respect to a number of issues. They 
raised issues relating both to the existing language of the standard 
and to what they believe the standard should and should not require in 
this area. MEMA et al. and SEMA asked that we withdraw our 
interpretation.
    Language of S5.8.1. One argument raised by the organizations was 
that the interpretation goes beyond the words of S5.8.1. MEMA et al. 
stated that wording of that section is simply that lamps replacing 
original lighting equipment on vehicles ``shall be designed to 
conform'' to FMVSS No. 108, and that the agency had essentially derived 
a new requirement, without benefit of rulemaking, from this subsection. 
They stated that the practical effect of the interpretation is a 
requirement that all replacement lamps utilize (for required 
functions): (1) The same original headlamp light source; (2) the same 
functions; (3) the same function colors; and (4) the same location.
    MEMA et al. argued that the interpretation departs from more than 
30 years of the shared NHTSA and industry view of replacement lamp 
compliance. Those organizations stated that they believe that prior to 
the October 2004 interpretation, FMVSS No. 108 required that 
replacement headlamps be designed to meet the photometric and 
environmental performance requirements without any restrictions on the 
choice of design light source, except that replaceable bulb headlamps 
must use Part 564 light sources and any necessary ballasts. They stated 
that no restriction or control of light sources is stated in the 
current FMVSS No.108 other than for bulbs (light sources) for 
replaceable bulb headlamps.
    Statutory requirements. SEMA argued that the agency engaged in a 
rulemaking when it published a request for public comments on a draft 
interpretation and then issued a final notice of interpretation, but 
without following the procedures specified in the Administrative 
Procedures Act.
    The organizations also raised issues related to the requirements of 
the Vehicle Safety Act. MEMA et al. stated that, under the 
interpretation, the standard is design-based and conflicts with the 
agency's charter to establish performance-based standards based upon 
safety benefits.
    SEMA also argued that the interpretation results in a design 
standard, which it stated the agency does not have the authority to 
establish except when necessitated by safety. SEMA also argued that the 
interpretation results in a design standard that is improperly 
delegated to the vehicle manufacturers.
    Limitations on aftermarket manufacturers and consumers. Another 
concern raised by the organizations was their belief that, under the 
interpretation, the standard imposes inappropriate limitations on 
aftermarket manufacturers and consumers. MEMA et al. stated that 
aftermarket lighting manufacturers suddenly find themselves relegated 
to a technology-restrictive ``me too'' position of cloning their lamp's 
light sources and, thus, essentially performance to that of the OE 
design. Those organizations argued that manufacturers of replacement 
lamps for OEM vehicle manufacturers and the manufacturers of vehicle 
compatible aftermarket replacement lamps should be given the full 
design freedom allowed for OEMs as long as all performance, functional 
and positioning criteria of FMVSS 108 are met and electrical 
compatibility with the intended vehicle is provided.
    MEMA et al. stated that owners of motor vehicles and trailers 
should be allowed to replace the original lighting

[[Page 65974]]

equipment with any system that meets the performance, functional and 
positioning requirements of FMVSS 108, and which is electrically 
compatible with their vehicles. They argued that a requirement that 
owners use the same light source will severely limit the ability of 
consumers to benefit from improvements in lighting safety and 
durability, while at the same time increase the cost of supplying 
aftermarket lamps across a wide range of vehicle applications and 
special situations. According to those organizations, the customer's 
opportunities for vehicle personalization and freedom to choose 
products offering performance attributes tailored to his or her needs, 
while still meeting basic safety requirements, is also significantly 
restricted by the standard under the interpretation.
    Final stage manufacturers. MEMA et al. and NTEA also requested 
clarification as to how the interpretation applies with respect to 
final stage manufacturers. MEMA et al. stated that by its terms, the 
interpretation is limited to replacement, or aftermarket, lamp 
applications. It sought clarification that the interpretation does not 
apply to final stage manufacturers. NTEA requested clarification that 
the final stage manufacturer is the vehicle manufacturer for purposes 
of this interpretation and able to install compliant lighting in the 
manner they believe is most appropriate for the vehicle.

Revised Interpretation

    In responding to the requests for reconsideration, we begin by 
noting that both the initial interpretation, as well as the one 
provided today, are interpretations of existing language of FMVSS No. 
108, and not amendments to the standard. The practice of requesting 
public comments on a draft interpretation and/or publishing an 
interpretation in the Federal Register is neither intended to nor in 
fact transforms an interpretation into a rulemaking. Moreover, as 
indicated above, we will respond to a letter requesting that we 
reconsider a notice of interpretation in the same manner as we would 
respond to a letter requesting that we reconsider a letter of 
interpretation.
    On reconsideration, we have decided to modify the interpretation we 
provided in the October 2004 notice of interpretation. As discussed 
below, we believe the specific language of FMVSS No. 108 warrants a 
less restrictive, and less complicated, interpretation.
    Primary interpretation. As indicated above, FMVSS No. 108's current 
requirement for replacement equipment, set forth in paragraph S5.8.1 of 
the standard, reads as follows:

    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.

    This language is relatively straightforward. For any particular 
item of lighting equipment, e.g., a lamp, FMVSS No. 108 states only 
that if a lamp is manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which 
the standard applies, it must be designed to conform to the standard. 
It does not say anything about the replacement lamp's being required to 
have the same type of light source as the OE lamp. Moreover, while it 
is true that, unlike other lamps, FMVSS No. 108 specifically regulates 
headlamp systems including their light sources, neither the language of 
S5.8.1 nor any other language in the standard requires replacement 
headlamps to use the same light sources as the OE headlamps.
    Under our revised interpretation, it is our opinion that a lamp (or 
other item of lighting equipment, as relevant) manufactured to replace 
a lamp on a vehicle to which the standard applies is permitted under 
S5.8.1 so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the 
vehicle to FMVSS No. 108 using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp 
it actually used. To the extent the vehicle manufacturer could have 
certified the vehicle using the replacement lamp, instead of the lamp 
it actually used, we believe the replacement lamp should be viewed as 
being designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108. This includes, but is not 
limited to, replacement headlamps using different light sources than 
the OE headlamps.
    Photometric and other specific requirements. Our revised 
interpretation means, of course, that the replacement lamp must meet 
all photometric, environmental, location, material, color, area, 
wiring, markings, and other requirements specified in FMVSS No. 108 for 
that type of lamp, reflective device, or other item of equipment (in 
the case of a combination lamp, it must meet these requirements for 
each function).
    Functions. Our revised interpretation also means that the 
replacement lamp must include all of the functions of the lamp, 
reflective device, or item of associated equipment, including a 
combination lamp, it is intended to replace (other than functions not 
required by FMVSS No. 108 for vehicles). This is so because the vehicle 
manufacturer could not have certified the vehicle using the replacement 
lamp instead of the lamp it actually used unless these requirements 
were met.
    Paired lamps. As to paired lamps used on opposite sides of the 
vehicle, we recognize that the issue of whether the vehicle 
manufacturer could have certified the vehicle using one of the 
replacement lamps in a paired set instead of the lamp it actually used 
may be dependent on whether the other lamp in the paired set was also 
used. For example, 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 a replacement combination 
lamp is restyled to incorporate changes in the height or color of these 
items, the vehicle manufacturer could only have certified the vehicle 
using this replacement lamp if it used both of the paired lamps, one on 
each side of the vehicle.
    For purposes of interpreting S5.8.1 for paired lamps used on 
opposite sides of the vehicle, we believe the simplest and most 
appropriate approach is to assume that both of the paired lamps would 
be used, one on each side of the vehicle. Since the use of matching 
lamps on opposite sides of the vehicle is a universal practice, we 
believe this is a commonsense way of interpreting the standard. That 
is, and as discussed further below, there is no reason to believe in 
the case of restyled lamps that consumers will not ordinarily maintain 
matching lamps on opposite sides of the vehicle.
    We considered the possibility of interpreting the standard as 
requiring that restyled paired lamps used on opposite sides of the 
vehicle only be sold in pairs in this type of situation, since the use 
of only one such lamp would take the vehicle out of compliance with the 
standard. However, we decided not to do so. First, we do not believe 
such an interpretation follows well from the text of S5.8.1. Second, we 
recognize that there are situations in which consumers might replace a 
pair of lamps and then have a need to replace one of the replacement 
lamps. In such a situation, there would be no reason to require the 
consumer to buy two lamps instead of one.
    As a practical matter, however, we believe that restyled paired 
lamps will generally be sold in pairs. Moreover, we believe that 
consumers will generally use both lamps in the pairs, since use of only 
one of the restyled lamps would create an odd, unbalanced look. We also 
observe that 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits, inter alia, distributors, 
dealers, and

[[Page 65975]]

motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any 
part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with FMVSS No. 108. As 
such, these businesses are prohibited by the Safety Act from installing 
a single restyled lamp on a motor vehicle if it would have the effect 
of taking the vehicle out of compliance with the standard.
    Additional lamps and devices sold with replacement lamps. In 
considering whether the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the 
vehicle using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp it actually 
used, we would not otherwise consider additional devices, such as other 
separate lamps or reflective devices, even if they are sold together 
with the replacement lamp. Thus, it would not be permissible under 
paragraph S5.8.1 to manufacture sets of replacement combination lamps 
if required functions were moved from one combination lamp to another, 
or removed from a combination lamp but included as a separate item in 
the package.
    This situation is not comparable to the one in which paired lamps 
are used on opposite sides of the vehicle. As discussed above, the 
language of paragraph S5.8.1 requires that if a lamp is manufactured to 
replace a lamp installed on a vehicle to which the standard applied, it 
must be designed to conform to the standard. The focus is thus on lamp 
for lamp replacement.
    While we believe it is reasonable and commonsense to assume that 
consumers will generally maintain matching lamps on opposite sides of 
their vehicles, and are taking account of that in our interpretation, 
we are not aware of any similar reason to assume that consumers will 
necessarily use all of the lamps included in replacement sets more 
generally. In particular, there is a greater chance that a consumer may 
not use all of the lamps in such replacement sets, 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's not using all 
of the lamps would be much greater. In the case of paired lamps used on 
opposite sides of the vehicle, the failure of a consumer to replace 
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.
    Termination of related rulemaking. In our October 2004 
interpretation, we announced that we had decided to initiate rulemaking 
to amend FMVSS No. 108 to address issues related to restyled 
replacement equipment. We were concerned that, under that 
interpretation, the standard was unnecessarily design-restrictive for 
restyled lamps in some situations. This is no longer the case under our 
revised interpretation (see especially our discussion of paired lamps 
above), and NHTSA has therefore decided to terminate that rulemaking.
    Effect on previous interpretations. This notice of interpretation 
modifies and supersedes our October 2004 interpretation, to the extent 
that it is inconsistent. It also supersedes our March 13, 2003 
interpretation to Mr. Galen Chen concerning replacement headlamp light 
sources.
    Location of required functions. We note that we are not changing 
our October 2004 interpretation with respect to location of required 
functions. In that document, we addressed this issue as follows:

    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. 69 FR at 
60469 (footnote omitted).

    Heavy vehicles and generic lighting. We also note that while our 
interpretation of S5.8.1 is not dependent on the size of the vehicle 
for which a lamp is intended, it has a more limited application to 
aftermarket lighting equipment for heavy vehicles than to light 
vehicles. The specific context of the questions asked by Calcoast was 
aftermarket combination lamps for light 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.
    However, for heavy vehicles, lighting equipment is often generic 
and not designed for specific models. Truck-Lite, for example, 
commented on our notice of draft interpretation 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.
    Consistent with our discussion in the October 2004 notice of 
interpretation, we note that our interpretation does not mean 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 the vehicle manufacturer could not have certified 
the vehicle using that lighting equipment instead of the lighting 
equipment it actually used.
    Final stage manufacturers. Finally, as to the requests for 
clarification as to how the interpretation applies with respect to 
final stage manufacturers, we note that this issue is still relevant 
under our revised interpretation. As MEMA et al. suggested, the 
interpretation is limited to replacement, or aftermarket, lamp 
applications.
    As we explained at the beginning of this document, FMVSS No. 108 is 
both a vehicle standard and an equipment standard. That is, under the 
standard, vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that a new 
vehicle meets FMVSS No. 108's requirements with respect to lamps, 
reflective devices, and associated equipment. In addition, the standard 
also applies to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment 
manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of 
associated equipment on any vehicle to which the standard applies.
    Paragraph S5.8.1 does not apply to new vehicles. Final stage 
manufacturers and persons altering a vehicle prior to its first retail 
sale are not limited by the provisions of paragraph S5.8.1, but must 
instead ensure the compliance of the vehicle with FMVSS No. 108 as a 
vehicle standard. Thus, our interpretation of paragraph S5.8.1 does not 
place limits on the lighting equipment that can be used by final stage 
manufacturers.


[[Page 65976]]


    Issued: October 26, 2005.
Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-21725 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P