60464 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 

1 Docket No. NHTSA–2003–15651–1.

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)).

excellent opportunity for the international 

community to develop and establish a GTR 

in this area. Everyone could benefit from 

harmonization and new technology based 

improvements of the head restraint 

regulation. The benefits to the governments 

would be the improved safety of the head 

restraints, leveraging of resources, and the 

harmonization of requirements. 

Manufacturers would benefit from reduction 

of the cost of development, testing, and 

fabrication process of new models. Finally, 

the consumer would benefit by having a 

choice of vehicles built to higher, globally 

recognized standards, providing a better level 

of safety at a lower price. 

B. Description of the Proposed Regulation 

The scope of the GTR will specify 

requirements for head restraints to reduce the 

frequency and severity of neck injury in rearend and other collisions. The proposed GTR 

will combine elements from ECE 17, ECE 25, 

and newly upgraded U.S. Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202. Two 

of the newly proposed FMVSS 202 

requirements are significant and not included 

in any other published regulation. The first 

proposes to require that the space between 

the head restraint and the occupant’s head 

(backset) be limited. The second proposes a 

new dynamic test, as an optional means of 

compliance. The U.S. will prepare a table to 

facilitate comparison of the present standards 

and submit it as a formal document to the 

GRSP. The results of additional research and 

testing conducted by any contracting parties 

since the existing regulations were 

promulgated will also be factored into the 

requirements of the draft GTR and may result 

in the proposal of new requirements. 

Elements of the GTR that cannot be 

resolved by the Working Party will be 

identified and dealt with in accordance with 

protocol established by AC.3 and WP.29. The 

proposed GTR will be drafted in the format 

adopted by WP.29 (TRANS/WP.29/882). 

C. Existing Regulations and Directives 

The following regulations and standards 

will be taken into account during 

development of the new GTR regarding head 

restraints. 

• UN/ECE Regulation 17—Uniform 

Provisions Concerning the Approval of 

Vehicles With Regard to the Seats, Their 

Anchorages, and any Head Restraints. 

• UN/ECE Regulation 25—Uniform 

Provisions Concerning the Approval of Head 

Restraints (Head Rests), Whether or not 

Incorporated in Vehicle Seats. 

• EU Directive 74/408, Concerning Interior 

Fittings of Motor Vehicles. 

• EU Directive 96/037, Adapting to 

Technical Progress Council Directive 74/408/

EEC Relating to the Interior Fittings of Motor 

Vehicles (strength of seats and of their 

anchorages). 

• EU Directive 78/932/EEC, Concerning 

Head Restraints of Seats of Motor Vehicles. 

• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Title 49: Transportation; Part 571.202: Head 

Restraints. 

• Australian Design Rule 3/00, Seats and 

Seat Anchorages. 

• Australian Design Rule 22/00, Head 

Restraints. 

• Japan Safety Regulation for Road 

Vehicles Article 22—Seat. 

• Japan Safety Regulation for Road 

Vehicles Article 22–4—Head Restraints, etc. 

• Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Regulation 

No. 202—Head Restraints. 

• International Voluntary Standards—SAE 

J211/1 revised March 1995—Instrumentation 

for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic.

Issued on October 5, 2004. 

Julie Abraham, 

Director, Office of International Policy, Fuel 

Economy and Consumer Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–22701 Filed 10–5–04; 1:25 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

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 CalcoastITL 

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.

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

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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 60465

3See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/

interps/files/23532.ztv.html.

4See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/

interps/files/maxzonenew.html.

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.

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.

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 

60466 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 

5Commenters included: (1) the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), (2) the Truck 

Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA), (3) the 

Harley-Davidson Motor Company (HarleyDavidson), (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.

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.

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, TruckLite, Grote Industries, Hella, 

Candlepower, Peterson, HarleyDavidson, 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 60467

6ATA referenced the following SAE standards 

related to lighting: J163 (Low Tension Wiring and 

Cable Terminals and Splice Clips); J2202 (HeavyDuty Wiring Systems for On-Highway Trucks); 

J2174 (Heavy-Duty Wiring Systems for Trailers); 

J1128 (Low Tension Primary Cable); J2030 (HeavyDuty Electrical Connector Performance Standard), 

and J2139 (Tests for Signal and Marking Devices 

Use on Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall 

Width). 7 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

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 lightsignaling 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 noncompliant 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.

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, HarleyDavidson, 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.

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 

60468 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 

8See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/

interps/files/12247.ztv.html.

9See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/

interps/files/17258.ztv.html.

10See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/

interps/gm/77/77–1.15.html.

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)).

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-a ́-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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 60469

11Since each lamp must comply, moving a 

required function inboard would also cause the 

spacing to be different if only one replacement lamp 

were installed. 12See S7.1, S7.5, and S7.7.

13We note that OE manufacturers can choose 

amber or white color for parking lamps, and red or 

amber color for rear turn signals.

14We 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.

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 nonrequired 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

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

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.

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

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 

60470 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 

1See KBUS Holdings, LLC—Acquisition of Assets 

and Business Operations—All West Coachlines, 

Inc., et al., STB Docket No. MC–F–21000 (STB 

served July 23, 2003).

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. TruckLite, 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. MC–F–21007] 

CUSA RAZ, LLC d/b/a Raz 

Transportation Company—Acquisition 

of Assets and Business Operations—

Raz Transportation Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT.

ACTION: Notice tentatively approving 

finance transaction. 

SUMMARY: CUSA RAZ, LLC d/b/a Raz 

Transportation Company (CUSA RAZ or 

Applicant), a noncarrier, has filed an 

application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 to 

acquire the assets and business 

operations of Raz Transportation 

Company (MC–153581) (Raz or Seller). 

Persons wishing to oppose this 

application must follow the rules at 49 

CFR 1182.5 and 1182.8. The Board has 

tentatively approved the transaction, 

and, if no opposing comments are 

timely filed, this notice will be the final 

Board action.

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

November 22, 2004. Applicant may file 

a reply by December 7, 2004. If no 

comments are filed by November 22, 

2004, this notice is effective on that 

date.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10 

copies of any comments referring to STB 

Docket No. MC–F–21007 to: Surface 

Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, send one copy of any 

comments to applicant’s representative: 

Stephen Flott, Flott & Co. PC, P.O. Box 

17655, Arlington, VA 22216–7655.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

S. Davis, (202) 565–1600. (Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the 

hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CUSA 

RAZ is a new company wholly owned 

and created by CUSA, LLC (CUSA) to 

undertake this transaction. CUSA is a 

noncarrier which controls over 20 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) registered 

motor passenger carriers, and, in turn, is 

wholly owned by KBUS Holdings, LLC 

(KBUS), a noncarrier. KBUS acquired 

control of over 30 motor passenger 

carriers formerly owned by Coach USA, 

Inc., and then consolidated those 

entities into the motor passenger 

carriers now controlled by CUSA.1

These carriers operate more than 1,000 

coaches and 600 other revenue vehicles 

in 35 states. Annual revenues for the 

companies controlled by CUSA for 2004 

are forecast to be $220 million.

Applicant has entered into an 

agreement with Raz to buy Raz’s assets, 

including vehicles, and its business 

operations. CUSA RAZ has an 

application pending with FMCSA to 

obtain contract and common carrier 

operating rights. Once this transaction is 

consummated, the Federal operating 

authority currently held by Seller will 

be surrendered.