65972 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Notices 

1 68 FR 42454; July 17, 2003. 

may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or 

may be submitted to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The petition appeal, supporting 

materials, and all comments received 

before the close of business on the 

closing date indicated below will be 

filed and will be considered. All 

comments and supporting materials 

received after the closing date will also 

be filed and will be considered to the 

extent possible. When the petition 

appeal is granted or denied, notice of 

the decision will be published in the 

Federal Register pursuant to the 

authority indicated below. 

Comment closing date: December 1, 

2005. 

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: October 26, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–21724 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

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

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Notices 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 designrestrictive 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 technologyrestrictive ‘‘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 

65974 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Notices 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Notices 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. TruckLite, 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. 

65976 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34658] 

The Alaska Railroad Corporation—

Petition for Exemption to Construct 

and Operate a Rail Line Between 

Eielson Air Force Base (North Pole) 

and Fort Greely (Delta Junction), 

Alaska 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Notice of Availability of Draft Scope of 

Study for the Environmental Impact 

Statement, Notice of Scoping Meetings, 

and Request for Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Alaska Railroad 

Corporation plans to file a petition with 

the Surface Transportation Board 

(Board) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for 

authority to construct and operate a new 

rail line between Eielson Air Force Base 

(located south of Fairbanks) and the 

Delta Junction/Fort Greely area. The 

project would involve the construction 

and operation of approximately 80 miles 

of new main line track and could 

include an approximately 15-mile rail 

spur to the U.S. Air Force’s Blair Lakes 

training area. Because the construction 

and operation of this project has the 

potential to result in significant 

environmental impacts, the Board’s 

Section on Environmental Analysis 

(SEA) has determined that the 

preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) is appropriate. The 

purpose of this Notice of Intent is to 

notify individuals and agencies 

interested in or affected by the proposed 

project of the decision to require an EIS. 

SEA is holding public scoping meetings 

as part of the EIS process. Additionally, 

as part of the scoping process, SEA has 

developed a draft Scope of Study for the 

EIS. 

DATES AND LOCATIONS: Scoping meetings 

will be held on: 

December 6, 2005, 4–8 pm at the City 

Council Chambers, 125 Snowman Lane, 

North Pole, Alaska 

December 7, 2005, 4–8 pm at Jarvis 

West Building, Mile 1420.5 Alaska 

Highway, Delta Junction, Alaska 

December 8, 2005, 4–8 pm at Lousaac 

Library Public Conference Room, 3600 

Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska 

The public scoping meetings will be 

informal meetings in a workshop format 

during which interested persons may 

ask questions about the proposal and 

the Board’s environmental review 

process, and advise the Board’s 

representative about potential 

environmental effects of the project. In 

keeping with the workshop format of 

the scoping meetings, there will no 

formal presentations made by agency 

representatives. Rather, staff will be 

available to answer questions and 

receive comments individually. SEA has 

made available for public comment the 

draft Scope of Study contained in this 

notice. 

The meeting locations comply with 

the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

Persons that need special 

accommodations should telephone 

SEA’s toll-free number for the project at 

1–800–359–5142. 

SEA will issue a final Scope of Study 

after the close of the scoping comment 

period. Written comments on the Scope 

of Study and potential environmental 

effects of the project are due January 13, 

2005. 

Filing Environmental Comments: 

Interested persons and agencies are 

invited to participate in the EIS scoping 

process. Comments should be submitted 

to: Surface Transportation Board, Case 

Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. 

To ensure proper handling of your 

comments, please mark your 

submission: Attention: David Navecky, 

Environmental Filing. 

Environmental comments may also be 

filed electronically on the Board’s Web 

site, www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the 

‘‘E–FILING’’ link. Please refer to STB 

Finance Docket No. 34658 in all 

correspondence, including e-filings, 

addressed to the Board. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The proposed Northern 

Rail Extension Project includes 

construction of approximately 80 miles 

of new rail line connecting the existing 

rail line near Eielson AFB near North 

Pole, Alaska to a point near Fort Greely 

and the Donnelly Training Area near 

Delta Junction, Alaska. The proposed 

project could also include the 

construction of a 15-mile spur line from 

Flag Hill to the Blair Lakes Military 

Training Area. As a result of this 

project, the U.S. Army would have year 

round access to the Tanana Flats and 

Donnelly training areas and all the 

major military installations in Alaska 

would be accessible by rail through Fort 

Greely. The EIS will analyze the 

potential impacts of the proposed route, 

the ‘‘no-build’’ alternative and possible 

alternative routes. 

Environmental Review Process: The 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process is intended to assist the 

Board and the public in identifying and 

assessing the potential environmental 

consequences of a proposed action 

before a decision on the proposed action 

is made. SEA is responsible for ensuring 

that the Board complies with NEPA and 

related environmental statutes. The first 

stage of the EIS process is scoping. 

Scoping is an open process for 

determining the scope of environmental 

issues to be addressed in the EIS. As 

part of the scoping process, SEA has 

developed, and is making available in 

today’s notice, a draft Scope of Study for 

the EIS. Concurrently, scoping meetings 

will be held to provide further 

opportunities for public involvement 

and input during the scoping process. 

At the conclusion of the scoping and 

comment period, SEA will issue a final 

Scope of Study for the EIS. 

After issuing the final Scope of Study, 

SEA will prepare a Draft EIS (DEIS) for 

the project. The DEIS will address those 

environmental issues and concerns 

identified during the scoping process. It 

will also contain SEA’s preliminary 

recommendations for environmental 

mitigation measures. The DEIS will be 

made available upon its completion for 

review and comment by the public, 

government agencies and other 

interested parties. SEA will prepare a 

Final EIS (FEIS) that considers 

comments on the DEIS. In reaching its 

decision in this case, the Board will take 

into account the DEIS, the FEIS, and all 

environmental comments that are 

received. 

SEA has recently invited several other 

Federal agencies to participate in this 

EIS process as cooperating agencies on 

the basis their special expertise or 

jurisdiction by law. These agencies 

include: U.S. Department of Defense, 

Alaskan Command; U.S. Department of 

Defense, U.S. Army Garrison—Alaska; 

U.S. Department of Defense, 354th 

Fighter Wing Command; U.S. Army 

Engineers District—Alaska; U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management—Northern Field Office; 

U.S. Coast Guard, Seventeenth Coast 

Guard District; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration; and U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Transit 

Administration—Region 10. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Navecky, Section of 

Environmental Analysis, Surface 

Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001, or 

call SEA’s toll-free number for the 

project at 1–800–359–5142. Assistance