SEMA's response regarding rumor that NHTSA is going to outlaw aftermarket HIDs

[DSK M3/4]

with the discussions going around about the NHTSA possibly outlawing the sale of aftermarket HID kits, i dropped a line to SEMA to see what they knew. here is the response i received:

Thank you for contacting SEMA about the National Highway Traffic Administration's (NHTSA) current regulatory oversight of certain lighting equipment such as HIDs.

SEMA is aware of a rumor that NHTSA is going to shut down the market for all HID kits. This is incorrect. The fact is, if an HID kit does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, it is illegal to market this equipment right now. However, NHTSA has not shut down sales of HIDs that comply with FMVSS No. 108.

In September 2001, NHTSA requested public comment on how to respond to complaints about headlamp glare. NHTSA now intends to propose new lighting rules beginning in late 2003. The rules will address consumer complaints regarding perceived glare from high intensity discharge headlights (HIDs), HID knock-offs, and higher-mounted and supplemental front-mounted auxiliary lamps (ex: fog lamps) and possibly headlamp-aiming requirements as well. We do not expect that NHTSA will ban legal HIDs in these rule making proceedings.

In early 2003, SEMA's Lighting Task Force met with NHTSA officials in Washington, D.C. charged with overseeing federal lighting regulations to discuss the group's goals and to gain insight to pending agency regulatory actions. We learned that NHTSA is still reviewing public comments on the general issue of glare and intends to address glare through several rulemakings. Here is the current anticipated schedule:


§ Publish proposed rule to regulate certain auxiliary lamps (ex: fog lamps) in late 2003
§ Publish proposed rule for headlamp mounting height in early 2004
§ Reach a decision on how to address HIDs and other advanced lighting sources in early 2004 (and probably issue a proposed rule)

§ Issue a proposed rule to regulate HID-knock-offs in early 2004
§ Reach a decision on how to address headlamp aiming issues in mid 2004

Please note, lighting equipment that is offered for sale must meet applicable federal safety standards, specifically FMVSS No. 108. Manufacturers self-certify compliance, which means it is the obligation of the manufacturer to have reasonable certainty that the product meets FMVSS No. 108 (ex: by having it tested by a certification lab). If NHTSA has reason to suspect that such equipment does not comply, it has authority to initiate an inquiry (requesting production data, test certification data, etc.). Such an investigation is limited to the particular product(s) of the company being investigated.

On a related topic, NHTSA provides frequently provides guidance on how it applies a federal safety standard to the industry in the form of "letters of interpretation." On July 17th, NHTSA went one-step further, requesting industry comments on two proposed letters of interpretation governing aftermarket lighting equipment. The first deals with aftermarket equipment that shifts the location of the rear reflex reflectors for Honda Civic tail lamps from the vehicle body lamp to the trunk lamp. NHTSA is proposing to reject this practice. The second is switching the type of color and wattage used in replacement lamps (ex: from a clear bulb to a red bulb). NHTSA is proposing to reject this practice. In both instances, it is NHTSA's position that a replacement item must conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 in the same manner as the original equipment for which the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance. By implication, NHTSA's strict application of FMVSS No. 108 would be potentially applicable to other lighting practices as well. For more information, use this link and scroll down to NHTSA listing: <http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a030717c.html>.

I hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
Steve McDonald
Senior Director, Government and Technical Affairs
Specialty Equipment Market Association
1317 F Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
202/783-6007, ext. 31
202/783-6024 - fax
stevem@sema.org

[BimmerDawg]

Wow. Thanks a lot. I was thinking that I needed to go drop $400 on a kit, but I can wait now!

[umnitza]

Originally posted by DSK M3/4
We do not expect that NHTSA will ban legal HIDs in these rule making proceedings.


Please note, lighting equipment that is offered for sale must meet applicable federal safety standards, specifically FMVSS No. 108. Manufacturers self-certify compliance, which means it is the obligation of the manufacturer to have reasonable certainty that the product meets FMVSS No. 108 (ex: by having it tested by a certification lab). If NHTSA has reason to suspect that such equipment does not comply, it has authority to initiate an inquiry (requesting production data, test certification data, etc.). Such an investigation is limited to the particular product(s) of the company being investigated.

On July 17th, NHTSA went one-step further, requesting industry comments on two proposed letters of interpretation governing aftermarket lighting equipment. The first deals with aftermarket equipment that shifts the location of the rear reflex reflectors for Honda Civic tail lamps from the vehicle body lamp to the trunk lamp. NHTSA is proposing to reject this practice. The second is switching the type of color and wattage used in replacement lamps (ex: from a clear bulb to a red bulb). NHTSA is proposing to reject this practice. In both instances, it is NHTSA's position that a replacement item must conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 in the same manner as the original equipment for which the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance. By implication, NHTSA's strict application of FMVSS No. 108 would be potentially applicable to other lighting practices as well. For more information, use this link and scroll down to NHTSA listing: <http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a030717c.html>.

This is what we are going off of.

[magnetic1]

you guys are all selectively reading and NOT understanding here.

If you look at what has been posted and this response you will see. EXACTLY. NO HID kit out there complys with FMVSS No. 108 Therefore, this letter that was sent to all these manufacturers basically said.. hey look, unless you give us notice otherwise by 8/15/03 with lab results that your HID kits are compliant, you are subject to a Federal fine. Whether or not a importer/manufacturer wants to comply is their business, but you would have to sell TONS of HID kits to pay for the $5,000/day fine that could be imposed on your company.

But the very nature of HID's technology makes them fail automaticall because there is no filament. I believe one of the requirements for No. 108 is that whatever you are replacing the halogen filament bulb with has to have a filament in the same location, but because HID has no filament, wallah, auto-fail. Understand now?

[Loud_TIGER]

how are OEMs supposed to get HIDs then

[magnetic1]

Once again.. read details.

OEM is fine because they are DOT approved. They have gone through extensive research and design and meet the 108 requirements.

This regulation only effects AFTERMARKET HID kits.

[umnitza]

Originally posted by Loud_TIGER
how are OEMs supposed to get HIDs then

this has NO relation to OEM.

[shragon]

Originally posted by magnetic1
you guys are all selectively reading and NOT understanding here.

If you look at what has been posted and this response you will see. EXACTLY. NO HID kit out there complys with FMVSS No. 108 Therefore, this letter that was sent to all these manufacturers basically said.. hey look, unless you give us notice otherwise by 8/15/03 with lab results that your HID kits are compliant, you are subject to a Federal fine. Whether or not a importer/manufacturer wants to comply is their business, but you would have to sell TONS of HID kits to pay for the $5,000/day fine that could be imposed on your company.

But the very nature of HID's technology makes them fail automaticall because there is no filament. I believe one of the requirements for No. 108 is that whatever you are replacing the halogen filament bulb with has to have a filament in the same location, but because HID has no filament, wallah, auto-fail. Understand now?

actually i kinda figured this before seeing this. back a few years ago, i used to be fairly active on the philips lighting message board. somebody claiming to be from the nhtsa used to post there a lot. he said venders who sell parts not compliant to federal motor vehicle safety standards is illegal, and the venders could be fined. the parts included lighting and other parts, such as euro-spec and jdm parts.

my question is, a lot of venders and companies will use the disclaimer, "for off-road or show use only." does this disclaimer really do anything for the vender/company?

[XOC]

Thanks DSK for posting. This clears up the confusion.

[Don Nguyen]

Damn, before i got into cars, my dad use to work at SEMA, damn it, lol

[magnetic1]

This does not clear ANYTHING up. Please read below:

As to why "For OffRoad use Only" Does not apply here:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...23112.ztv.html


and more for the skeptics. Here is also the FMVSS108 in full test:

http://fmvss108.tripod.com/fmvss108text.htm

you can read through that and tell me how aftermarket HID is compliant and you can comment on the below response:

[quote]
Quote: taken from Federal Register: July 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 137)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Further, the specific requirements of Standard 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.

As we have stated before, the replacement item must conform to the standard in the same manner as the original equipment for which the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance. See our February 4, 2002
letter to Mr. Daniel Watt. See also our March 13, 2003 letter to Mr. Galen Chen.

Thus, replacement lamps must conform to the standard in the same manner as the original equipment lamp on the vehicle as certified by the vehicle manufacturer. Each vehicle is certified to Standard No. 108 using a particular light source for a particular lamp. The lamp's ability to meet the standard's requirements with that light source is an inherent part of the certification.

Therefore, a lamp manufactured to replace the lamp must meet Standard No. 108's requirements using that light source, in order to be designed to conform to the standard. We would use the same light source in testing a replacement lamp for compliance with Standard No. 108 as was used by the vehicle manufacturer for the original lamp in certifying the vehicle's compliance with the standard.
Further, we note that the lighting systems and overall electrical systems of vehicles are designed with specific light sources in mind, both 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. 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 also adversely affect the performance of the
vehicle's overall lighting and electrical systems, and possibly cause overloads and risk of fire.

[Bremsen]

So now I have to buy ZKW's and an HID kit:

[umnitza]

http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums...3641265&page=1

[shragon]

cool. always wanted to know if the phrase "for off road use only" had a real meaning behind it.

[99bmw740il]

Ha! I knew it. Im still gonna buy HID fog lamps to be cool Just not for another 3-4 months now.

[umnitza]

BTW - for the fogs, it's a special bulb type.

[BimwadM42]

This does clear things up.

HID kits have never been, nor will they ever be compliant. Neither are ellipsoids or other E-code filament-based headlights, except in a couple states which have provisions that allow their use. People who don't believe this are either naive or in denial.

As I said in the other thread, NHTSA is actually taking steps to enforce the law and people are getting scared. There's no practical way for them to pull an RIAA and come after individual users, so it's only the sellers who have real reason to worry. The salad days may be over.

The other rules they are considering are long overdue. Hopefully, they will make intelligent decisions, but that has not been NHTSA's track record.

[mrhmmhmm]

Ya know, this is a democracy. Feel free to write your representitives and/or NHTSA if you disagree with any of this. Unless you're a vendor and you'd like to clear your inventory quickly, there's no reason you shouldn't take part in this. NHTSA REQUESTED COMMENTS TWO YEARS AGO about this, did any of you write in and say you love the benefits HID gives you - and that the people who shun HID are those who can't afford it and/or can't avoid staring at the pretty lights?

[umnitza]

Originally posted by mrhmmhmm
Ya know, this is a democracy. Feel free to write your representitives and/or NHTSA if you disagree with any of this. Unless you're a vendor and you'd like to clear your inventory quickly, there's no reason you shouldn't take part in this. NHTSA REQUESTED COMMENTS TWO YEARS AGO about this, did any of you write in and say you love the benefits HID gives you - and that the people who shun HID are those who can't afford it and/or can't avoid staring at the pretty lights?

Actually, we're a Republic. Hence, if we were a democracy, life would be worse because the larger majority would ALWAYS rule, however stupid, over the smaller minority.

However, in this case, a Republic forces us to listen to ninnies like the anti-HID coalition.

[mrhmmhmm]

Umnitza: Do you plan to write your representitives about this?

[umnitza]

I have no representation, but I'm getting taxed anyways

[DSK M3/4]

another update from SEMA. this outlines the anticipated timeline for action on lights in general (and HID in particular):

"NHTSA is still reviewing public comments on the general issue of glare and intends to address glare through several rulemakings. Here is the current anticipated schedule:

- Publish proposed rule to regulate certain auxiliary lamps (ex: fog lamps) in late 2003

- Publish proposed rule for headlamp mounting height in early 2004

- Reach a decision on how to address HIDs and other advanced lighting sources in early 2004 (and probably issue a proposed rule)

- Issue a proposed rule to regulate HID-knock-offs in early 2004

- Reach a decision on how to address headlamp aiming issues in mid 2004 "

also, he has no knowledge of any impending move by NHTSA to suddenly start strictly enforcing any regulations regarding aftermarket HIDs.

[XOC]

Man, these government regulatory agencies are experts at keeping themselves in business by creating endless busy-work for them to do. :

[DSK M3/4]

your tax money at work.

i'm glad they are finally prepared to address the issue of people relocating civic tail lights onto the trunk!

[shragon]

just in case you guys haven't seen this, save aftermarket hid petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/hidforum/petition.html