[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28597-28598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9919]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2003-16066; Notice 2]


Subaru of America, Inc., Notice of Grant of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru) determined that approximately 
2,531 model year 2004 Subaru Impreza STi vehicles do not meet the 
labeling requirements mandated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 108, S7.7 (e) on ``headlamp ballast.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Subaru has petitioned 
for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 
Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' A copy of the petition 
may be found in this docket.
    A notice of receipt of an application was published in the Federal 
Register on September 30, 2003, with a thirty-day comment period (68 FR 
56376). In summary, the affected vehicles were

[[Page 28598]]

produced during the period of February 4, 2003, through July 9, 2003, 
with high intensity discharge headlamp assemblies made by Ichikoh 
Industries, Ltd (Ichikoh). The affected headlamps are equipped with a 
ballast that is currently registered in Docket No. NHTSA-98-3397. 
However, Ichikoh used ballast units without all of the label 
information required in FMVSS No. 108, S7.7 (e) in assembling the 
complete headlamp assemblies. There were no comments on this notice 
from the public.
    Subaru stated the following three reasons as justification for 
applying for a decision of inconsequentiality for the noncomplying 
ballast marking: (1) The ballast (part no.: NZMIC111LAC1000) and 
ignition module (part no.: NZMIC211LAC1000) used in these headlamp 
assemblies are the same ones as registered by Matsushita Electric 
Works, Ltd. according to Part 564, except that they are missing the 
information label. For this reason, Subaru believes that this 
noncompliance will not affect the luminous intensity distribution, 
mechanical performance or any other headlamp performance characteristic 
required by FMVSS No. 108. (2) The ballast is designed to have high 
durability during the vehicle's lifetime, and Subaru believes that the 
ballast, as well as the headlamp assembly, will not need to be replaced 
from a lack of durability. (3) A properly affixed ballast information 
label, which is on the bottom surface of the ballast, is not visible 
unless the headlamp assembly is removed from the vehicle.
    NHTSA has reviewed the facts of this application for a decision of 
inconsequential noncompliance. In this instance, it appears that the 
ballasts are missing the following required markings: S7.7 (e)(2) 
ballast part number; S7.7 (e)(3) part number of the light source for 
which he ballast is designed; S7.7 (e)(4) rated laboratory life; S7.7 
(e)(6) ballast output power and; S7.7 (e)(7) the symbol ``DOT''. While 
these markings are important for assuring proper application and 
replacement, especially when ballasts are separately installed parts on 
a motor vehicle, the fact that the subject ballasts are part of the 
headlamp assembly when delivered to the customer minimizes the risk of 
incorrect initial application. While it may not minimize the risk of 
incorrect replacement if the pertinent information is missing, auto 
parts supply companies generally offer parts by vehicle make and model 
as well as by OEM part number. As such the risk of incorrect selection 
is insignificant.
    In consideration of these issues, the agency agrees with Subaru 
that the noncompliance will not have an impact on the vehicle on which 
the ballast was originally installed. We believe the ballast will 
remain with the headlamp unless it is faulty, and then it would likely 
be replaced with the correct, and correctly marked ballast.
    Another issue related to whether inconsequentiality exists, is if 
an unmarked ballast is removed from a subject vehicle, possibly by a 
recycler, and inappropriately installed on a different make and model 
vehicle. Based on the information provided by Subaru, the omission of 
the ballast marking information is only a portion of the information 
required by our FMVSS No. 108. Required markings that were provided on 
the ballast included the ballast manufacturer's name, required by S7.7 
(e)(1), and a severe electrical shock warning, required by S7.7 (e)(5). 
Supplemental markings included are a bar code label and associated 
number. Given that normal replacement ballasts are marked, the only way 
an unmarked ballast will end up on a vehicle other than the one on 
which it was delivered, is if the vehicle is in such a crash that the 
headlamp did not survive, but the attached ballast did. That would make 
it available as a part at an auto-recycling yard. Because it would have 
been associated with the 2004 Subaru Impreza STi and have some 
manufacturer markings, it is likely that it would be sold as a 
replacement for that particular make and model vehicle. While it could 
also be sold as a generic ballast, it is intended to fit and operate a 
standardized light source type, specifically D2R or either D2S. This 
should not create lighting performance problems. Further, the existing 
severe shock-warning label will provide the required risk notification 
to the installer of potential injury or death.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has met the burden of persuasion. The noncompliance with 
specific portions of FMVSS No. 108, S7.7 (e), regarding the marking of 
headlamp ballasts is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, Subaru's application is granted and the company is 
exempted from providing the notification of the noncompliance that 
would be required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and from remedying the 
noncompliance, as would be required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: May 12, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-9919 Filed 5-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P