[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18354-18355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8512]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8201; Notice 2]
Subaru of America, Inc.; Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru) has determined that certain
headlamp assemblies manufactured by North American Lighting, Inc., do
not comply with requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment,'' and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Subaru has also applied
to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published in the Federal
Register (65 FR 66584) on November 6, 2000. Opportunity was afforded
for public comment until December 6, 2000. No comments were received.
Paragraph S7.5(g) of FMVSS No. 108 states that ``the lens of each
replaceable bulb headlamp shall bear permanent marking in front of each
replaceable light source with which it is equipped that states the HB
Type.''
Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) of FMVSS No. 108 states that the lens
shall have ``a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the
headlamp visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the
vehicle, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the
aiming screen or optical aiming equipment with the headlamp being
aimed.''
Subaru installed approximately 87 headlamp lens assemblies on model
year 2000 Subaru Legacy and Outback vehicles from October 5, 1999,
through December 5, 1999, which were incorrectly marked. Lenses marked
for two-bulb lamp assemblies were placed on one-bulb assemblies, while
lenses marked for one-bulb lamp assemblies were placed on two-bulb
assemblies.
Subaru supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following statements:
Headlamp aiming performed during the manufacturing process does
not rely on lens marking for beam pattern alignment. The result is
proper alignment regardless of the mismatch in headlamp assembly
lens.
The rate of replacement for headlamp bulbs within the 3/36
warranty period is 0.6 percent. The remaining parts demand for
headlamp bulbs is due to collision which results in purchase and
installation of new headlamp assemblies not containing the
noncompliance.
Installation of replacement headlamp bulbs is outlined in the
Service Manual for Subaru Legacy vehicles. The Service Manual
procedure for alignment of the headlamp does not rely on the
markings found in noncompliance, but rather references the center
marking on the bulb.
Incorrect lens assembly installation results in the following light
performance variations:
Two-bulb lens on one-bulb assembly: slight decrease in long
range visibility, but within FMVSS performance requirements
One-bulb lens on two-bulb assembly: slight broadening of the
beam pattern. Vertical alignment specification variation does not
exceed 0.57 degrees plus/minus specified aiming.
There is a small possibility that consumers would purchase
replacement bulbs for non-dealer installation based on the incorrect
marking. However, the incorrect bulb will not install in the
headlamp assembly irrespective of the incorrect marking.
Additionally, the owner's manual provides the correct specification
for replacement bulbs required.
Subaru also submitted data which show the difference in beam patterns
of the four possible bulb combinations in the two lamp housings. The
data are in the docket.
The petitioner states that the noncompliances will not result in
any safety, reliability or serviceability concern for the operator of a
subject motor vehicle.
We have reviewed the application and agree with Subaru that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The lamps are
fully compliant with the performance requirements of the standard
regardless of which lens is used. Further, the bulbs for the one-bulb
assembly cannot be used in the two-bulb assembly and vice versa.
Therefore, even if a vehicle owner purchases a bulb based on the
incorrect information given on the lens, it will not fit.
Regarding the marking of the optical axis for aiming, because
headlamp aiming during the vehicle manufacturing process does not rely
on this mark, the lamps will be correctly aimed when the vehicle is
delivered for sale. Further, the service manual procedure for aim
alignment does not rely on this mark. It references the center of the
bulb. If the lamps are vertically aimed by consumers, Subaru states
that there can be a 0.57 degree error, given the unintended vertical
displacement of the lens' optical axis mark. If a person attempts to
aim a subject headlamp using the incorrectly placed mark, the lamp will
be aimed upward or downward by that angular amount, depending on which
lamp and which lens is installed. Because field aiming is more often
done using the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended aiming
tolerance of 4 inches at 25 feet (about 0.75 degree), the
misaim caused by the incorrect location of the aiming mark on the lens
should be within the recommended field aiming tolerance. As a result,
there should be no consequence to safety.
[[Page 18355]]
In consideration of the foregoing, we have decided that the
applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
described above is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Therefore,
its application is granted, and the applicant is exempted from
providing the notification of the noncompliance that is required by 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30119 and from remedying the noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
(49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: April 3, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-8512 Filed 4-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P