Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5879

Issued in Hawthorne, California, on

January 28, 1997.

Robert C. Bloom,

Acting Manager, Airports Division, WesternPacific Region.

[FR Doc. 97–3070 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 96–124; Notice 2]

Philips Lighting Company, USA; Grant

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

This notice grants the application by

Philips Lighting Company (PLC), to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

30118(d) and 30120(h) for

noncompliances with 49 CFR 571.108,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment.’’

The basis of the application is that the

noncompliances are inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on December 18, 1996,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (61 FR 66745).

Paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108

states in part that lamps, reflective

devices, and associated equipment

specified in Tables I and III and S7, as

applicable, shall be designed to conform

to the SAE Standards or Recommended

Practices referenced in those tables.

Table I applies to multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and

buses, 80 or more inches in overall

width. Table III applies to passenger

cars and motorcycles, and to

multipurpose passenger vehicles trucks,

trailers, and buses, less than 80 inches

in overall width.

PLC’s description of the

noncompliances follows:

Some lamps [replaceable light sources

for use in headlamps] have dimensions

that do not comply with Figures 3–1, 3–

3 and 3–8 of FMVSS No. 108. In

addition, some lamps do not comply

with Paragraph S9 of FMVSS 108

‘‘Deflection test for replaceable light

sources.’’ The noncompliance is caused

by process variations at the supplier’s

manufacturing site. The dimensional

noncompliance and the bulb deflection

noncompliance are described in

Exhibits ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ of the application.

These exhibits reflect the results of test

data identifying several deviations from

the FMVSS No. 108 specification.

PLC supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

‘‘Dimension K Low, Figure 3–1: The

‘‘K’’ low dimension defines the location

of the low[er] beam filament within the

lamp. In a random test sample, two

lamps were found whose measurements

on this point were outside of the

requirement by .002’’ and .005’’

respectively. This small deviation from

the minimum limit is not material to

any safety issue based upon PLC’s

experience with measurement of

completed headlamp assemblies, which

demonstrates that a deviation of this

type and magnitude, will not affect

safety. In fact, the condition is

detectable only under precise testing

conditions and is not even detectable by

visual examination. The most likely

consequence of the discrepancy—a

problem with headlamp aim/beam

quality—is more likely to be affected by

other conditions, such as foreign debris

(which can accumulate on seating plane

surfaces during installation), automobile

loading (a full trunk can significantly

affect automobile alignment and alter

headlamp aim), dirty headlamp lenses

or weathering of headlamp lenses than

by the failure to comply precisely with

the standard. This may explain why

PLC has not received any complaints

from end users or state inspection

agencies concerning conditions related

to this deviation from the standard.

‘‘Dimension V, Figure 3–1: This

dimension defines the length of the

9004 [HB1] replacement lamp electrical

terminals (pins). The terminals on some

test lamps were found to be slightly

below the minimum length requirement.

However, all test lamps functioned

properly and made good electrical

contact with the automobile lighting

system connectors. The electrical

connectors locked in place as designed

and no difficulty was encountered with

installation or electrical operation. This

noncompliance does not affect lamp

operation or performance (i.e., aim or

beam quality) and is thus

inconsequential and not safety-related.

Again, PLC has not received any

complaints from any party concerning

conditions related to this deviation from

the standard.

‘‘Dimension F, Figure 3–3: The ‘‘F’’

dimension defines the location of the

terminal cavity in relation to the

centerline of the lamp. Some test lamps

had terminal cavities that were from

.002’’ to .012’’ below the minimum

specification for location. The cavity

size (opening) is within specification

limits in all respects. The automobile

lighting system electrical connector fits

into the cavity freely and locks in place

as designed. This noncompliance does

not affect headlamp system performance

in any way (i.e., aim or beam quality),

and PLC has not received any

complaints from any party concerning

conditions related to this deviation from

the standard. Thus this deviation also

has no adverse effect on safety and is

inconsequential.

‘‘Dimension J, Figure 3–3: This

dimension defines the location of the

lower electrical terminals (pins) in

relation to the lamp centerline. One of

the test lamps measured slightly above

the upper specification limit for this

characteristic. Since the ‘‘R’’ dimension

and ‘‘S’’ dimension on the same lamp

are within limits, the noncompliance

could be related to measurement error

or handling damage. However, all test

lamps functioned properly and made

good electrical contact with the

automobile lighting system connectors.

The electrical connectors locked in

place as designed and no difficulty was

encountered with installation or

electrical operation. This

noncompliance also does not affect

lamp operation or performance (i.e., aim

or beam quality), and PLC has not

received any complaints from any party

concerning conditions related to this

deviation from the standard. This

deviation also has no adverse effect on

safety and is inconsequential.

‘‘Bulb Deflection, Figure 3–8: PLC

understands that the bulb deflection

criteria for the 9004 [HB1] replacement

headlamp bulb are included in the

FMVSS No. 108 to ensure that bulbs

which are handled by automated or

robotic insertion equipment are strong

enough to withstand the stresses that

such equipment may put on the bulb.

PLC agrees that deflection criteria for

bulbs inserted by automated/robotic

equipment are necessary and the criteria

defined by FMVSS No. 108 are

reasonable for bulbs that are inserted by

automated/robotic equipment. However,

because PLC currently furnishes 9004

replacement headlamp bulbs for

aftermarket use only, all 9004

replacement bulbs that PLC furnishes

are installed by human beings. Manual

insertion of the 9004 replacement bulb

does not pose a risk that permanent

deflection will result because of the

much lower forces that are exerted on

the bulb when robotic insertion is not

involved.

‘‘When inserting a replacement bulb

into the headlamp housing the glass

bulb is placed through an opening in the

back of the reflector which is

approximately two times larger than the

bulb diameter. During manual insertion,

little to no force is placed on the glass

bulb. Force during manual insertion is

placed on the plastic base and not the

glass bulb. Nor are there other sources

of stress that can cause deflection of the
5880 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

bulb. Common road hazards such as

large potholes cannot cause sufficient

force to equal that required to

permanently deflect the bulb (which is

also called a ‘‘burner’’) * * *. While the

bulb is in the headlamp housing,

unacceptable permanent deflection can

be caused only by force equal to that

which would be experienced in a high

speed collision. No bulbs exhibited

deflection or distortion prior to the test

or after manual insertion, confirming

that this noncompliance is

inconsequential and does not constitute

a potential safety hazard for bulbs

furnished to the aftermarket. PLC has

not received any complaints from any

party concerning conditions related to

this deviation from the standard.

SAE Tolerances: PLC notes that the

1996 edition of the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) Ground

Vehicle Lighting Standards Manual,

specifically HS–34, provides for greater

dimensional tolerances than those

contained in FMVSS No. 108. At least

two of those tolerances are relevant to

PLC’s Petition for Exemption, as they

involve two of the dimensions for which

PLC’s 9004 replacement bulbs do not

comply with FMVSS No. 108:

Dimension FMVSS No.

108 Tol. SAE Tol.

V (Fig. 3–1) .... +/¥0.10 mm +/¥0.50 mm

F (Fig. 3–3) .... +/¥0.10 mm +/¥0.15

mm’’

No comments were received on the

application.

NHTSA has reviewed and accepts for

the most part PLC’s analyses of the

reported noncompliances. The basis for

the agency’s decision that the

noncompliances will not affect motor

vehicle safety in a consequential

manner is as follows:

Dimension K, lower beam filament

location noncompliance: The

noncompliance is that the lower beam

filament is slightly rearward of its

allowed location, 0.5 mm. in one case

and 0.13 mm. in another. Only two of

five samples have this error. The effect

on the lower beam pattern is a slight

defocussing of the pattern resulting in a

slightly more diffuse pattern than

intended. It is unlikely that the slight

decrease in concentration of light at any

particular spot in the pattern would

make a typical headlamp

noncomplying, and if so the safety effect

would be nil.

Dimensions F, J and V, light source

electrical contacts and socket

dimensions: The noncompliance is for

the depth of the electric contact in the

socket, the relative position of the

contacts to the centerline of the socket,

and the length of the electrical contact

surface. The dimensional errors are

slightly out of allowed tolerance,

varying up to ¥0.3 mm., +0.38 mm. and

¥1.16 mm., respectively. For

dimensions F and V covering the length

and depth of the contact, such errors are

unlikely to have any measurable effect

on the performance of the light source

or the headlamp in which it may be

installed. The direct effect is to lessen

the electrical current carrying capacity

of the contact, however the diminution

of that capacity is unlikely to cause a

measurable effect on the necessary

current capacity or an increase in

voltage drop across the contact. The

error for dimension J affects the location

of the centroid of the three electrical

contacts within the socket. The error is

relatively small compared to the

diameter of the opening and should

cause no consequence in mating

between the connector and socket. The

body of the plug is a loose fit into the

socket to assure proper contact mating

and to assure that the very flexible

waterproofing gasket on the connector

seals the contact compartment. None of

these minor contact and socket

dimensional errors should create any

safety problem.

Bulb Deflection Test failures: The

bulb deflection test exists to assure a

strong and stable mounting of the glass

filament capsule to the base. The reason

that the requirement exists is to prevent

the misalignment of the enclosed

filament during replacement of the light

source into a vehicle headlamp after a

bulb failure. Access to the rear of the

headlamp is typically cramped at best

with the space for the light sources

socket and wire harness plug competing

for space needed for sharp metal

structures, batteries, relays, tubing and

other paraphernalia. Thus, replacement

of a light source is often a difficult task.

The glass capsule must be carefully

guided through this maze of hardware

into the opening at the rear of the

headlamp. Thus, the glass capsule must

withstand any bending forces that may

be imposed upon it during that process

in order to assure proper alignment of

the enclosed filament with the

headlamps optical axis. For the subject

HB1 light source, the weakest

orientation of the glass capsule mount is

also the most predominant orientation

of external forces during a field

replacement. These forces would

typically cause the capsule to move

upward. During the deflection test, the

capsule is permitted to permanently

deflect by 0.13 mm. For the Philips’

light sources, the five capsules deflected

a distance of 0.08, 0.25, 0.22, 0.22, and

0.12 mm. when subject to a force of 17.8

Newtons.

This movement of the enclosed

filament has a direct effect on the seeing

distance illumination achieved by the

headlamp. As the filament moves

upward, the effect on the beam pattern

is to move it downward. Consequently,

the roadway illumination moves

proportionately closer to the front of the

vehicle. By design, the vertical

placement of the lower beam filament

relative to its design location in the

headlamp housing is roughly ±0.60 mm.

For a typical vehicle’s headlamp

mounted at 700 mm. above the ground,

this could produce movement of a

down-the-road point in the beam

pattern of roughly ±51 m. from the

design location of the ‘‘seeing distance’’

test point at 80 m. Such extreme

deviations are very rare, taking into

account the build up of tolerances to

achieve the maximum effect. For the

group of light sources tested by Philips,

the mean vertical error in location of the

lower beam filament was upward 0.03

mm. This means that the seeing distance

test point for the average light source

tested would be at about 87 m. down the

road.

Assuming that a nominally

manufactured light source is subject to

rough treatment during its placement in

a vehicle’s headlamp and has at least

17.8 Newtons applied to it to cause the

allowed maximum deflection of the

capsule in an upward direction, the

filament would move upward 0.13 mm.

This would translate to an inward

movement of the ‘‘seeing distance’’ test

point to 60 m. For the worst performing

Philips light source (#2) achieving a

deflection of 0.25 mm. upward and

having its filament originally about 0.28

mm. low relative to the design location

in the headlamp, the ‘‘seeing distance’’

test point location would only move to

about 87 m. if it were deflected as much

during a replacement. For this light

source, the downward original location

of the filament and the upward

deflection cancel each other’s effect.

While this would appear to be an

increase of ‘‘seeing distance,’’ the fact is

that beam patterns of headlamps using

the HB1 light source rarely have

significant gradients in intensity over

small angular increments. The gradient

just above the ‘‘seeing distance’’ test

point must be sufficient to transition

between that point’s intensity (8000 to

20000 candela) and the nearest test

point directly above it by one degree

(500 to 2700 candela). Thus moving the

beam up or down by a third of one

degree (as might occur with a damaged

Philips light source with a 0.25 mm.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5881

1See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of

Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

deflection) will not necessarily

eliminate light from down the road as

shown by the example. Additionally,

the likelihood of the light source being

damaged by installation is probably very

small. Furthermore, the other headlamp

on the vehicle (presumably in

compliance) would not be affected and

would continue to help illuminate the

roadway, even if there were an adverse

change in illumination from the

headlamp with the damaged light

source. Also as Philips stated regarding

filament location, many other factors are

involved in roadway illumination for a

particular vehicle, e.g. trunk loads move

the aim upward and would move the

seeing point farther away. Additionally,

most state laws on headlamp aim allow

headlamp aim range to be ±0.75 degree.

This is over twice the angular error that

might result from the worst Philips light

source tested. Thus, viewing the totality

of the task of properly illuminating the

roadway, the probability is very small

that any one of the Philips’ light sources

would result in a materially higher risk

of crash involvement.

The agency does not consider PLC’s

comparison of the FMVSS and SAE

tolerances as relevant to this decision.

The SAE tolerances are recommended

industry practices, but the FMVSS

tolerances are mandatory Federal

standards.

Overall, for the reasons expressed

above, the petitioner has met its burden

of persuasion that the noncompliance

herein described is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety, and the agency

grants PLC’s application for exemption

from notification of the noncompliance

as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from

remedy as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

Although PLC also requested that it be

permitted to distribute and sell the

noncomplying light sources, the

agency’s authority under the

inconsequentiality provisions is limited

to providing relief from the obligation to

notify and remedy noncompliances for

items already sold to customers.

Accordingly, the further sale or

distribution of such light sources as PLC

has determined do not conform to

FMVSS No. 108, whether by PLC or its

distributors, would violate 49 U.S.C.

30112(a), and render the violaters liable

for civil penalties.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

Issued on: January 31, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–3041 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Surface Transportation Board

Agency Form Submitted for OMB

Review

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

Office of Economic and Environmental

Analysis and Administration.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Type of Request: Reinstatement of an

expired form without any change in the

substance or in the method of

collection.

Title of Form: Annual Report.

OMB Form Number: 2140–0029.

Agency Form Number: R–1.

No. of Respondents: 10.

Total Burden Hours: 8,000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for copies of the form and

supporting documents may be obtained

from the Agency Clearance Officer,

Ellen R. Keys, (202) 927–5673.

Comments regarding this information

collection should be addressed to Ward

L. Ginn, Jr., Office of Economic and

Environmental Analysis and

Administration Surface Transportation

Board, Washington, DC. 20423–0001

and to the Office of Management and

Budget, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer

for the Surface Transportation Board,

Washington, DC 20503. When

submitting comments, refer to the OMB

number and the title of the Form.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Surface Transportation Board is, by

statute, responsible for the economic

regulation of surface transportation

carriers operating in interstate and

foreign commerce. Annual reports are

required to be filed by all Class I

railroads pursuant to authority in 49

U.S.C. 11145, 11144 and 11901 of the

ICC Termination Act (ICCTA). This

information collection was approved

June 13, 1985 and extended to March

31, 1996.

Decided: January 31, 1997.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3107 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

[STB Docket No. AB–290 (Sub–No. 183X)]

Norfolk Southern Railway Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in

Greenwood and Newberry Counties,

SC

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: The Board, pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 10502, exempts Norfolk Southern

Railway Company (NS) from the prior

approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.

10903 to permit NS to abandon a 13-

mile line of railroad between milepost

V–58.0, at Conrad, and milepost V–71.0,

at Brickdale, in Greenwood and

Newberry Counties, SC, subject to an

environmental condition and standard

employee protective conditions.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of

intent to file an offer of financial

assistance (OFA) has been received, this

exemption will be effective on March 9,

1997. Formal expressions of intent to

file an OFA under 49 CFR

1152.27(c)(2) 1 and requests for issuance

of a notice of interim trail use/rail

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be

filed by February 18, 1997, petitions to

stay must be filed by February 24, 1997,

requests for a public use condition

conforming to 49 CFR 1152.28(a)(2)

must be filed by February 27, 1997, and

petitions to reopen must be filed by

March 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings, referring to

STB Docket No. AB–290 (Sub-No. 183X)

to: (1) Surface Transportation Board,

Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, 1201 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20423; and (2)

James R. Paschall, Three Commercial

Place, Norfolk, VA 23510–2191.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–5660. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Board’s decision. To purchase a

copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: DC Data &

News, Inc., Room 2229, 1201

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289–4357/

4359. [Assistance for the hearing

impaired is available through TDD

services (202) 927–5721.]

Decided: January 30, 1997.