5878 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

90261, or San Francisco Airports

District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room

210, Burlingame, CA 94010–1303. In

addition, one copy of any comments

submitted to the FAA must be mailed or

delivered to Mr. Charles W. Foster,

Executive Director, Port of Oakland, at

the following address: 530 Water Street,

Oakland, CA 94607. Air carriers and

foreign air carriers may submit copies of

written comments previously provided

to the Port of Oakland under § 158.23 of

part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marlys Vandervelde, Airports Program

Analyst, San Francisco Airports District

Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210,

Burlingame, CA 94010–1303,

Telephone: (415) 876–2806. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at

Metropolitan International Airport

under the provisions of the Aviation

Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of

1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On January 27, 1997, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use a PFC submitted by the

Port of Oakland was substantially

complete within the requirements of

§ 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than April

30, 1997.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: April

1, 1997.

Proposed charge expiration date:

April 1, 1999.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$33,011,496.

Brief description of the proposed

impose and use projects: Upgrade of

Airport Public Address and Paging

System, Airfield Lighting and Marking

Improvements, Pilot Noise Insulation

Program, Baggage Claim Improvements

in Terminals One and Two. Brief

description of the proposed impose only

project: Construct Remote Overnight

Aircraft Parking Apron.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/

Commercial Operators (ATCO) filing

FAA form 1800–31 and Commuters or

Small Certified Air Carriers filing DOT

form 298–C T1 and E1.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

Regional Airports Division located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd.,

Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any

person may, upon request, inspect the

application, notice and other documents

germane to the application in person at

the Port of Oakland.

Issued in Hawthorne, California, on

January 28, 1997.

Herman C. Bliss,

Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific

Region.

[FR Doc. 97–3069 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

To Impose a Passenger Facility Charge

(PFC) at San Luis Obispo County

Airport McChesney Field, San Luis

Obispo, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on

Application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose a PFC at San Luis

Obispo County Airport McChesney

Field under the provisions of the

Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion

Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990)

(Pub. L. 101–508) and part 158 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Airports Division,

15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA

90261, or San Francisco Airports

District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room

210, Burlingame, CA. 94010–1303. In

addition, one copy of any comment

submitted to the FAA must be mailed or

delivered to Ms. Klaasje Nairne, Airport

Administrative Officer of the San Luis

Obispo Airport-McChesney Field, at the

following address: County of San Luis

Obispo, County Government Center,

Room 460, San Luis Obispo, California

93408. Air carriers and foreign air

carriers may submit copies of written

comments previously provided to the

County of San Luis Obispo under

§ 158.23 of part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marlys Vandervelde, Airports Program

Analyst, San Francisco Airports District

Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210,

Burlingame, CA 94010–1303,

Telephone: (415) 876–2806. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposed to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

a PFC from San Luis Obispo County

Airport McChesney Field under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (title IX

of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and part

158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 158).

On January 15, 1997, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose a PFC submitted by the County

of San Luis Obispo was substantially

complete within the requirements of

§ 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than April

18, 1997.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: May 1,

1997.

Proposed charge expiration date:

April 30, 2012.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$6,820,830.

Brief description of the proposed

projects: Terminal Development and

Construction including construction of

passenger terminal building, addressing

elements of capacity including, but not

limited to lobby space, queuing, secure

waiting, baggage claim and baggage

handling system upgrades, additional

boarding gates (2), definitive arrival and

departure areas, terminal building

entry/exit circulation and access

improvement.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Unscheduled

Part 135 Air Taxi Operators.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

Regional Airports Division located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd.,

Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any

person may, upon request, inspect the

application, notice and other documents

germane to the application in person at

the County of San Luis Obispo.
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