[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5879-5881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3041]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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

[[Page 5880]]

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.

[[Page 5881]]

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