Optronics Products Company, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 2106 [E6-234]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2106
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2006 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–23419; Notice 1]
erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
Optronics Products Company, Inc.,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Optronics Products Company, Inc.
(Optronics) has determined that certain
combination lamps that it produced in
2002 do not comply with 49 CFR
571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps,
reflective devices, and associated
equipment.’’ Optronics has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.’’
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), Optronics has petitioned for
an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Optronics’
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
Affected are a total of approximately
6000 4-inch round LED 3 function
combination lamps, part number
STL45RK, produced in November 2002
and sold as replacement equipment for
trailers less than 80 inches in overall
width. NHTSA testing of this model
showed that three out of the four tested
lamps failed to meet the minimum
photometry requirements for a 3-lighted
section lamp. In particular, the lamps
failed to meet the minimum zone 3
photometry requirements for the
taillamp, stop lamp, and turn signal
lamp. The FMVSS No. 108 minimum
photometry requirement for zone 3 of
these functions is 24 cd, 520 cd, and 520
cd, respectively. The lamps failed to
meet the zonal requirements by a
margin of 7% to 28% for the taillamp,
and 4% to 18% for the stop and turn
signal lamps.
Optronics believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted.
Optronics states that, although the
lamps noncomply with the
requirements for a 3-lighted section
lamp, they would meet or exceed the
light output requirements if the lamps
were tested to the requirements of ‘‘an
incandescent light of the same fit, form,
and function.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:02 Jan 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
Optronics asserts that ‘‘[h]olding a 4inch LED light to a higher standard than
a 4-inch incandescent light is the result
of definitions in the regulations and is
not based on the relative safety of one
light versus another.’’ The petitioner
further states,
Issued on: January 9, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–234 Filed 1–11–06; 8:45 am]
[W]e believe that the lights’ failure under
the regulations is a technical issue and not
a substantive one * * *. Consumers and
Company’s (sic) should not be required to go
through a product recall on a technicality.
What is important here is the safety of the
consumer. We believe that the data in this
filing show that the lights are as safe as any
incandescent on the road.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Optronics states that there have been
no accidents, injuries, fatalities, or
warranty claims related to this
noncompliance.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments
must refer to the docket and notice
number cited at the beginning of this
notice and be submitted by any of the
following methods. Mail: Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand
Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It
is requested, but not required, that two
copies of the comments be provided.
The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays. Comments may be
submitted electronically by logging onto
the Docket Management System Web
site at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on
‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing
the document electronically. Comments
may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or
may be submitted to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
The petition, supporting materials,
and all comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated below will be filed and will be
considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied,
notice of the decision will be published
in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: February 13,
2006.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 34807]
Richard D. Robey—Continuance in
Control Exemption—Susquehanna
Valley Railroad Corporation and
Stourbridge Railroad Company
Richard D. Robey, a noncarrier
individual, has filed a verified notice of
exemption to continue in control of
Susquehanna Valley Railroad
Corporation (SVRC), a newly
incorporated holding company, and
Stourbridge Railroad Company
(Stourbridge).
The transaction was scheduled to be
consummated on or after January 1,
2006.
At the time of filing, Mr. Robey was
the sole shareholder and owner of eight
Class III railroads: Stourbridge, Juniata
Valley Railroad Company, Lycoming
Valley Railroad Company, Nittany &
Bald Eagle Railroad Company, North
Shore Railroad Company, Wellsboro &
Corning Railroad Company, Union
County Industrial Railroad Company,
and Shamokin Valley Railroad
Company. In a related transaction,
SVRC has filed a verified notice of
exemption to acquire control of all of
the above Class III railroads, except
Stourbridge, which Mr. Robey will
continue to control directly.
Mr. Robey states that: (i) The railroads
do not connect with each other or any
railroads in their corporate family; (ii)
The continuance in control is not part
of a series of anticipated transactions
that would connect the railroads with
each other or any other railroad in their
corporate family; and (iii) The
transaction does not involve a Class I
railroad. Therefore, the transaction is
exempt from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. See 49
CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board
may not use its exemption authority to
relieve a rail carrier of its statutory
obligation to protect the interests of its
employees. Section 11326(c), however,
does not provide for labor protection for
transactions under sections 11324 and
11325 that involve only Class III rail
carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not
impose labor protective conditions here,
because all of the carriers involved are
Class III carriers.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 2106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-234]
[[Page 2106]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23419; Notice 1]
Optronics Products Company, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Optronics Products Company, Inc. (Optronics) has determined that
certain combination lamps that it produced in 2002 do not comply with
49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.'' Optronics has
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and
Noncompliance Reports.''
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Optronics has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Optronics' petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Affected are a total of approximately 6000 4-inch round LED 3
function combination lamps, part number STL45RK, produced in November
2002 and sold as replacement equipment for trailers less than 80 inches
in overall width. NHTSA testing of this model showed that three out of
the four tested lamps failed to meet the minimum photometry
requirements for a 3-lighted section lamp. In particular, the lamps
failed to meet the minimum zone 3 photometry requirements for the
taillamp, stop lamp, and turn signal lamp. The FMVSS No. 108 minimum
photometry requirement for zone 3 of these functions is 24 cd, 520 cd,
and 520 cd, respectively. The lamps failed to meet the zonal
requirements by a margin of 7% to 28% for the taillamp, and 4% to 18%
for the stop and turn signal lamps.
Optronics believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted.
Optronics states that, although the lamps noncomply with the
requirements for a 3-lighted section lamp, they would meet or exceed
the light output requirements if the lamps were tested to the
requirements of ``an incandescent light of the same fit, form, and
function.''
Optronics asserts that ``[h]olding a 4-inch LED light to a higher
standard than a 4-inch incandescent light is the result of definitions
in the regulations and is not based on the relative safety of one light
versus another.'' The petitioner further states,
[W]e believe that the lights' failure under the regulations is a
technical issue and not a substantive one * * *. Consumers and
Company's (sic) should not be required to go through a product
recall on a technicality. What is important here is the safety of
the consumer. We believe that the data in this filing show that the
lights are as safe as any incandescent on the road.
Optronics states that there have been no accidents, injuries,
fatalities, or warranty claims related to this noncompliance.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of
the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from
10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. Comments may be submitted
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at
https://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain instructions for filing
the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1-202-493-2251,
or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: February 13, 2006.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: January 9, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-234 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
