31206 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Notices

the Administrator related to the aircraft

design for sustained engine rotor

imbalance conditions provisions of 14

CFR part 25 regarding the type

certification requirements for transport

airplane structure. This notice is

necessary to give all interested persons

an opportunity to present their views on

the proposed AC.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the

proposed AC to: Federal Aviation

Administration, Attention: Jim Haynes,

Airframe/Airworthiness Branch, ANM–

115, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind

Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98055–4056.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically to the following address:

jim.haynes@faa.gov. Comments may be

inspected at the above address between

7;30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays,

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Haynes, Airframe/Airworthiness

Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton,

WA 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–

2131; facsimile (425) 227–1320.

Questions may also be submitted

electronically to the following address:

jim.haynes@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

You may obtain an electronic copy of

the advisory circular identified in this

notice at the following Internet address:

www.faa.gov/avr/air/airhome.htm. If

you do not have access to the Internet,

you may request a copy by contacting

Susan Boylon, Program Management

Branch, ANM–114, FAA Transport

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–1152. Interested

persons are invited to comment on the

proposed AC by submitting such written

data, views, or arguments, as they may

desire. Commenters should identify AC

25–XX, and submit comments, in

duplicate, to the address specified

above. All communications received on

or before the closing date for comments

will be considered by the Transport

Standards Staff before issuing the final

AC.

Discussion

This AC contains guidance for the

latest amendment of the regulations and

applies to all transport category

airplanes for which a new, amended, or

supplemental type certificate is

required. This guidance should be

applied to any portion of the airplane

structure that has been modified. In the

past, advisory and guidance information

applicable to transport airplane

structure has been published as AC’s.

Advisory circulars have not been

developed for all of the regulatory

requirements applicable to transport

airplane structure, however. In many

instances, certification of new

technology airplanes resulted in the

need to interpret the existing regulations

and to apply new regulations. Issue

papers and special conditions were

generated to document the compliance

method agreed upon between the

applicant and the FAA. In other

instances, applicants, FAA Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO) managers,

and foreign regulatory authorities have

requested interpretation of the intent of

specific regulations. This guidance was

documented in the form of policy

memorandums that were distributed to

all ACO’s, letters to applicants and

foreign airworthiness authorities, and

issue papers. In many instances, this

information was not organized in a

manner that allowed easy access, and

applicants were not aware of revised

policy. This AC formalizes existing

policy so that the public and FAA

personnel have access to this

information. The methods and

procedures described in this AC have

evolved after many years and represent

current certification practice.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8,

2000.

Vi L. Lipski,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,

ANM–100.

[FR Doc. 00–12311 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

In accordance with part 211 of Title

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

notice is hereby given that the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA) received

a request for a waiver of compliance

with certain requirements of its safety

standards. The individual petition is

described below, including the party

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions

involved, the nature of the relief being

requested, and the petitioner’s

arguments in favor of relief.

The Texas Mexican Railway Company

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2000–

7040]

The Texas Mexican Railway Company

(TM) seeks a permanent waiver of

compliance from certain provisions of

the Safety Appliances Standards, 49

CFR part 231, and the Power Brakes and

Drawbars regulations, 49 CFR part 232,

concerning RoadRailer train operations

over their railroad system. Specifically,

TM requests relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR part 231, which

specifies the number, location and

dimensional specifications for

handholds, ladders, sill steps,

uncoupling levers, and handbrakes; and

§ 232.2, which regulates drawbar height.

TM would like to begin operations of

RoadRailer equipment over its system

in connection with the Burlington

Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and/

or the Kansas City Southern Railroad to

and from interchange with the

Transportation Ferroviaria Mexicana at

Laredo, Texas, with movement of the

equipment between interchange points

at Beaumont, Houston, or Corpus

Christi, Texas. TM requests that FRA

consider this waiver under the same

conditions as granted to BNSF under

Docket Number FRA 1999–5895.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in these proceedings by

submitting written views, data, or

comments. FRA does not anticipate

scheduling a public hearing in

connection with these proceedings since

the facts do not appear to warrant a

hearing. If any interested party desires

an opportunity for oral comment, they

should notify FRA, in writing, before

the end of the comment period and

specify the basis for their request.

All communications concerning these

proceedings should identify the

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver

Petition Docket Number 1999–5894) and

must be submitted to the Docket Clerk,

DOT Docket Management Facility,

Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Communications received within 15

days of the date of this notice will be

considered by FRA before final action is

taken. Comments received after that

date will be considered as far as

practicable. All written communications

concerning these proceedings are

available for examination during regular

business hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) at

the above facility. All documents in the

public docket are also available for

inspection and copying on the Internet

at the docket facility’s web site at http:/

/dms.dot.gov.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Notices 31207

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2000.

Michael J. Logue,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Compliance and Program Implementation.

[FR Doc. 00–12313 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7312; Notice 1]

General Motors North America, Notice

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors North America (GM)

has determined that on some 1995–1999

model year GMC and Chevrolet trucks

and on some 1997–1999 Pontiac Grand

Prix cars, the center high-mounted stop

lamp (CHMSL) could briefly illuminate

if the hazard flasher switch is depressed

to its limit of travel. This condition

would not meet the lighting

requirements of S5.5.4 of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective devices, and

associated equipment.’’ Pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120 (h), GM has

petitioned for a determination that this

condition is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’

We are publishing this notice of

receipt of an application as required by

49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. This action

does not represent any agency decision

of other exercise of judgment

concerning the merits of the application.

FMVSS No. 108 establishes the

requirements for signaling to enable safe

operation in darkness and other

conditions of reduced visibility. Under

S5.5.4 of FMVSS No. 108, the CHMSL

on each vehicle shall be activated only

upon application of the service brakes.

During Model Year 1995–1999 GM

produced 3,375,393 vehicles with a

CHMSL that could briefly illuminate if

the hazard flasher switch is depressed to

its limit of travel. The vehicles that may

have this condition are 1995–1999

model year GMC and Chevrolet trucks

and some 1997–1999 Pontiac Grand Prix

cars.

GM supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance by

stating the following:

The possibility of unintended CHMSL

illumination is very low, for several reasons.

Hazard flashers are infrequently used in

service. The condition can occur only when

the hazard flasher switch is at the extreme

bottom of travel. To turn the hazard flashers

on or off, one need merely push the hazard

flasher switch. It is not necessary to push the

switch all the way to its limit of travel. Even

when the switch is depressed all the way to

its limit of travel, CHMSL illumination may

not occur. In approximately 50% of the

switches it would be moderately difficult to

get a CHMSL activation. With these switches,

it is also necessary to apply a side force to

the hazard flasher switch (in addition to

having the switch at its bottom of travel)

before the CHMSL might illuminate.

Even if the condition does occur, the

duration of unintended CHMSL illumination

would be very brief. The hazard flasher

switch requires less than a second in total to

turn the flashers on or off, and only for a

fraction of this total time would the switch

be all the way to its limit of travel.

About one-third of the affected vehicles

have incandescent CHMSLs. In these

vehicles, visible illumination of the CHMSL

would not occur unless the hazard switch

were depressed to its full limit of travel and

held there long enough for the incandescent

bulb filaments to heat and become visible.

Therefore, unless the hazard switch was

deliberately held at its limit of travel, and

possibly with a side force, any unintended

CHMSL illumination would be momentary

and as a practical matter virtually

imperceptible.

Even if a visible CHMSL illumination

occurs upon hazard flasher activation, it

would almost certainly have no adverse

effect on safety. Hazard flasher lights are

typically used when the vehicle is off the

road or out of traffic. However, if a CHMSL

illuminated due to this condition when the

vehicle was on the road, a following driver

would likely see a brief single flash of the

CHMSL. As a practical matter, the following

driver might not notice this flash at all. Even

if he or she did, there would seem to be no

likelihood of driver confusion or

inappropriate responses. In reaching this

view, we have considered the following

situations and would invite the agency’s

consideration of them as well:

A driver who turns on the hazard flasher

switch does so in order to alert others to

some situation that the driver judges to be a

highway safety hazard. Indeed, the owner’s

manual in each of these vehicles states as

much: Your hazard warning flashers let you

warn others. They also let police know you

have a problem.

When the driver turns them on, the hazard

lamps on these vehicles commence flashing

immediately after the driver releases the

switch. In this situation, any momentarily

illuminated CHMSL would augment the

hazard alert to following drivers.

If the hazard flasher switch is being turned

off, the CHMSL could be illuminated

momentarily while the hazard lamps are

flashing. A following driver is unlikely to

react inappropriately to a momentary CHMSL

illumination when two hazard lamps are

already flashing.

In many situations, it seems likely that a

driver suddenly approaching a hazard

situation might want to slow down, and

therefore the service brakes would be applied

when the hazard switch is depressed. In this

case, the CHMSL would remain illuminated

by the service brakes as required by FMVSS

108. This situation would pose no safety or

compliance issue because the CHMSL would

already be on.

The CHMSL (and the remainder of the

vehicle lighting) otherwise meets all of the

requirements of FMVSS 108.

GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries,

owner complaints or field reports for the

subject vehicles related to this condition.

NHTSA has previously granted

inconsequential treatment for a similar

condition. In 1995, General Motors

petitioned for inconsequential treatment for a

noncompliance while the hazard switch was

being used (reference Mr. Milford Bennett

letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez dated June 16,

1995). The agency subsequently granted

inconsequential treatment for this condition

(reference Docket 95–57, Notice 2 published

in the Federal Register, 61 FR 2865, January

29, 1996). No one opposed the application.

NHTSA found in that situation that ‘‘the

transient activation of the CHMSL, a false

signal, is highly unlikely to mislead a

following driver,’’ at 2865–2866.

The current situation would appear to be

even less of a highway safety issue, because

(a) the previous condition could occur at

various positions within the normal

operating travel of the hazard switch, while

the current condition can only occur at the

extreme bottom of travel of the hazard

switch; and (b), the previous condition could

involve up to three momentary flashes of the

CHMSL, while the current condition only has

the potential for a single momentary

illumination of the CHMSL.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application described

above. Comments should refer to the

docket number and be submitted to :

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC,

20590. It is requested that two copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: June 15, 2000.

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: May 10, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–12312 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P