Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34797

results in a more favorable aspect than

intended or other condition hazardous

to the movement of a train. Section

233.7 sets forth the specific

requirements for reporting signal

failures within 15 days in accordance

with the instructions printed on Form

FRA F 6180.14. Finally, Section 233.9

sets forth the specific requirements for

the ‘‘Signal System Five Year Report.’’

It requires that every five years each

railroad must file a signal system status

report. The report is to be prepared on

a form issued by FRA in accordance

with the instructions and definitions

provided.

Title 49, part 235 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, sets forth the

specific conditions under which FRA

approval of modification or

discontinuance of railroad signal

systems is required and prescribes the

methods available to seek such

approval. The application process

prescribed under Part 235 provides a

vehicle enabling FRA to obtain the

necessary information to make logical

and informed decisions concerning

carrier requests to modify or

discontinue signaling systems. Section

235.5 requires railroads to apply for

FRA approval to discontinue or

materially modify signaling systems.

Section 235.7 defines ‘‘material

modification’’ and identifies those

changes that do not require agency

approval. Section 235.8 provides that

any railroad may petition FRA to seek

relief from the requirements provided

under 49 CFR Part 236.

Sections 236.10, 235.12, and 235.13

describe where the petition must be

submitted, what information must be

included, the organizational format, and

the official authorized to sign the

application. Section 235.20 sets forth

the process for protesting the granting of

a carrier application for signal changes

or relief from the rules, standards, and

instructions. This section provides the

information that must be included in

the protest, the address for filing the

protest, the time limit for filing the

protest, and the requirement that a

person requesting a public hearing

explain the need for such a forum.

Section 236.110 required that the test

results of certain signaling apparatus be

recorded and specifically identify the

tests required under §§ 236.102-109;

§§ 236.376 to 236.387; §§ 236.576,

236.577; and §§ 236.586–236.589.

Section 236.110 further provides that

the test results must be recorded on preprinted or computerized forms provided

by the carrier and that the forms show

the name of the railroad; place and date

of the test conducted; equipment tested;

tests results; repairs, replacements, and

adjustments made; and the condition of

the apparatus. This section also requires

that the employee conducting the test

must sign the form and the record be

retained at the office of the supervisory

official having proper authority. Results

of tests made in compliance with

§ 236.587 must be retained for 92 days,

and results of all other tests must be

retained until the next record is filed,

but in no case less than one year.

Additionally, § 236.587 requires each

railroad to make a departure test of cab

signal, train stop, or train control

devices on locomotives before that

locomotive enters the equipped

territory. This section further requires

that whoever performs the test must

certify in writing that the test was

properly performed. The certification

and the test results must be posted in

the locomotive cab with a coy of the

certification and test results retained at

the office of a supervisory official

having proper authority. However, if it

is impractical to leave a copy of the

certification and test results at the

location of the test, the test results must

be transmitted to either the dispatcher

or one other designated official at each

location, who must keep a written

record of the test results and the name

of the person performing the test. All

records prepared under this section are

required to be retained for 92 days.

Finally, Section 236.590 requires the

carrier to clean and inspect the

pneumatic apparatus of automatic train

stop, train control, or cab signal devices

on locomotives every 736 days, and to

stencil, tag, or otherwise mark the

pneumatic apparatus indicating the last

cleaning date.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours:

480,326 hours.

Title: Locomotive Certification (Noise

Compliance Regulations).

OMB Control Number: 2130–0527.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Form(s): N/A.

Abstract: On January 14, 1976, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

issued noise emission standards

pursuant to the Noise Control Act of

1972. The standards, 40 CFR Part 201,

establish limits on the noise emissions

generated by railroad locomotives under

both stationary and moving conditions.

Section 17 of the Noise Control Act also

requires the Secretary of Transportation

to enforce these regulations and

promulgate separate regulations to

ensure compliance with the same. On

December 23, 1983, FRA published 49

CFR Part 210 to ensure compliance with

the EPA standards. The certification and

testing data ensure that locomotives

built after December 31, 1979 have

passed prescribed decibel standards for

noise emissions under EPA regulations.

Addressee: Send comments regarding

these information collections to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20503; Attention:

FRA Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on the

following: Whether the proposed

collections of information are necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of FRA, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

the accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the

burden of the proposed information

collections; ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collections of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

A comment to OMB is best assured of

having its full effect if OMB receives it

within 30 days of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 24,

2000.

Margaret B. Reid,

Acting Director, Office of Information

Technology and Support Systems, Federal

Railroad Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–13534 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–6270]

Notice of Public Meeting and Internet

Forum on the Safety Implications of

Driver Distraction When Using InVehicle Technologies

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and

internet forum.

SUMMARY: NHTSA is holding two public

events that focus on the potential safety

implications associated with driver

distraction while using advanced invehicle technologies that receive,

transmit, or display various types of

information. The devices of interest

include those that allow drivers to

phone, fax, obtain route guidance, view

infrared images on a head-up display,

and use the Internet and other such

devices.

34798 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

One event is an international Internet

Forum which is expected to begin on

July 5, 2000, and end on August 11,

2000. The Internet Forum will provide

an opportunity for technical experts as

well as the general public to download

technical papers, ask questions about

the papers, relate their experiences

regarding the use of in-vehicle devices

and their impact on safety in general

and driving performance in particular,

and participate in exchange of views on

related technical issues. Researchers

and technical experts are invited to

submit papers for inclusion in the

Internet Forum that focus on

characterizing the current and future

safety impact of driver distraction when

using in-vehicle technologies,

evaluating how device characteristics

affect vehicle safety and determine the

impact of driver distraction on safe

operation of vehicles, identifying and

evaluating approaches to minimize

driver distraction, and recommending

needed research and other safety

initiatives. Overviews of ongoing

research programs and descriptions of

industry practices are also welcome.

NHTSA will also hold a public

meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, at

which representatives of the public,

industry, government, and safety groups

are invited to share viewpoints,

information, and recommendations

regarding strategies to minimize

potential adverse effects of driver

distraction on safety when using such

telematic devices. In particular, NHTSA

is interested in hearing about different

technologies and devices being

proposed for use in vehicles which may

have a bearing on safe driving,

viewpoints regarding the roles of

various entities in promoting best

practices in the design of those devices

and their use, approaches for evaluating

the safety impacts of such systems, and

what new research and other safety

initiatives are needed. NHTSA will

utilize the information from the public

meeting and Internet Forum as a basis

for discussions at a Technical Workshop

of invited researchers and technology

developers to be scheduled at a later

date. The goal of the Technical

Workshop is to generate

recommendations for distraction

reducing strategies, data needs, and

research methodologies.

Persons interested in attending the

public meeting might also be interested

in attending the National Intelligent

Vehicle Initiative Meeting, July 19–20,

2000, which will be held at the Ronald

Reagan Building and International

Trade Center in Washington, DC. This

meeting, sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Transportation and

administered by SAE International, will

promote public/stakeholder awareness

of efforts to improve traffic safety using

intelligent vehicle technologies,

showcase accomplishments, and

validate research and development

efforts. Further information on this

meeting can be found at http://

www.its.dot.gov.

DATES: Internet Forum: The Internet

Forum will be open for registration on

June 23, 2000, while the technical

papers will be posted on July 5, 2000.

The Forum will remain active until

August 11, 2000. Thereafter, the

information will remain available

through NHTSA’s Web site for viewing

only.

Public Meeting: NHTSA will hold the

public meeting on Tuesday, July 18,

2000, starting at 8:30 a.m. and ending at

about 5:00 p.m. or earlier as determined

by the number of presenters. A

preliminary agenda will be posted on

NHTSA’s Web site at URL http://

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/

announcements/meetings/, by June 30,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Internet Forum: The

Internet Forum Web site address will be

www.driverdistraction.org.

Public Meeting: The public meeting

will be held in Room 2230, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590.

Written Comments: If you wish to

submit written comments on the issues

related to distraction or any topics

discussed at the public meeting, those

comments should be submitted to

Docket No. NHTSA–99–6270 at the

following address: Docket Management

Facility, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590. Docket hours for hand delivery

are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on

weekdays. Comments can be sent by fax

to 202–493–2251 or by electronic

submission. The electronic submission

procedure is described in the Docket

Management section of NHTSA’s Web

site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions: Michael

Perel, Office of Vehicle Safety Research,

NRD–13, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

366–5675, fax 202–366–7237, E-mail:

mike.perel@nhtsa.dot.gov).

To participate in the public meeting:

Rita Gibbons (telephone: 202–366–4862,

fax: 202–366–5930, E-mail:

rita.gibbons@nhtsa.dot.gov). E-mail or

fax is preferred.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The increasing utilization of certain

advanced technologies in automobiles

brings both the promise of enhanced

safety, comfort, security, and

convenience as well as concerns about

possible impact on safety if they distract

driver attention from the driving task.

Technologies which transmit, receive,

or display information from a motor

vehicle include devices such as wireless

phones and Internet connections,

navigation/route guidance systems, and

fax capability collectively known as

telematics, as well as night vision

systems and others. Some in-vehicle

technologies provide direct safety

benefits, such as automatic crash

notification to emergency medical

services and hazard alerts to inform

drivers of dangerous traffic and roadway

conditions. However, any devices which

require drivers to look at displays and/

or process information, or which require

drivers to perform various tasks in order

to operate controls of in-vehicle devices,

will also distract them and thus increase

their crash risk. Distraction occurs from

looking away from the road and from

being mentally distracted while

attending to traffic. Sometimes the

activities required to operate these

devices lead to drivers occasionally

taking their hands off the steering wheel

even for a short while. If the distraction

coincides with any of such events as the

sudden braking of a lead vehicle, a lead

vehicle in an adjacent lane cutting in

front, a pedestrian crossing the road, or

an unanticipated obstacle or curve in

the road simultaneously occurring, the

likelihood of a crash increases

substantially.

NHTSA has been concerned about the

potential safety impact of driver

distraction from using advanced, invehicle technologies for a number of

years. In 1998, NHTSA published

available information on the potential

effects of wireless phones on traffic

safety. In conjunction with the DOT

Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, NHTSA

completed several research studies that

focused on measuring the effect of

driver distraction from navigation

systems on driving performance.

Additional research is currently

underway that focuses on drivers’ use of

wireless phones in naturalistic driving

situations. In 1998, NHTSA sent a letter

(available in Docket NHTSA–99–5098–

01) to vehicle manufacturer executives

urging them to personally ensure that

the application of advanced

technologies does not pose safety risks

and to ‘‘maintain or establish rigorous

internal design protocols to address this

possibility.’’ While the primary focus of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34799

that letter was inflatable restraints, the

letter pointed out that the ‘‘introduction

of all new technologies, such as

navigation and warning systems, headup displays, and other intelligent

systems’’ must be accomplished in a

way that is safe for drivers. In a

February 10, 1999, public statement, the

agency said that, ‘‘Manufacturers have

an obligation to thoroughly and

adequately test the safety of any new

technology under real world conditions

prior to introduction into the

marketplace.’’

B. Internet Forum on the Safety

Implications of Driver Distraction

When Using In-Vehicle Technologies

To provide an opportunity for further

technical discussions among a wider

range of participants than is possible at

the public meeting, NHTSA is initiating

an international Internet Forum devoted

to presentations of research studies and

other initiatives related to the safety

impact of driver distraction when using

in-vehicle devices. It will also provide

a forum for discussions of research and

related issues by interested parties,

technical professionals, and the public,

both in the United States and

internationally. NHTSA will also post

on the Internet information on past and

present research on driver distraction.

The key topics to be addressed in the

Internet Forum are:

1. How do in-vehicle technologies

influence driver distractions? What are

the effects of distraction on safety and

safe driving performance? How does

distraction from in-vehicle technologies

differ from and compare to distraction

due to other sources?

2. Methodological challenges in

measuring the influence of design

features of devices, their operation, and

their impact on distraction and safe

driving performance.

3. Effective government, industry, and

consumer actions to minimize

distraction.

4. Current and future research

necessary to support actions to

minimize distraction.

Participation in the Internet Forum:

Persons interested in submitting

technical papers on current or past

research or activities related to the

above topics should send an electronic

copy to Michael Perel by June 15, 2000.

Technical papers should include an

abstract, be in English, modeled after

conference style proceedings, and

should be about 4–5 pages in length (not

including graphics). Overviews of

ongoing research programs and

discussions of industry practices are

also welcome. NHTSA will review

submissions and notify authors of

acceptance within 2 weeks of receipt.

Submissions will be reviewed according

to the relevance of the paper to the

Forum, the clarity of the writing, the

validity of experimental methodology

used, if any, the degree to which

conclusions are supported by data, and

the usefulness of the paper to decision

makers in the government, practitioners,

researchers, and others. Due to the

relatively short time for preparation and

review, persons interested in submitting

material are strongly encouraged to

contact Michael Perel in advance of

submitting such material. The

documents should be in Microsoft

WORD, Corel Wordperfect, Adobe pdf,

or ASCII text format. If authors have

previously published studies and wish

to have the studies included on the

Internet Forum Web site as a resource

for others interested in the topic, they

should send the studies in electronic

format or submit a Web site link to the

material if it is already on line.

Persons not submitting a technical

paper, may register to join the Forum to

view technical papers, post questions to

authors, join discussion groups on

related topics, or answer questions

about their experience using in-vehicle

technologies. The Web site for

registering for the conference will be

www.driverdistraction.org.

Procedural matters: The Internet

Forum will be open for registration on

June 23, 2000. Technical papers will be

posted on July 5, 2000. The Forum will

be active until August 11, 2000. After

that date, the material presented will be

archived and remain available for

viewing on NHTSA’s Web site. Also, a

summary of the Forum will be prepared

and posted on this Web site.

C. Public Meeting

On July 18, 2000, NHTSA will

conduct a public meeting, providing a

forum for industry, safety, research

groups, and the general public to

discuss strategies for realizing the

benefits of in-vehicle technologies

without increasing the risk of crashes

due to driver distraction. The objective

of this meeting is to share viewpoints

and information on the following

general topics:

1. What new technologies and

features are being planned for use by

drivers

2. The role of various entities in

promoting best practices in the design

and use of these devices

3. How to evaluate the safety impacts

of such systems and what are safetyrelevant ways to measure driver

distraction

4. Ongoing activities to promote safe

use of in-vehicle technologies

5. Additional activities and research

needed.

1. Written Statements, Presentations,

and Comments: The agency has

established Docket No. NHTSA–99–

6270 as a repository for presentations,

statements, and comments on issues

related to the safety of in-vehicle

technologies. Written or electronic

submissions may be made to this docket

at any time. For written materials, two

copies should be submitted to Docket

Management at the address given at the

beginning of this document. The

materials must not exceed 15 pages in

length (49 CFR 553.21). Necessary

attachments may be appended to the

submissions without regard to the 15-

page limit. This limitation is intended to

encourage commenters to detail their

primary arguments in a concise fashion.

Presentations made at the public

meeting will also be posted in a separate

section of the Internet Forum Web site

if the presenter submits an electronic

version of the presentation including a

separate brief abstract or overview by

July 5, 2000. Any comments made at the

public meeting and a summary of the

discussions that take place will be

posted on the Internet after the meeting.

The electronic submissions for the

Internet Forum should be sent by E-mail

(5 mb max), floppy disk, or CD ROM to

Michael Perel at the address given

above.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Additionally, two copies of the above

document from which the purportedly

confidential information has been

deleted should be submitted to Docket

Management. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied

by a cover letter setting forth the

information specified in the agency’s

confidential business information

regulation, 49 CFR Part 512.

2. Meeting Participation: This is a

public meeting, and attendance is open

to all members of the public. You may

attend as a participant or an observer. If

you plan to attend the meeting, contact

Rita Gibbons at the address, telephone,

fax, or the E-mail listed above before

July 5, 2000. E-mail or Fax is preferred.

If you wish to present a prepared oral

statement during the meeting, please

send a copy of your statement to Mr.

Perel by July 5, 2000.

3. Procedural Matters: A written

transcript of the meeting will be made.

Speakers will have a maximum of 15–

34800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

20 minutes. Presenters may be

questioned by a panel of government

officials. Time permitting, audience

members may submit written questions

for the panel to ask the presenters.

Issued on: May 25, 2000.

Raymond P. Owings,

Associate Administrator for Research and

Development.

[FR Doc. 00–13535 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7361; Notice 1]

Freightliner Corporation; Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Freightliner Corporation (Freightliner)

of Portland, Oregon, has determined

that some of its vehicles fail to meet the

brake release time requirements of

paragraph S5.3.4.1(b) of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

121, Air Brake Systems. On May 8,

1997, Freightliner filed a

noncompliance information report

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573.5. In that

report, Freightliner indicated that it

would file a petition for inconsequential

noncompliance at a future date.

Freightliner states that a Petition for

Inconsequential Noncompliance dated

October 10, 1997 was submitted to the

agency but we have no record of it.

Subsequently, on February 29, 2000,

Freightliner resubmitted its Petition

dated October 10, 1997.

This notice of receipt of the

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and does not

represent an agency decision or other

exercise of judgement concerning the

merits of the application.

Under the requirements of S5.3.4.1(a)

of FMVSS No. 121, each truck equipped

with air brakes is required to have a

pressure reduction from 95 psi to 5 psi,

measured at each brake chamber of the

truck, in not more than 0.55 second

from the initial movement (release) of

the service brake control. In addition,

S5.3.4.1(b) requires that a truck which is

equipped to tow another air-braked

vehicle is required to have a pressure

reduction from the initial test pressure

equivalent to 95 psi in the truck’s brake

chambers, to 5 psi in not more than 0.75

second, measured in a 50-cubic-inch

test reservoir attached to the control line

coupling, upon initial movement

(release) of the service brake control.

Thus the pressure in the test reservoir

is required to drop from approximately

95 psi to 5 psi in not more than 0.75

second upon release of the service brake

control.

Number of Non-Complying Trucks

From January 1994 through April

1996, Freightliner produced

approximately 3,145 Model FLD trucks

that may not have had a quick-release

valve installed at the control line

coupling and therefore may not meet the

release timing requirements in FMVSS

No. 121. Data on the number of vehicles

of the 3,145 affected truck population

that were built without the quick release

valve are as follows. According to

Freightliner’s noncompliance

information report, a field inspection of

34 subject vehicles indicated that 5.9

percent (two trucks) did not have the

quick release valves. According to

Freightliner’s petition for

inconsequential noncompliance, an

inspection (of an unspecified number)

of trucks at the St. Thomas

Manufacturing Plant where these

vehicles were manufactured indicated

that 69 percent were manufactured

without the quick release valve.

Freightliner also said in its petition that

a field inspection of 38 subject trucks

indicated that 9 percent did not have

the quick release valve installed.

We telephoned Mr. Tony Moore of

Freightliner’s engineering department

and Mr. Larry Winslow of Freightliner’s

compliance department on April 4,

2000, to clarify the numbers of noncompliant vehicles and two other

subjects that are discussed below. The

field inspection of 38 trucks indicated

in the petition included the 34 trucks

identified in the noncompliance

information report. When asked about

the number of vehicles inspected at the

St. Thomas plant, Freightliner indicated

that it has documentation showing that

303 trucks were inspected, and 70

trucks or 23 percent did not have quick

release valves installed. Freightliner

could not locate documentation

regarding how the 69 percent number in

the petition was derived and believes

that this number is incorrect per the

documentation it now has.

Brake Release Times of Non-Complying

Trucks

FMVSS No. 121, paragraph

S5.3.4.1(b), requires that the release

timing measured in the test reservoir

from initial pressure to 5 psi shall be

0.75 second. In its petition, Freightliner

states that it conducted a test program

to predict the actual release timing of

the subject vehicles. The results are as

indicated in the table below:

[Predicted] release timing

(seconds)

Vehicle populationPercent of

population

0.76–0.80 ........ 773 24.5

0.81–0.85 ........ 1759 55.9

0.86–0.90 ........ 602 19.1

0.91–0.95 ........ 1 0.03

0.96–1.00 ........ 10 0.3

over 1.00 ......... 0 0

In the April 4, 2000 telephone

conversation, Freightliner indicated that

this prediction of release timing is based

upon the length of the air tubing from

the treadle valve to the trailer service air

line glad hand coupling. The overall

length of the air tubing varies with

tractor wheelbase and the resulting

vehicle population numbers in the table

were derived on this basis. Without the

quick release valve, the air is released

through the treadle valve. As indicated

in Freightliner’s petition, the

installation of the quick release valve

releases the air at the tractor end of the

trailer service air line.

Freightliner Rationale for

Inconsequentiality to Safety

Freightliner does not believe that

tractor glad hand timing between 0.75

and 1.00 second poses any risk or

compromises highway safety. It states

that brake application pressures at a

highway speed of 55 mph rarely exceed

20 psi, and that when comparing the

release timing from 20 psi on vehicles

that would have 0.90 and 0.75 second

release timing when tested according to

FMVSS No. 121, the actual time

differential drops to less than 0.10

second. In the April 4, 2000, telephone

conversation, Freightliner clarified that

the 0.10 second timing is the time for

the pressure to be reduced at the glad

hand coupling from 20 psi to 5 psi on

trucks with no quick release valve

installed. Freightliner also indicated

that it did not do a comparable analysis

of release timing from 20 psi with the

quick release valve installed.

Freightliner believes that glad hand

timing requirements were established

primarily for the purpose of improving

the application timing balance of

combination vehicles, not the release

timing. Freightliner cites the summary

in Docket No. 85–07, Notice 3, as

follows:

The purpose of the glad hand timing

requirements is to ensure that the air delivery

from towing vehicles to towed vehicles is fast

enough to apply the brakes of all vehicles in

the combination at approximately the same

time, thereby avoiding a reduction in the

combination stability (e.g., trailer bumping)

caused by a slow glad hand.

Freightliner states that release timing

is not mentioned, and that some