47414 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(7) Provide all information establishing the

timeliness of the protest.

(b) Failure to comply with the above may

result in dismissal of the protest without

further consideration.

(End of Provision)

12. Section 852.233–71 is added to

read as follows:

§ 852.233–71 Alternate Protest Procedure.

As prescribed in 833.106, insert the

following provision in each solicitation

where the total value of all contract

awards under the solicitation is

expected to exceed the simplified

acquisition threshold:

ALTERNATE PROTEST PROCEDURE (XXX

1997)

As an alternative to filing a protest with the

contracting officer, an interested party may

file a protest with the Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Acquisition and Materiel

Management, Acquisition Administration

Team, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC,

20420, or, for solicitations issued by the

Office of Facilities Management, the Chief

Facilities Management Officer, Office of

Facilities Management, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420. The protest will

not be considered if the interested party has

a protest on the same or similar issues

pending with the contracting officer.

§ 852.236–73 [Removed]

13. Section 852.236–73 is removed.

[FR Doc. 97–23753 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 97–45; Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AG84

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices

and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the Federal motor vehicle safety

standard on lighting to permit

asymmetrical headlamp beams on

motorcycle headlighting systems. An

amendment of this nature would allow

upper and lower beams to be emitted by

separate dedicated headlamps on either

side of a motorcycle’s vertical centerline

or by separate off center light sources

within a single headlamp that is located

on the vertical centerline. This action

implements the grant of a rulemaking

petition from Kawasaki Motors

Corp.U.S.A. and represents a further

step towards harmonization of Standard

No. 108 with the lighting standards of

other nations.

DATES: Comments are due October 24,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and must be submitted to: Docket

Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere

Medlin, Office of Safety Performance

Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202–366–

5276).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table IV

of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

108 specifies where motorcycle

headlighting systems are to be located.

If a motorcycle has a single headlamp,

the headlamp must be mounted on the

vehicle’s vertical centerline. If two

headlamps are provided, they must be

symmetrically disposed around the

vertical centerline. Under Standard No.

108, a center-mounted headlamp must

provide upper and lower beams with a

single light source, and each headlamp

in a two-headlamp motorcycle

headlighting system must provide both

an upper and a lower beam with a single

light source. In interpretation letters in

1994 and 1995, NHTSA advised

Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.

(Kawasaki) that a single-lamp

headlighting system in which an upper

beam or lower beam is provided by a

single light source that is not on the

vertical centerline is not permitted by

Standard No. 108.

Kawasaki has developed a projector

beam headlighting system which it

wishes to offer on motorcycles that it

sells in the United States. The system

incorporates light sources that are not

on the vertical centerline and that will

typically be illuminated singly. The

consequence is that the motorcycle will

have a single-off center light source.

Under the Kawasaki system, separate

headlamps provide the upper and lower

beam respectively, or separate light

sources in a single headlamp, which lie

on either side of the vertical centerline

even if the headlamp itself is centered

on it. Accordingly, Kawasaki has

petitioned the agency for rulemaking to

amend Standard No. 108 in a manner

that would allow its asymmetrical

headlighting system.

The agency has granted this petition.

At the time that Standard No. 108 was

issued, the predominant concern was

that the headlighting system clearly

identify a motorcycle as such when the

vehicle was being operated at night.

Thus, the location of a single headlamp

on the vertical centerline was justifiable

to distinguish the motorcycle from an

approaching passenger car whose left

headlamp was inoperative. To assist

oncoming drivers in detecting the

nature of an approaching vehicle,

Standard No. 108 also requires

passenger cars and light trucks to have

parking lamps, and requires the parking

lamps to be illuminated when the

headlamps are on. Motorcycles are not

required to have parking lamps, and

their appearance at night will differ in

this respect from that of a four-wheeled

motor vehicle. Kawasaki has assured the

agency that, in markets where projector

beam headlamps are common, there has

been no increase in crashes because of

misjudgment of a motorcycle’s presence.

This assurance allows the agency to

contemplate the advisability of allowing

a single beam to be projected

somewhere other than on the vertical

centerline. Kawasaki has brought the

agency’s attention to the Official Journal

of the European Communities, Council

Directive 93/92/EEC dated 29 October

1993. This Directive allows separate

upper and lower beam headlamps, but

specifies that their ‘‘reference centers

must be symmetrical in relation to the

median longitudinal plane of the

vehicle’’, and that the distance between

the edges of the illuminating surfaces of

the two headlamps must not exceed 200

mm., i.e., approximately 8 inches.

Adoption of this maximum separation

distance should ensure that

asymmetrical beams remain relatively

close to the vertical centerline of the

vehicle and do not mislead oncoming

drivers. It will also ensure that NHTSA’s

amendment of Standard No. 108 would

be consistent with regulations of other

nations concerning the same lighting

specification.

The agency is therefore proposing that

Standard No. 108 be amended in a

manner that would allow Kawasaki to

use the projector beam headlighting

system. Although traditionally

motorcycle headlighting requirements

have been contained in Tables III and

IV, paragraph S7.9 Motorcycles has been

added to Standard No. 108 to contain

and set apart all motorcycle lighting

performance requirements for ease of

reference. This purpose will be

enhanced by specifying headlighting

location requirements as well.

Accordingly NHTSA proposes that a

new paragraph S7.9.6 be added which

will contain the previous location

requirements specified in Table IV as

modified by the proposed changes to

accommodate Kawasaki’s request, and

as discussed above. A two-headlamp

system in which each headlamp
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 47415

provides an upper and lower beam

would continue to be mounted

symmetrically disposed about the

vertical centerline. The new paragraph

would permit a two-headlamp system in

which one headlamp provides an upper

beam and the other a lower beam and

which would have to be horizontally

disposed and mounted at the same

height, which is to say, with their center

point at 90 degrees to either side of

vertical, or vertically disposed, which is

to say, placed one above the other on

the vertical centerline. Similarly, the

light sources in a single lamp providing

different beams would have to be

horizontally disposed and mounted at

the same height, or vertically disposed.

Table IV would be amended to delete

the material which would be covered by

S7.9.6.2 relating to mounting of

headlamps, and a reference to S7.9

substituted.

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

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 the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. 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.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available for inspection

in the docket. The NHTSA will continue

to file relevant information as it

becomes available in the docket after the

closing date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Effective Date

Since the final rule would not impose

any additional burden and is intended

to afford an alternative to existing

requirements, it is hereby tentatively

found that an effective date earlier than

180 days after issuance of the final rule

is in the public interest. The final rule

would be effective 45 days after its

publication in the Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking action has not been

reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that the

rulemaking action is not significant

under Department of Transportation

regulatory policies and procedures. The

effect of the rulemaking action would be

to allow a motorcycle manufacturer a

wider choice of headlighting systems

with which to equip its vehicles. The

final rule would not impose any

additional burden upon any person.

Impacts of the rule are so minimal as

not to warrant preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the

effects of this rulemaking action in

relation to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. I certify that this rulemaking action

would not have a significant economic

effect upon a substantial number of

small entities. Motor vehicle

manufacturers are generally not small

businesses within the meaning of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further,

small organizations and governmental

jurisdictions would not be significantly

affected since the price of new motor

vehicles should not be impacted. As

noted above, the final rule would afford

an option to existing requirements, so

that there are no mandatory cost

impacts to this proposal. Accordingly,

no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has

been prepared.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 on ‘‘Federalism.’’ It has been

determined that the rulemaking action

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The

rulemaking action would not have a

significant effect upon the environment

as it does not affect the present method

of manufacturing motorcycle

headlamps.

Civil Justice Reform

This rulemaking action would not

have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard. Under 49 U.S.C.

30163, a procedure is set forth for

judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending, or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

proposed that 49 CFR Part 571 be

amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority section would

continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

§ 571.108 [Amended]

2. Section 571.108 would be amended

by adding new paragraph S7.9.6 and by

amending Table IV by revising the entry

for headlamps, to read as set forth

below:

§ 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps,

reflective devices, and associated

equipment.

* * * * *

S7.9.6 A headlamp system shall be

installed on a motorcycle in accordance

with the requirements of this paragraph.

S7.9.6.1 The headlamp system shall

be located on the front of the

motorcycle, with each headlamp not

less than 22 inches (55.9 cm), nor more

than 54 inches (137.2 cm) above the
47416 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

road surface measured from the center

of the headlamp on the motorcycle at

curb weight.

S7.9.6.2 (a) If the system consists of a

single headlamp, it shall be mounted on

the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

If the headlamp contains more than one

light source, each light source shall be

mounted on the vertical centerline or

horizontally disposed about the vertical

centerline and mounted at the same

height. If the light sources are

horizontally disposed about the vertical

centerline, the distance between the

closest edges of the effective projected

luminous lens area in front of the light

sources shall not be greater than 200

mm (8 in.).

(b) If the system consists of two

headlamps, each of which provides both

an upper and lower beam, the

headlamps shall be mounted at the same

height and symmetrically disposed

about the vertical centerline.

(c) If the system consists of two

headlamps, one of which provides an

upper beam and one of which provides

the lower beam, the headlamps shall be

located on the vertical centerline, or

horizontally disposed about the vertical

centerline and mounted at the same

height. If the headlamps are horizontally

disposed about the vertical centerline,

the distance between the closest edges

of the effective projected luminous lens

area of the headlamps shall not be

greater than 200 mm (8 in.).

* * * * *

TABLE IV—LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT

[All Passenger Cars and Motorcycles, and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses of Less than 80 (2032) Inches (MM)

Overall Width]

Location on—

Item Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,

truck, trailers, and busses Motorcycles Height above road surface measured from center ofitem on vehicle at curb weight

Head-lamps .. On the front, each headlamp providing the upper

beam, at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, each headlamp providing the lowe

beam, at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable. See also

S7..

See S7.9 ...... Not less than 22 inches (55.9 cm) nor more than 54

inches (137.2 cm).

* * * * *

Issued on: August 28, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–23512 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 630

[Docket No. 970829218–7218–01; I.D.

080597E]

RIN 0648–AK39

Options for Banning the Sale of

Undersized Atlantic Swordfish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPR); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS is requesting

comments on the necessity of and

options for rulemaking to impose a ban

on the sale of all undersized swordfish,

regardless of origin, in order to

implement an International Convention

for the Conservation of Atlantic

Tunas(ICCAT) recommendation to ban

the sale of Atlantic swordfish less than

the adopted minimum size (73 cm

measured cleithrum to keel (CK) or 33

lb dressed weight (dw)).

DATES: Written comments on this ANPR

must be received on or before October

6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Rebecca Lent, Chief,

Highly Migratory Species Management

Division (F/SF1), National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Stevenson, 301-713-2347 or Buck Sutter

(813) 570–5447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The fishable biomass of the north

Atlantic swordfish stock is estimated to

have declined 68 percent between 1963

and 1996. Prior to the early 1960s, the

stock’s biomass is estimated to have

been nearly two times the level needed

to produce MSY. By the beginning of

1996, its biomass was estimated to be 58

percent of the level needed to produce

maximum sustainable yield (MSY).

Similarly, the South Atlantic swordfish

stock has been under increased fishing

pressure.

ICCAT has adopted measures to

reduce fishing mortality in the entire

Atlantic Ocean. A 1991 ICCAT

recommendation had established a

minimum size for Atlantic swordfish of

79 cm CK (125 cm lower jaw fork

length) with a discretionary 15–percentper-trip (by number) tolerance. Even

with the provision for tolerance,

however, U.S. fishermen have

continued to catch and discard many

undersized fish.

In 1995, in order to protect small

Atlantic swordfish, ICCAT adopted an

alternative minimum size measure,

recommending that each contracting

party take necessary steps to prohibit

the taking of swordfish in the Atlantic

Ocean, as well as the landing and sale

in each party’s jurisdiction, of swordfish

and swordfish parts less than 119 cm

lower jaw fork length (73 cm or 29

inches CK)or the equivalent in weight

(33 lb dw), provided that no tolerance

of Atlantic swordfish smaller than this

alternative minimum size was allowed.

According to the Standing Committee

on Research and Statistics of ICCAT, the

fishing mortality associated with the

lower minimum size and zero tolerance

is roughly equivalent to that with the

higher minimum size and 15–percent

tolerance. This same ICCAT alternative

minimum size recommendation

provided for a ban on the sale of fish

less than the absolute minimum size.

In 1996, the United States

implemented this lower minimum size

limit in order to facilitate enforcement

and reduce discards of juvenile fish,

since most of the small swordfish

brought in under the 15–percent

tolerance were greater than the

alternative minimum size. Having

adopted the alternative, U.S. vessels

operating in the North Atlantic, Gulf of