52372 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Notices

furnished to the applicant at the address

listed above.

FRA expects to be able to determine

these matters without an oral hearing.

However, if a specific request for an oral

hearing is accompanied by a showing

that the party is unable to adequately

present his or her position by written

statements, an application may be set

for public hearing.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on October 1,

1997.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator, for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 97–26543 Filed 10–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 97–43; Notice 2]

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.,

Grant of Application for Temporary

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 122

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., of

Torrance, California (‘‘Honda’’), applied

for a temporary exemption from the fade

and water recovery requirements of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems. The

basis of the application was that an

exemption would facilitate the

development or field evaluation of a

new motor vehicle safety feature

providing a safety level at least equal to

the safety level of the standard.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on July 31, 1997, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (62

FR 41127). This notice grants the

application.

Honda seeks an exemption of one year

for its 1998 CBR1100XX motorcycle

‘‘from the requirement of the minimum

hand-lever force of five pounds in the

base line check for the fade and water

recovery tests.’’ It wishes to evaluate the

marketability of an ‘‘improved’’

motorcycle brake system setting which

is currently applied to the model sold in

Europe. The difference in setting is

limited to a softer master cylinder return

spring in the European version. Using

the softer spring results in a ‘‘more

predictable (linear) feeling during initial

brake lever application.’’ Although ‘‘the

change allows a more predictable rise in

brake gain, the on-set of braking occurs

at lever forces slightly below the five

pound minimum’’ specified in Standard

No. 122. Honda considers that

motorcycle brake systems have

continued to evolve and improve since

Standard No. 122 was adopted in 1972,

and that one area of improvement is

brake lever force which has gradually

been reduced. However, according to

Honda, the five-pound minimum

specification ‘‘is preventing further

development and improvement’’ of

brake system characteristics. This limit,

when applied to the CBR1100XX,

‘‘results in an imprecise feeling when

the rider applies low-level front brake

lever inputs.’’

The machine is equipped with

Honda’s Linked Brake System (LBS)

which is designed to engage both front

and rear brakes when either the brake

lever or the brake pedal is used. The

LBS differs from other integrated

systems in that it allows the rider to

choose which wheel gets the majority of

braking force, depending on which

brake control the rider uses.

According to Honda, the overall

braking performance remains

unchanged from a conforming

motorcycle. If the CBR1100XX is

exempted, it will meet ‘‘the stopping

distance requirement but at lever forces

slightly below the minimum.’’

Specifically, Honda asked for relief

from the first sentence of S6.10 Brake

application forces, which reads:

Except for the requirements of the fifth

recovery stop in S5.4.3 and S5.7.2 (S7.6.3

and S7.10.2) the hand lever force is not less

than five and not more than 55 pounds and

the foot pedal force is not less than 10 and

not more than 90 pounds.

Upon review of this paragraph,

NHTSA determined that granting

Honda’s petition would require relief

from different provisions of Standard

No. 122, although S6.10 relates to them.

Paragraph S6 only sets forth the test

conditions under which a motorcycle

must meet the performance

requirements of S5. A motorcycle

manufacturer certifies compliance with

the performance requirements of S5 on

the basis of tests conducted according to

the conditions of S6 and in the manner

specified by S7. In short, NHTSA

believed that granting Honda’s

application would require relief from

the performance requirements of S5 that

are based upon the lever actuation force

test conditions of S6.10 as used in the

test procedures of S7.

These relate to the baseline checks

under which performance is judged for

the service brake system fade and fade

recovery tests (S5.4), and for the water

recovery tests (S5.7). According to the

test procedures of S7, the baseline check

stops for fade (S7.6.1) and water

recovery (S7.10.1) are to be made at 10

to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps)

for each stop. The fade recovery test

(S7.6.3) also specifies stops at 10 to 11

fpsps. Test data submitted by Honda

with its application show that, using a

hand lever force of 2.3 kg (5.1 pounds),

the deceleration for these stops is 3.05

to 3.35 meters per second per second, or

10.0 to 11.0 fpsps. This does not mean

that Honda cannot comply under the

strict parameters of the standard, but the

system is designed for responsive

performance when a hand lever force of

less than five pounds is used. For these

reasons, NHTSA interprets Honda’s

application as requesting relief from

S5.4.2, S5.4.3, and S5.7.2.

Honda argued that granting an

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with objectives

of traffic safety because it:

* * * Should improve a rider’s ability to

precisely modulate the brake force at lowlevel brake lever input forces. Improving the

predictability, even at very low-level brake

lever input, increases the rider’s confidence

in the motorcycle’s brake system.

No comments were received on the

notice regarding the petition.

The distinctive motorcycle brake

system setting which Honda seeks to

evaluate in the United States is a ‘‘new

motor vehicle safety feature’’ that can be

evaluated in the field, as contemplated

under the temporary exemption

authority. Further, the level of safety

provided should be at least equal to the

level provided by Standard No. 122.

NHTSA notes that Honda does not seek

an exemption from the stopping

distances specified in Column I of Table

I (S7.3.1). Instead, Honda wishes

approval to allow modulating the hand

brake lever at a force of less than the

five pound minimum specified in

Standard No. 122. It asserts that the

lower force to modulate the brake lever

would improve the rider’s control over

the brake force. This improved control,

and thus predictability over the brake’s

function, would also improve the rider’s

confidence in the brakes and

motorcycle.

NHTSA concurs with Honda that new

technology that may lead to greater rider

control over the brake force thus

resulting in reduced stopping distances

and better crash avoidance is in the

public interest, and consistent with

efforts to improve traffic safety.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that an exemption would

facilitate the field evaluation of a new

motor vehicle safety feature providing a

safety level at least equal to the safety

level of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 122, and that an exemption will be

in the public interest and consistent

with the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter

301 Motor Vehicle Safety. Accordingly,

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Notices 52373

is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary

Exemption 97–1, expiring September 1,

1998, from the following requirements

incorporated in 49 CFR 571.122 Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122

Motorcycle Brake Systems: S5.4.1

Baseline check—minimum and

maximum pedal forces, S5.4.2 Fade,

S5.4.3 Fade recovery, S5.7.2 Water

recovery test, and S6.10 Brake actuation

forces. As provided in 49 CFR § 555.6,

under this grant of temporary exemption

no more than 2,500 motorcycles

exempted from Standard No. 122 may

be sold in the United States in the

period for which the exemption is

granted.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)

Issued on: October 1, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–26491 Filed 10–2–97; 9:33 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub–Nos. 1–

7)]

CSX Corporation and CSX

Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern

Corporation and Norfolk Southern

Railway Company—Control and

Operating Leases/Agreements—

Conrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail

Corporation

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the

Environmental Assessments for Three

Norfolk Southern Railway Company

(NS) Rail Line Constructions and Four

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) Rail

Line Constructions Prior to the Surface

Transportation Board’s Decision on the

Acquisition and Division of the

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail).

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) gives notice of the

availability of the environmental

assessments (EA) and public comment

period for three NS rail line

constructions and four CSX rail line

constructions. Although the EAs

recommend several mitigation measures

to off-set specific environmental effects,

the EAs generally conclude that there

will be no significant environmental

impacts associated with the

construction of these rail lines.

DATES: Written comments on the

environmental impacts of Finance

Docket No. 33388 (Sub-Nos. 1–7) are

due October 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to file comments

on the EAs, send an original and 10

copies to: Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary, Surface Transportation Board,

1925 K Street, NW, Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20423–0001. Mark the

lower left corner of the envelope:

Attention: Dana White, Environmental

Comments, Finance Docket No. 33388

(Sub-Nos. 1–7).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana White, Section of Environmental

Analysis, Surface Transportation Board,

1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC

20423–0001; (202) 565–1552. TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 565–1695.

Copies of the EAs may also be obtained

by contacting Ms. White.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

10, 1997, CSX, NS and Conrail filed

their notice of intent to file an

application seeking the Board’s

authorization for: (1) The acquisition by

CSX and NS of control of Conrail, and

(2) the division of Conrail’s assets.

Shortly afterwards, NS and CSX

requested and received approval from

the Board to seek the Board’s authority

to construct and operate seven rail line

connections prior to the Board’s

decision on the acquisition and division

of Conrail.

The seven rail line constructions are

each relatively short (a total length of

under 4 miles), would provide

connections between two rail carriers,

and would take place within existing

rights-of-way. Early authorization to

construct these connections, CSX and

NS contended, would allow them to

provide efficient service in competition

with each other. However, no

construction can occur until the Board

completes its environmental review of

each of the construction projects.

Further, the Board advised CSX and NS

that they were proceeding at their own

risk in expending resources prior to the

Board’s decision on the acquisition

transaction.

In seven separate EAs, the Board

considered the environmental aspects of

these proposed constructions and the

railroads’ proposed operations over

these lines. The operational

implications of the acquisition as a

whole, including operations over the

roughly 4 miles of line embraced by the

seven connection projects, will be

examined in the environmental impact

statement being prepared to assess the

impacts of the entire acquisition

transaction.

On October 7, 1997, the Board served

the EAs on Federal, state and local

agencies and members of the affected

communities. Although the EAs

recommend several mitigation measures

to off-set specific environmental effects,

the EAs generally conclude that there

will be no significant environmental

impacts. There is a 20-day public

comment period ending October 27,

1997. The Board will consider the

findings of the EAs as well as any

comments on the EAs in its decision to

approve or deny the construction of

each of these lines.

The following is a list of the EAs, the

locations of the proposed rail line

constructions, the railroads, and their

sub-docket numbers within the primary

Finance Docket Number 33388 for the

proposed acquisition:

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR

SEVEN RAIL LINE CONSTRUCTIONS

Location Railroad

Finance

docket

33388

Crestline, OH ....... CSX ....... (Sub No. 1)

Willow Creek, IN CSX ....... (Sub No. 2)

Greenwich, OH .... CSX ....... (Sub No. 3)

Sidney Junction,

OH.

CSX ....... (Sub No. 4)

Sidney, IL ............ NS .......... (Sub No. 5)

Alexandria, IN ...... NS .......... (Sub No. 6)

Bucyrus, OH ........ NS .......... (Sub No. 7)

By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief,

Section of Environmental Analysis.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–26542 Filed 10–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 573]

Rail Service in the Western United

States

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of proceeding and public

hearing.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) is instituting a proceeding

and will hold a public hearing on

October 27, 1997, at its offices in

Washington, DC, to provide interested

persons the opportunity to report on the

status of rail service in the western

United States and to review proposals

for solving the service problems that

exist.

DATES: Persons wishing to appear at the

hearing and make a statement must

submit their request to speak at the

hearing, and their requested time

allotment, by October 9, 1997. The

Board will issue a schedule for the

hearing, along with a list of speakers