Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Notices 52371

mandating the use of two-way EOT’s in

these low tonnage trains is not

supported either by Congressional

intent or by meaningful safety data.

ASLRA believes this requirement will

significantly burden a number of small

railroads with added expense and

requests that FRA issue a general waiver

with the following conditions: (1) The

general waiver would apply to railroads

which had two million or fewer man

hours in 1995; (2) It would exempt train

operations involving not more than 15

loaded cars or not more than 30 empty

cars from the two-way EOT

requirement; (3) Advance written

notification to FRA by any small

railroad wishing to claim the coverage

of this general waiver would be

required.

ASLRA concludes that the 15 loaded/

30 empty car general waiver request will

not compromise safety and is within the

specific language of the statute and

consistent with the requirements of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Act of 1996.

McCloud Railway Company (Waiver

Petition Docket Number PB–97–3)

The McCloud Railway Company seeks

a permanent waiver of compliance from

certain provisions of the Railroad Power

Brakes and Drawbars regulations, 49

CFR Part 232, section 23, concerning the

requirements of two-way EOT devices.

Title 49 CFR 232.23(e)(6) states:

‘‘Local trains as defined in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section that do not operate

over heavy grades’’ are excepted from

the requirements for the use of a twoway EOT device. The McCloud Railway

Company operates short trains that meet

the requirements of a ‘‘local train’’ as

defined in Section 232(a)(3), but they

operate over ‘‘heavy grades’’ as defined

in Section 232.23(a)(1). Because they

operate over ‘‘heavy grades’’, they are

required to equip all of their trains with

a two-way EOT device.

Since the McCloud Railway Company

operates with short train lengths, their

operating personnel cannot think of any

instances where a two-way EOT device

will provide a safer or more effective

operation. Therefore, they seek relief

from having to equip their trains with a

two-way EOT device with the following

restrictions: (1) Trains would be limited

to 10 loaded cars per locomotive with a

maximum of 20 loaded cars per train;

except when trains operate with more

than 50 percent of the cars empty, the

train would be limited to 28 cars. (2) All

locomotives must be equipped with

properly functioning dynamic braking.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in these proceedings by

submitting written views, data, or

comments. All communications

concerning these proceedings should

identify the appropriate docket number

(e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number

PB–97–3 or PB–97–12) and must be

submitted in triplicate to the Docket

Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C.

20590. Communications received within

30 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

FRA’s temporary docket room located at

1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Room

7051, Washington, D.C. 20005.

Technical Conference

In order to further explore the issues

attendant to the ASLRA and McCloud

Railroad petitions, FRA will hold a

technical conference in which all

interested parties are invited to

participate. The technical conference,

which will be an informal meeting in

which a free exchange of ideas will be

encouraged, is hearby set for 10:00 a.m.

on November 4, 1997, in Room 6200, at

the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. An

opportunity for the presentation of oral

comments will also be afforded to any

interested party at that time.

Parties desiring to participate in the

technical conference or to provide oral

comment on the petitions should notify

the Docket Clerk at the mailing address

listed above. The Docket Clerk may also

be reached at 202–632–3198 or by fax at

202–632–3709.

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

1997.

James T. Schultz,

Associate Administrator for Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–26550 Filed 10–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief From

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49

U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads

have petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modification

of the signal system or relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as

detailed below.

Block Signal Application (BS–AP)–No.

3436

Applicant: South Orient Railroad Company,

LTD., Mr. Roy D. Williams, Chief

Operating Officer, 210 South Main Street,

Brownwood, Texas 76801.

The South Orient Railroad Company,

LTD. seeks approval of the proposed

temporary discontinuance of the traffic

control system, on the single main track,

between Birds Siding, milepost 0.0 and

Rickers, milepost 134.5, Texas, on the

Dublin Subdivision, for a period of six

months.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that the railroad is for sale.

BS–AP–No. 3437

Applicant: Consolidated Rail Corporation,

Mr. J.F. Noffsinger, Chief Engineer—C&S

Assets, 2001 Market Street, P.O. Box

41410, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101–

1410.

The Consolidated Rail Corporation

seeks approval of the proposed

modification of ‘‘IU’’ Interlocking,

milepost 283.7, on the Indianapolis Line

and milepost 0.0, on the St. Louis Line,

at Indianapolis, Indiana, on the

Indianapolis Division, involving Main

Tracks No. 1 and No. 2, the Amtrak

Depot Track, and the Louisville

Secondary Track. The proposed changes

are associated with relocation of the

control of ‘‘IU’’ Interlocking to the

Indianapolis, Indiana dispatchers’ office

and includes the discontinuance and

removal of switch No. 61 and signal L68

on the depot track, and the

discontinuance and removal of the

following signals: R48, L48, L34, R58,

R74, L74, RA108, L108, R46, L32, L54,

R60, L50, R62, LA76, RA110, R126, R78,

R86, L78, L122, RB116, R114, RB110,

RD116, and LB76.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to retire facilities no longer

needed for present operation and to

improve safety of train operation

through ‘‘IU’’ Interlocking.

Any interested party desiring to

protest the granting of an application

shall set forth specifically the grounds

upon which the protest is made, and

contain a concise statement of the

interest of the protestant in the

proceeding. The original and two copies

of the protest shall be filed with the

Associate Administrator for Safety,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Mail

Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 within

45 calendar days of the date of

publication of this notice. Additionally,

one copy of the protest shall be
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.