Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55563

NHTSA has some concerns about how

closely the ABWS group matched the

control group. The Israeli study

mentions that vehicle attributes (make,

model, and year) were matched

precisely in the ABWS group and the

control group. However, no mention is

made of important vehicle use patterns,

such as the driving environment and the

typical driver. It appears that vehicle

use patterns were not considered, since

no mention was made in the study of

any correlation in these areas.

The report of the Israeli study also

presents apparently conflicting data

regarding one important matching

vehicle attribute, the presence of a

center high-mounted stop lamp

(CHMSL). The report of the Israeli study

states on page 11 that the CHMSL

became mandatory in Israel ‘‘at the end

of 1994, for all 1995 passenger vehicles’’

and that ‘‘94 of the 764 vehicles had

CHMSL.’’ However, on page 6, the

report indicates that 153 vehicles were

1995 and 1996 model years. NHTSA

would like to learn from the authors of

the report how to explain this apparent

inconsistency.

NHTSA also notes that the analysis of

the results appears unusual. The data

collected in the field study showed that

there were 417 crashes for the ABWSequipped vehicles and 464 crashes for

the control group, or 9 percent fewer

crashes for the ABWS group. This 9

percent reduction in crashes for the

ABWS-equipped vehicles was found for:

• All crashes

• Rear-end crashes, and

• Crashes other than rear-end crashes

In other words, the ABWS-equipped

vehicles in this field study were just as

likely to avoid a frontal or side crash as

they were to avoid a rear crash. Since

ABWS would not be visible to the driver

of the other vehicle in a frontal or side

crash, there is no apparent reason to

believe that ABWS would have any

effect on those types of crashes. Thus,

the data from this study do not appear

to show any significant positive effect

for ABWS. However, this simple

analysis, which would be a

conventional starting point for many

analysts, was not reported in the study.

NHTSA would like to learn why the

authors of the report on the Israeli field

study did not include this analysis in

the report. The agency is also interested

in commenters’ views on how much

weight and significance should be given

to the fact that the simplest use of the

data does not indicate any significant

effect for ABWS in rear-end crashes

relative to all other types of crashes.

Before making its analyses of ABWS

effectiveness, the study normalized the

exposure of the ABWS-equipped

vehicles and the control group of

vehicles using just the total miles

traveled and time in service of the

vehicles that had experienced rear

impacts. Again, the standard analytical

approach is to normalize using the total

travel of the subject groups (all ABWSequipped vehicles and all the control

group vehicles), which avoids

introducing any biases in the results.

The agency is concerned that

normalizing only for vehicles in rearend crashes may give an unwarranted

increase in the observed effectiveness of

ABWS. NHTSA would like to learn why

the authors of the study chose not to use

the standard approach and why they

believe their alternative approach

avoids any biases. In addition, the

agency would like commenters’ views

on this technique.

Further, as noted in the study, there

was a large difference in the ‘‘relevant’’

rear-end crashes for the two groups—18

relevant rear-end crashes for the control

group, but only eight relevant rear-end

crashes for the ABWS group. However,

the total rear-end crashes reported were

substantially identical—41 for the

control group and 37 for the ABWS

group. The difference of four crashes in

this sample size is not statistically

significant. Thus, one interpretation of

the data is that ABWS shifts rear-end

crashes from the relevant to the

irrelevant classification without

reducing significantly the number of

rear-end crashes. NHTSA would like

comments on the appropriate

interpretation of the data.

As part of the public review of the

Israeli field study, NHTSA would like to

repeat its previous statements that there

are positive benefits from the current

standardization of vehicle signaling

systems. The current signal from stop

lamps is a uniform, unambiguous signal

that the driver of the vehicle has applied

the brakes. However, the agency has

also indicated that it is conceptually

possible that using a different action to

activate stop lamps or having stop

lamps send different signals might offer

net safety gains. NHTSA will consider

amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 108 if it is shown that a

change from the current standardized

vehicle signaling systems would yield a

net safety benefit. The agency would

like commenters to address expressly

whether the Israeli field study is

sufficiently definitive about net positive

safety effects of ABWS that permitting

ABWS can be said to enhance safety

even if it detracts from standardization

of vehicle signaling systems.

On September 9, 1997, Baran also

submitted an article published in the

journal Human Factors that described a

computer simulation study performed to

test the effectiveness of ABWS devices.

The principal author of this article is

also the principal author of the report

on the Israeli field study of ABWS. In

addition, Baran stated that the Czech

Republic now permits ABWS to be

installed on vehicles operating in that

country.

NHTSA is reopening the comment

period for an additional 30 days. The

agency would like commenters to focus

on ABWS and the materials that were

not available for comment during the

previous comment period, most notably

the Israeli field study of ABWS, but also

the Human Factors article. It is not

necessary for commenters to resubmit

views and data provided in previous

comments to Docket No. 96–41, Notice

1.

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

30117, and 30166; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8

Issued on: October 22, 1997.

James R. Hackney,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–28417 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AB73

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Reopening of

Comment Period on Proposed

Endangered Status for the Peninsular

Ranges Population of Desert Bighorn

Sheep

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule, notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

provides notice of reopening of the

comment period for the proposed

endangered status for the Peninsular

Ranges population of desert bighorn

sheep (Ovis canadensis). The comment

period has been reopened to acquire

additional information on the status,

distribution, and management of

bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges

of Baja California, Mexico.

DATES: The comment period closes

November 12, 1997. Any comments

received by the closing date will be

considered by the Service.
55564 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: Written comments,

materials and data, and available reports

and articles concerning this proposal

should be sent directly to the Field

Supervisor, Carlsbad Field Office, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker

Avenue West, Carlsbad, California

92008. Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete

Sorensen, at the address listed above

(telephone 760/431–9440, facsimile

760/431/9618).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Peninsular Ranges population of

the desert bighorn sheep occurs along

the desert slopes of the Peninsular

Ranges from the vicinity of Palm

Springs, California, into northern Baja

California, Mexico. Depressed

recruitment, habitat loss and

degradation, disease, loss of dispersal

corridors, and random events (e.g.,

drought) affecting small populations

threaten the desert bighorn sheep in the

Peninsular Ranges. On May 8 ,1992, the Service

published a rule proposing endangered

status for the Peninsular Ranges

population of the desert bighorn sheep

(57 FR 19837). The original comment

period closed on November 4, 1992. The

Service was unable to make a final

listing determination regarding the

bighorn sheep because of limited

budget, other endangered species

assignments driven by court orders, and

higher listing priorities. In addition, a

moratorium on listing actions (Pub. L.

104–6), which took effect on April 10,

1995, stipulated that no funds could be

used to make final listing or critical

habitat determinations. Now that

funding has been restored, the Service is

proceeding with a final determination

for the Peninsular Ranges population of

desert bighorn sheep. Due to government reorganization in

Mexico, appropriate officials were

apparently not made aware of the

Service’s proposed listing of the

Peninsular bighorn sheep. As a result,

no comments were received from the

Mexican government during the initial

comment period on the period rule nor

during the subsequent two extended

comment periods (62 FR 16518, April 7,

1997, and 62 FR 32733, June 17, 1997).

Recently the Service became award of

apparent Mexican interest in providing

comment on the proposed rule.

Therefore, to ensure that the final listing

decision is based on the best available

information, and abide by the

requirement that foreign countries be

involved regarding listing decisions that

may affect conservation of species in

their area, the comment period is being

reopened.

Written comments may now be

submitted until November 12, 1997, to

the Service office in the ADDRESSES

section.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: October 14, 1997.

Michael J. Spear,

Regional Director, Region 1.

[FR Doc. 97–28346 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 216

[Docket No. 970725179–7237–02; I.D.

071497A]

RIN 0648–AK33

Taking and Importing Marine

Mammals; Taking Ringed Seals

Incidental to On-Ice Seismic

Activities

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comment and information.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an

application for renewal of a small take

exemption and implementing

regulations from BP Exploration

(Alaska) (BPXA), on behalf of itself and

several other oil exploration companies,

for a small take of marine mammals

incidental to winter seismic operations

in the Beaufort Sea, AK. As a result of

that application, NMFS is proposing

regulations that would renew an

authorization for the incidental taking of

a small number of marine mammals. In

order to grant the exemption and issue

the regulations, NMFS must determine

that these takings will have a negligible

impact on the affected species and

stocks of marine mammals. NMFS

invites comment on the application and

the proposed regulations.

DATES: Comments and information must

be postmarked no later than November

26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Chief, Marine Mammal

Division, Office of Protected Resources,

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910–3226. A copy of the

application and Environmental

Assessment (EA) may be obtained by

writing to the above address, or by

telephoning one of the persons below

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Comments regarding the burden-hour

estimate or any other aspect of the

collection of information requirement

contained in this rule should be sent to

the above individual and to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), Attention: NOAA Desk Officer,

Washington, D.C. 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead (301) 713–

2055 or Brad Smith, Western Alaska

Field Office, NMFS, (907) 271–5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs NMFS to

allow, upon request, the incidental, but

not intentional taking of marine

mammals by U.S. citizens who engage

in a specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and regulations are issued.

Permission may be granted for periods

of 5 years or less if NMFS finds that the

taking will have a negligible impact on

the species or stock(s) of marine

mammals, will not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of

these species for subsistence uses, and

regulations are prescribed setting forth

the permissible methods of taking and

the requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Specific regulations governing the

taking of ringed seals incidental to onice seismic activity, which were

published on January 13, 1993 (58 FR

4091), expire on December 31, 1997.

Summary of Request

On July 11, 1997, NMFS received an

application for an incidental, small take

exemption under section 101(a)(5)(A) of

the MMPA from BPXA, on behalf of

itself, ARCO Alaska, Inc., Northern

Geophysical of America, Inc. and

Western Geophysical Co. to renew the

incidental take regulations found in 50

CFR part 216, subpart J (previously 50

CFR part 228, subpart B), that govern

the taking of ringed seals (Phoca

hispida) incidental to seismic activities

on the ice, offshore Alaska, for a period

of 5 years. The applicants state that

these activities are not likely to result in

physical injuries to, and/or death of, any

individual seals. Because seals are