Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55561

upon passing an examination for that

route. Upon completion of 3 months of

experience in that route, he or she may

have the restricted endorsement

removed.

23. In § 10.482, revise paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 10.482 Assistance towing.

(a) This section contains the

requirements to qualify for an

endorsement authorizing an applicant to

engage in assistance towing. The

endorsement applies to all licenses

except those for master and mate (pilot)

of towing vessels and those for master

or mate authorizing service on inspected

vessels over 200 gross tons. Holders of

any of these licenses may engage in

assistance towing within the scope of

the licenses and without the

endorsement.

* * * * *

§ 10.701 [Amended]

24. In § 10.701(a), remove the words

‘‘operator of uninspected towing

vessels’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels’’.

§ 10.703 [Amended]

25. In § 10.703(a), remove the words

‘‘operator of uninspected towing

vessels’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels’’.

§ 10.901 [Amended]

26. In § 10.901(b)(1), remove the

words ‘‘uninspected towing vessels’’

and add, in their place, the words

‘‘master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels’’.

27. In § 10.903, revise paragraphs

(a)(18) and (b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 10.903 Licenses requiring examinations.

(a) * * *

(18)(i) Apprentice mate (steersman) of

towing vessels;

(ii) Mate (pilot) of towing vessels,

vessel assist;

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) Master or mate (pilot) of towing

vessels (endorsed for the same route).

28. In § 10.910, revise paragraphs 10

through 12 in Table 10.910–1 to read as

follows:

§ 10.910 Subjects for deck licenses.

* * * * *

10. Apprentice mate, towing vessels,

Oceans (domestic trade) and Nearcoastal routes.

11. Apprentice mate (steersman),

towing vessels, Great lakes and inland

routes.

12. Steersman, towing vessels,

Western rivers.

* * * * *

PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS

29. Revise the authority citation for

part 15 to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306,

3703, 8101, 8102, 8104, 8105, 8301, 8304,

8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903,

8904, 8905(b), 9102; 50 U.S.C. 198; and 49

CFR 1.45 and 1.46.

§ 15.301 [Amended]

30. In § 15.301, remove paragraph

(b)(6); and redesignate paragraphs (b)(7)

through (10) as paragraphs (b)(6)

through (9).

31. Revise section § 15.610 and its

heading to read as follows:

§ 15.610 Masters and mates (pilots) of

towing vessels.

Every towing vessel at least 8 meters

(at least 26 feet) in length measured

from end to end over the deck

(excluding sheer), except a vessel

described by the next sentence, must be

under the direction and control of a

person licensed as master or mate (pilot)

of towing vessels or as master or mate

of appropriate gross tonnage holding an

endorsement of his or her license for

towing vessels. This does not apply to

any vessel engaged in assistance towing,

or to any towing vessel of less than 200

gross tons engaged in the offshore

mineral and oil industry if the vessel

has sites or equipment of that industry

as its place of departure or ultimate

destination.

§ 15.705 [Amended]

32. In § 15.705(d), remove the words

‘‘individual operating an uninspected

towing vessel’’ and add, in their place,

the words ‘‘master or mate (pilot)

operating a towing vessel’’; and remove

the words ‘‘individuals serving as

operators of uninspected towing

vessels’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘masters or mates (pilots) serving

as operators of towing vessels’’.

33. In § 15.805, add paragraph (a)(5) to

read as follows:

§ 15.805 Master.

(a) * * *

(5) Every towing vessel of 8 meters (at

least 26 feet) or more in length.

* * * * *

34. In § 15.810, redesignate

paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and (f); and

add a new paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 15.810 Mates.

* * * * *

(d) Each person in charge of the

navigation or maneuvering of a towing

vessel of 8 meters (at least 26 feet) or

more in length shall hold either a

license authorizing service as mate of

towing vessels—or, on inland routes, as

pilot of towing vessels—or a license as

master of appropriate gross tonnage

according to the routes, endorsed for

towing vessels.

* * * * *

35. Revise § 15.910 and its heading to

read as follows:

§ 15.910 Towing vessels.

No person may serve as master or

mate (pilot) of any towing vessel of 8

meters (at least 26 feet) or more in

length unless he or she holds a license

explicitly authorizing such service.

Dated: October 17, 1997.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 97–28409 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–68; RM–8999]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Hayfield,

VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial of

petition.

SUMMARY: The Commission denies the

petition for rule making filed by Vixon

Valley Broadcasting proposing the

allotment of Channel 263A to Hayfield,

Virginia. See 62 FR 9409, March 3,

1997. The proposal is denied because

Hayfield was found not to be a

community for allotment purposes.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 97–68,

adopted September 24, 1997, and

released October 17, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.
55562 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–28357 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96–41, Notice 02]

RIN AG–38

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices

and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments;

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: This document reopens the

comment period for a request for

comments published December 13,

1996, regarding the potential value of

several auxiliary signal lamps in

addition to those required by Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

One of the commenters provided

NHTSA with a field study of the

effectiveness of an ‘‘advance brake

warning system’’ (ABWS), one of the

auxiliary signal lamps on which

comments were requested. NHTSA

believes that this field study is a

significant piece of evidence in reaching

any decision about the merits of ABWS.

However, this study only became

available just before the comment

period closed. Accordingly, the only

commenters that addressed this field

study were the two commenters who

filed late comments, as well as the

commenter that provided the field

study.

The purpose of this document is to

make the public aware of the field study

and to invite comments and analysis of

the field study. To facilitate such

comments and analysis from the public,

NHTSA is noting some questions and

issues the agency has identified in its

review and analysis of the field study.

The comment period is reopened for an

additional 30 days.

DATES: Comments must be received by

NHTSA no later than November 26,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. 96–41, Notice 2, and be

submitted to: Docket Section, Room

5109, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours

are 9:30 am to 4:00 pm Monday through

Friday).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Richard Van Iderstine,

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,

NPS–21, telephone (202) 366–5280,

FAX (202) 366–4329.

For legal issues: Taylor Vinson, Office

of Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone

(202) 366-5263, FAX (202) 366–3820.

Both may be reached by mail at the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Comments

should be sent to the Docket Section at

the address given above, not sent or

FAXed to these people.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 13, 1996, at 61 FR 65510,

NHTSA published a request for

comments on whether NHTSA should

permit several types of auxiliary signal

lamps in addition to those required by

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment (49 CFR

571.108). The agency noted in this

request for comments that these lighting

ideas had been submitted without any

data showing that the concepts would

produce real safety benefits on the

public roads.

One of the signal lamp ideas on which

the agency sought public comment was

an Advance Brake Warning System

(ABWS). At present, vehicles’ stop

lamps are activated when the driver

applies the brakes. ABWS lights the stop

lamps sooner in hard braking than in

normal braking, with the intent of giving

following drivers earlier warning.

ABWS does this by activating the stop

lamps when a driver rapidly removes

his or her foot from the accelerator

pedal, on the assumption that these

rapid removals indicate an intention to

apply the brakes.

The 90-day comment period in which

the public was invited to respond to this

request for comments closed on March

13, 1997. NHTSA has received 27

comments in response to this request for

comments. In one of those comments,

Baran Advanced Technology Ltd.

(Baran), one of the companies seeking to

market ABWS in the United States,

provided NHTSA with a field study

conducted in Israel of the crash

experience of vehicles equipped with

ABWS. Baran’s comment is available to

the public from NHTSA’s public docket

and has been filed as 96–041–N01–014.

This field study differentiates ABWS

from the other signal lamp ideas

discussed in the request for comments,

for which there are still no studies or

other data suggesting their effectiveness.

This field study became available

only during the last week of the 90-day

comment period. Because of this, only

three of the 27 comments addressed this

Israeli field study—the commenter that

submitted the study and two

organizations that filed comments well

after the comment closing date. Because

this field study is important in

evaluating the merits of ABWS, the

agency wants to make the public aware

of this field study and ask for public

review and comment on the study to

help NHTSA assess the merits of ABWS.

NHTSA has reviewed and analyzed

the Israeli field study. The agency

would like to summarize its

understanding of the study and identify

some areas in which public comment

and additional information might be

helpful. The field study of ABWS

involved 764 Israeli government

vehicles tracked over a two-year period.

Half the vehicles were equipped with

ABWS, the other half were not. The

control group (those vehicles that did

not have ABWS) were matched to the

ABWS-equipped vehicles. That is, each

vehicle in the control group was the

same make, model, and model year as

a vehicle in the ABWS group.

These 764 vehicles were in a total of

881 crashes, 78 of which were crashes

in which the government vehicle was

struck from the rear. Of these 78 rearend crashes, 37 occurred in the vehicle

fleet equipped with ABWS, while 41

crashes occurred in the control group.

After adjusting for the distance driven

by three particular vehicles, the study’s

authors concluded that the rear-end

crash involvement rate of the ABWS

equipped vehicles was 17.6 percent less

than that of the control vehicles. In

addition, these 78 crashes were then

sorted into ‘‘relevant,’’ defined in the

report as ‘‘crashes in which the

government vehicle was struck from

behind while braking or immediately

after braking,’’ and ‘‘irrelevant,’’ defined

in the report as ‘‘crashes in which the

government vehicle was already

stopped for a while, or the driver

reported that (s)he decelerated or braked

gradually rather than abruptly, and/or

the driver of the striking vehicle

testified that he failed to pay attention

to the stopping or stopped vehicle

ahead.’’ Of the 78 rear-end crashes, 26

were classified as ‘‘relevant’’ and the

other 52 were deemed ‘‘irrelevant.’’ The

study concluded that the crash

involvement rate of the ABWS-equipped

vehicles in relevant rear end crashes

was 64 percent less than that of the

control group.