63418 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

1This petition is a refiling of OTC’s April 15,

1997 submission in STB Docket No. AB–477 (SubNo. 1X). On August 1, 1997, the Board denied the

petition without prejudice to OTC’s filing an

abandonment application. OTC did not adhere to

the Board’s directive in the August 1 decision in

filing this petition for exemption. Consequently,

although the Board is publishing notice of the filing

of the instant petition based on representations

made therein, OTC is advised that the petition may

be rejected if opposition is received.

On the vehicles that NHTSA tested,

fourteen test points failed by more than

25 percent, with the worst case test

point being over 35 percent. When using

the zone compliance measurement, 18

out of the 34 zones tested failed to meet

the minimum requirements, one zone

failing the zone total by slightly over 25

percent. Again, the agency believes that

these are not random, occasional

failures of the type that NHTSA

sometimes encounters in the course of

its compliance testing. Instead, the

pervasiveness of the failures is evidence

of flaws in Nissan’s design and

manufacturing process.

To further support granting its

application, Nissan staff brought two

identical Sentras equipped with

noncomplying lamps for NHTSA staff to

examine. The stop lamps on these

vehicles were examined both in a garage

which was moderately lighted and

outside in daylight where the skies were

overcast. Nissan performed photometric

testing on each vehicle before they were

examined and found that on one

vehicle, the left and right stop lamps

produced a sum of 386 and 293 candela

in Zone 3, respectively. On the other

vehicle, the left and right stop lamps

produced a sum of 384 and 330 candela

in Zone 3, respectively. As previously

stated, the required minimum for Zone

3 is 380 candela. NHTSA staff examined

the vehicles from a number of different

distances and angles for approximately

five minutes in each setting.

Based on this examination, NHTSA

staff did not see a stark difference

between any of the stop lamps, although

most of the staff members could

determine that the lamp with the Zone

3 measurements of 293 candela was the

dimmest. However, this type of

examination does not convince NHTSA

that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to safety. In the real

world, drivers following one of the

subject vehicles would not always have

the luxury of intently examining the

vehicles from a number of angles for a

long period of time. They would, in

many cases, have to make split second

judgments as to whether the vehicle in

front of them has its brake lamps

illuminated.

Through crash data analysis, NHTSA

has found that many rear end crashes

occur as a result of a driver’s inattention

to the area ahead of the vehicle. Drivers

may be operating the radio, using a

cellular phone, or any number of nondriving related activities. To see the

vehicles in front of them, they must

often rely on their peripheral vision. In

these situations, it may not be readily

apparent that one of the subject vehicles

has its stop lamps illuminated. On the

subject vehicles, even the stop lamps

which comply with the minimum

requirement for Zone 3, do so by a

narrow margin. The worst failure among

the noncompliant lamps was over 25

percent below the minimum for Zone 3.

Because of this, the noncompliance has

the potential to confuse following

drivers as to whether it is a stop lamp

or a tail lamp which they are seeing. In

an emergency situation, when drivers

compare the subject lamps with other

nearby stop lamps or with their memory

of a stop lamp, they may not make the

correct judgment quickly enough. In

certain situations, a fraction of a second

may be all the time the driver has to

make the necessary crash avoidance

maneuver. This may not be ample time

for the driver to discern whether the

lamp is a tail lamp or a stop lamp. It is

this added level of risk associated with

these vehicles that must drive a decision

regarding safety consequences.

This concern about risk of incorrect

identification is supported by a 1986

study sponsored by NHTSA and

conducted by the University of

Michigan Transportation Research

Institute (UMTRI–86–28). In this study,

test subjects were presented with two

lamps intended to simulate a U.S. tail

lighting system. These lamps were

illuminated to 18, 40, 60, 80, and 100

candela. After the lamps were

illuminated to one of these levels, the

test subject was asked to quickly

determine, only by the brightness of the

lamps, whether they were signaling

braking or presence (vehicle’s taillamps

on). When the lamps were illuminated

to 80 candela, the test subjects

identified the lamps as signaling braking

90 percent of the time. When they were

illuminated to 60 candela, the test

subjects identified the lamps as

signaling braking 74 percent of the time.

Finally, when the lamps were

illuminated to 40 candela, the test

subjects identified the lamps as

signaling braking only 39 percent of the

time. Of the five test points in Zone 3,

the standard requires that three have a

minimum value of 80 candela and two

have minimum value of 70 candela.

Also, according to Nissan’s test data

submitted with its application, the

lowest value obtained at any test points

on the subject vehicles was 45.1

candela. These data lead NHTSA to

believe that the Nissan noncompliance

could lead drivers following the subject

vehicles to mistake the stop lamps for

tail lamps. Thus, the risk of being in a

crash would be higher for the Nissan

vehicles compared to vehicles with

complying lamps.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that the applicant has

failed to meet its burden of persuasion

that the noncompliance herein

described is inconsequential to safety,

and its application is denied.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on: November 21, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31264 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–477 (Sub–No. 3X)]

Owensville Terminal Company, Inc.—

Abandonment Exemption—in Edwards

and White Counties, IL and Gibson and

Posey Counties, IN

On November 7, 1997, Owensville

Terminal Company, Inc. (OTC) filed

with the Surface Transportation Board

(Board) a petition 1 under 49 U.S.C.

10502 for exemption from the

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to

abandon a line of railroad known as the

Browns-Poseyville line, between

milepost 205.0 at or near Browns, IL,

and milepost 227.5 near Poseyville, IN,

a distance of 22.5 miles in Edwards and

White Counties, IL, and Gibson and

Posey Counties, IN. The line traverses

U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 62818,

62844, 47616, and 47633. The line

includes the stations of Browns,

milepost 205.0; Grayville, milepost

213.5; Griffin, milepost 219.9; and

Stewartsville, milepost 225.4.

The line does not contain federally

granted rights-of-way. Any

documentation in the railroad’s

possession will be made available

promptly to those requesting it. The

interest of railroad employees will be

protected by the conditions set forth in

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979).

By issuance of this notice, the Board

is instituting an exemption proceeding

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final

decision will be issued by February 25,

1998.

Any offer of financial assistance

under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63419

no later than 10 days after service of a

decision granting the petition for

exemption. Each offer of financial

assistance must be accompanied by a

$900 filing fee. See 49 CFR

1002.2(f)(25).

All interested persons should be

aware that, following abandonment of

rail service and salvage of the line, the

line may be suitable for other public

use, including interim trail use. Any

request for a public use condition under

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be

due no later than December 18, 1997.

Each trail use request must be

accompanied by a $150 filing fee. See 49

CFR 1002.2(f)(27).

All filings in response to this notice

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–477

(Sub-No. 3X) and must be sent to: (1)

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001, and (2) Thomas F. McFarland, Jr.,

McFarland & Herman, 20 North Wacker

Drive, Suite 1330, Chicago, IL 60606–

2902.

Persons seeking further information

concerning abandonment procedures

may contact the Board’s Office of Public

Services at (202) 565–1592 or refer to

the full abandonment or discontinuance

regulations at 49 CFR part 1152.

Questions concerning environmental

issues may be directed to the Board’s

Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA) at (202) 565–1545. [TDD for the

hearing impaired is available at (202)

565–1695.]

An environmental assessment (EA) (or

environmental impact statement (EIS), if

necessary) prepared by SEA will be

served upon all parties of record and

upon any agencies or other persons who

commented during its preparation.

Other interested persons may contact

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS).

EAs in these abandonment proceedings

normally will be available within 60

days of the filing of the petition. The

deadline for submission of comments on

the EA will generally be within 30 days

of its service.

Decided: November 21, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31223 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Community Development Financial

Institutions Fund; Proposed

Collection; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of Treasury,

as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Pub.L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

Currently, the Community Development

Financial Institutions Fund (the Fund)

within the Department of the Treasury

is soliciting comments concerning the

Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before January 27, 1998

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to

Jeannine Jacokes, Community

Development Financial Institutions

Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury,

601 13th Street, NW, Suite 200 South,

Washington, D.C. 20005, Fax Number

(202) 622–7754.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the form(s) and instructions

should be directed to the Community

Development Financial Institutions

Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury,

601 13th Street, NW, Suite 200 South,

Washington, D.C. 20005, or call (202)

622–8662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Bank Enterprise Award

Program.

OMB Number: 1505–0153.

Abstract: The purpose of the

Community Development Banking and

Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (Act)

was to create the Fund to promote

economic revitalization and community

development through investment in and

assistance to Community Development

Financial Institutions (CDFIs). The

Fund’s BEA Program helps achieve this

purpose through an incentive system for

insured depository institutions to,

among other things, increase their

lending to and investment in CDFIs by

rewarding participating institutions

with awards.

Current Actions: The Fund is in the

process of making minor technical

revisions to its regulations (12 CFR part

1806), application and final report, in

order to publish a Notice of Funds

Availability (NOFA) for the third round

of the BEA Program.

Type of review: Extension with

change.

Affected Public: Insured depository

institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

70–75.

Estimated Time Per Respondent:

Application: 10; Final Report: 7.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 1,240.

Requests for Comments

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval. All comments will become a

matter of public record. Comments are

invited on: (a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of technology; and (e)

estimates of capital or start-up costs and

costs of operation, maintenance, and

purchase of services to provide

information.

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4701, 4704,

4713; 12 CFR part 1806.

Dated: November 28, 1997.

Maurice A. Jones,

Acting Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 97–31285 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission to OMB for Review;

Comment Request

November 18, 1997.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13. Copies of the submission(s)

may be obtained by calling the Treasury

Bureau Clearance Officer listed.

Comments regarding this information

collection should be addressed to the

OMB reviewer listed and to the

Treasury Department Clearance Officer,

Department of the Treasury, Room 2110,

1425 New York Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–1130.