24762 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices 

1Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. 

(Mitsubishi), is organized under the laws of the 

state of California. Mitsubishi manufactures and 

imports motor vehicles and replacement 

equipment. 

at restricted speed. However, main track 

rear end collisions are seldom the result 

of a single factor or cause. Preliminary 

investigations of the above-described 

collisions have established that they 

likely resulted from a combination of 

unrelated factors, some of which 

include: employee fatigue; distraction 

due to the improper use of cell phones; 

work-related discussions in the cab of 

the controlling locomotive; alleged 

confusion over signal indications; and, 

what FRA refers to as ‘‘self 

dispatching.’’ Self-dispatching is the 

operation of a train based on 

assumptions about the locations of other 

trains. These assumptions are 

sometimes developed through 

overheard radio conversations among 

other train crewmembers. 

Operating employees must work 

together as a team, because they work in 

an environment which is often without 

on-site managerial oversight. Both the 

locomotive engineer and conductor of a 

train are equally responsible for safe 

operation of their train and compliance 

with railroad operating rules. Indeed, 

both the engineer and conductor, and 

any other crewmembers present in the 

controlling locomotive of a train, must 

remain vigilant and must assist each 

other in the safe operation of the train. 

As the above accidents indicate, even 

slight lapses in situational awareness, 

particularly when operating trains on 

‘‘Approach’’ and ‘‘Restricting’’ signal 

indications can lead to tragedy. An 

environment must be created and 

maintained in the locomotive control 

compartment where the crew 

exclusively focuses on properly 

controlling the train in compliance with 

the operating rules. 

A railroad’s safety culture must 

support employees’ undisturbed 

attention to the tasks at hand without 

the distraction of electronic devices or 

the loss of situational awareness due to 

fatigue. All train crewmembers must 

maintain this enhanced level of 

awareness. Initial investigations of the 

accidents described above indicate that 

the crewmembers involved were 

properly trained, experienced, and were 

qualified on the territory over which 

they operated. However, in every case, 

it appears that there was a lack of 

attentiveness to the signal indications 

being conveyed prior to the collisions. 

This discussion is not intended to place 

blame or assign responsibility to 

individuals or railroad companies, but 

simply to point out that a culture of 

operating rules compliance must be 

everyone’s job. Peer support for the 

railroad employees who perform each 

task in the prescribed manner helps 

individuals maintain responsibility for 

their own safety. 

Recommended Railroad Action: In 

light of the above discussion, FRA 

recommends that railroads: 

1. Review with operating employees 

the circumstances of the six rear end 

collisions identified above. 

2. Discuss the requirements of 

restricted speed and related operational 

tests at future instructional classes (and 

also as part of ad hoc coaching and 

briefings) for operating employees, with 

a focus on the railroad’s absolute speed 

limit for such operations, as well as 

requirements that ensure the ability to 

stop in one-half the range of vision. 

Special emphasis should be placed on 

situations in which the range of vision 

is limited (e.g., curves). 

3. Evaluate quarterly and 6-month 

reviews of operational testing data as 

required by Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) section 217.9, and, as 

appropriate, increase the level of 

operational testing with regard to the 

operation of trains on main tracks at 

restricted speed. A representative 

number of operational tests should be 

conducted on trains following other 

trains into an occupied block, 

particularly in high-density corridors. 

Operational tests should also include a 

review of locomotive event recorder 

data to verify compliance with restricted 

speed requirements. 

4. Reinforce the importance of 

communication between crewmembers 

located in the controlling locomotive, 

particularly during safety critical 

periods when multiple tasks are 

occurring, including such activities as 

copying mandatory directives; closely 

approaching or passing fixed signals 

that require trains to operate at 

restricted speed; approaching locations 

where trains’ movement authority is 

being restricted; and during radio 

conversations with other employees or 

job briefings about work to be done at 

an upcoming location. 

5. Review with operating employees 

the requirements of subpart C of 49 CFR 

part 220, and reinforce that the 

improper use of electronic devices 

during safety critical periods often leads 

to a loss of situational awareness and 

resultant dangers. 

FRA encourages railroad industry 

members to take actions that are 

consistent with the preceding 

recommendations and to take other 

actions to help ensure the safety of the 

Nation’s railroad employees. FRA may 

modify this Safety Advisory 2012–02, 

issue additional safety advisories, or 

take other appropriate actions it deems 

necessary to ensure the highest level of 

safety on the Nation’s railroads, 

including pursuing other corrective 

measures under its rail safety authority. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 

2012. 

Robert C. Lauby, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad 

Safety/Chief Safety Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9948 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0176; Notice 2] 

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Grant of Petition. 

SUMMARY: Mitsubishi Motors North 

America, Inc. (Mitsubishi) 1 has 

determined that an unknown number of 

replacement seat belts that it imported 

do not include the installation, usage 

and maintenance instructions required 

by paragraphs S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. 

Mitsubishi filed an appropriate report 

dated October 25, 2010, pursuant to 49 

CFR Part 573 Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and the rule implementing 

those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, 

Mitsubishi has petitioned for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of 

the petition was published, with a 30- 

day public comment period, on January 

7, 2011 in the Federal Register (76 FR 

1210). No comments were received. To 

view the petition, and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2010– 

0176.’’ 

For further information on this 

decision contact Ms. Claudia Covell, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices 24763 

2Subsequent to filing the subject petition 

Mitsubishi notified NHTSA that the noncompliance 

was corrected on Mitsubishi Motors Corporation 

sourced parts on August 27, 2010 and Mitsubishi 

Motors North America Manufacturing Division 

sourced parts on November 2, 2010. 

3Subaru of America, Inc.; Grant of Application 

for Decision of Inconsequential Non-Compliance 

(65 FR 67472). 

(202) 366–5293, facsimile (202) 366– 

7002. 

Equipment involved: Mitsubishi 

explained that an unknown number of 

nonconforming seat belt assemblies 

were sold by Mitsubishi to its 

authorized dealers in the United States 

for resale and replacement purposes. 

Noncompliance: Mitsubishi described 

the noncompliance as the failure to 

provide installation, use and 

maintenance instructions with the seat 

belt assemblies as required in FMVSS 

No. 209 S4.1(k) and S4.1(l). 

Summary of Mitsubishi’s Analysis and 

Arguments 

Mitsubishi argues that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety for the following 

reasons: 

(1) The service seat belt assemblies in 

question are only made available to 

Mitsubishi authorized dealerships for 

their use or subsequence resale. The 

Mitsubishi parts ordering system used 

by Mitsubishi dealers clearly identifies 

the correct service seat belt components 

for any given model/model year/seat 

position combination and the parts are 

unique to each seat belt and designed to 

assemble properly only in their 

intended application. 

(2) When ordering Mitsubishi 

replacement seat belt parts, the dealer 

must refer to the Mitsubishi parts 

catalog to identify the ordering part 

number with the information on the 

specific vehicle model type, location 

and model year. Each replacement seat 

belt assembly is packaged individually 

with a specific part number label to 

ensure shipping the correct parts. 

Dealers routinely confirm that the part 

received matches their order to validate 

that the correct parts were received. 

(3) Installation instructions for seat 

belts are readily available in the 

Mitsubishi workshop manuals. 

Technicians at Mitsubishi dealerships 

that replace seat belts have access to the 

installation instruction information in 

the workshop manual. Installers other 

than Mitsubishi dealership technicians 

also have seat belt installation 

information available in the workshop 

manuals and are available on the 

Mitsubishi Service Web site 

(www.mitsubishitechinfo.com). As a 

result, the seat belt parts can be 

successfully installed with the 

information already available even 

though installation instructions were 

not accompanied in the replacement 

seat belt assemblies. 

(4) Instructions for proper use and 

maintenance are described in the 

owner’s manual which is installed in 

each vehicle. Therefore, incorrect usage 

and maintenance by the vehicle owner 

is highly unlikely. 

Mitsubishi is also not aware of any 

customer or field reports of replacement 

seat belt assemblies being incorrectly 

installed in the subject applications as 

a result of the absence of the installation 

instructions in the service part. 

Mitsubishi also is not aware of any 

reports requesting the installation 

instructions, which Mitsubishi believes 

is indicative of the availability of this 

information from the other sources 

mentioned above. 

Finally, Mitsubishi has taken action to 

ensure that all replacement seat belt 

assemblies are packaged with the 

required installation instructions and 

has corrected all the replacement seat 

belt assemblies in the inventory for 

shipment to dealers.2

In summation, Mitsubishi believes 

that the described noncompliance of its 

replacement seat belt assemblies is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

and that its petition, to exempt from 

providing recall notification of 

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and remedying the recall 

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 

30120 should be granted. 

NHTSA Decision 

Requirement Background: To help 

ensure proper selection, installation, 

usage, and maintenance of seat belt 

assemblies, paragraph S4.1(k) of FMVSS 

No. 209 requires that installation, usage, 

and maintenance instructions be 

provided with seat belt assemblies, 

other than those installed by an 

automobile manufacturer. 

NHTSA’s Analysis of Mitsubishi’s 

Reasoning: First, we note that the 

subject seat belt assemblies are only 

made available to Mitsubishi authorized 

dealerships for their use or subsequent 

resale. Because the parts ordering 

process used by Mitsubishi authorized 

dealerships clearly identifies the correct 

service part required by model year, 

model, and seating position, NHTSA 

believes that there is little likelihood 

that an inappropriate seat belt assembly 

will be provided for a specific seating 

position within a Mitsubishi vehicle. 

Second, we note that technicians at 

Mitsubishi dealerships have access to 

the seat belt assembly installation 

instruction information in Mitsubishi 

Shop Manuals. In addition, installers 

other than Mitsubishi dealership 

technicians can access the installation 

instructions from Mitsubishi service 

manuals, Mitsubishi dealers or from 

aftermarket service information 

compilers. We also believe that 

Mitsubishi is correct in stating that the 

seat belt assemblies are designed to be 

installed properly only in their intended 

application. Thus, we conclude that 

sufficient safeguards are in place to 

prevent the installation of an improper 

seat belt assembly. 

NHTSA recognizes the importance of 

having installation instructions 

available to installers as well as use and 

maintenance instructions available to 

consumers. The risk created by this 

noncompliance is that someone who 

purchased an assembly is unable to 

obtain the necessary installation 

information resulting in an incorrectly 

installed seat belt assembly. However, 

because the seat belt assemblies are 

designed to be installed properly only in 

their intended application and the 

installation information is widely 

available to the public, it appears that 

there is little likelihood that installers 

will not be able to access the installation 

instructions. Furthermore, we note that 

Mitsubishi has stated that they are not 

aware of any customer field reports of 

service seat belt assemblies being 

incorrectly installed in the subject 

applications, nor aware of any reports 

requesting installation instructions. 

These findings suggest that it is unlikely 

that seat belts have been improperly 

installed. 

In addition, although 49 CFR Part 

571.209 paragraph S4.1(k) requires 

certain instructions specified in SAE 

Recommended Practice J800c be 

included in seat belt replacement 

instructions, that requirement applies to 

seat belts intended to be installed in 

seating positions where seat belts do not 

already exist. The subject seat belt 

assemblies are only intended to be used 

for replacement of original equipment 

seat belts; therefore, the instructions do 

not apply to the subject seat belt 

assemblies.3

With respect to seat belt usage and 

inspection instructions, we note that 

this information is available in the 

Owner Handbooks that are included 

with each new vehicle and apply to the 

replacement seat belt assemblies 

installed in these vehicles. Thus, with 

respect to usage and maintenance 

instructions, it appears that Mitsubishi 

has met the intent of S4.1(l) of FMVSS 

No. 209 for the subject vehicles using 

alternate methods for notification. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24764 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Notices 

NHTSA has granted similar petitions 

for noncompliance with seat belt 

assembly installation and usage 

instruction standards. Refer to Hyundai 

Motor Company (74 FR 9125, March 2, 

209); Ford Motor Company (73 FR 

11462, March 3, 2008); Mazda North 

America Operations (73 FR 11464, 

March 3, 2008); Ford Motor Company 

(73 FR 63051, October 22, 2008); Subaru 

of America, Inc. (65 FR 67471, 

November 9, 2000); Bombardier Motor 

Corporation of America, Inc. (65 FR 

60238, October 10, 2000); TRW, Inc. (58 

FR 7171, February 4, 1993); and 

Chrysler Corporation, (57 FR 45865, 

October 5, 1992). In all of these cases, 

the petitioners demonstrated that the 

noncompliant seat belt assemblies were 

properly installed, and due to their 

respective replacement parts ordering 

systems, improper replacement seat belt 

assembly selection and installation 

would not be likely to occur. Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Mitsubishi has 

met its burden of persuasion that the 

FMVSS No. 209 noncompliance in the 

replacement seat belts identified in 

Mitsubishi’s Noncompliance 

Information Report is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Mitsubishi’s petition is granted and the 

petitioner is exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a remedy for, that noncompliance 

under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this 

decision only applies to the replacement 

seat belt assemblies that Mitsubishi no 

longer controlled at the time that it 

determined that a noncompliance 

existed in the subject vehicles. 

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8). 

Issued on: April 18, 2012. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9946 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0053] 

Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle 

Electronic Devices 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Proposed Federal guidelines; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2012, 

NHTSA published proposed voluntary 

NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines 

for in-vehicle electronic devices. The 

agency provided a 60-day comment 

period. We received a petition from the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

requesting an extension of the comment 

period. The petitioner argued that 

additional time was needed to review 

information that was not placed in the 

docket when the proposed NHTSA 

Guidelines were published. After 

considering the petition, we are 

extending the comment period by 

24 days, from April 24, 2012, to 

May 18, 2012. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed NHTSA Guidelines published 

February 24, 2012, at 77 FR 11200, is 

extended. You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

the docket receives them not later than 

May 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments, see the Public 

Participation heading of the 

Supplementary Information section of 

this document. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading 

below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building 4th Floor, 

Room W41–318, Washington, DC 20590. 

In addition, you should submit two 

copies, from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to Docket Management at 

the address given above. When you send 

a comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation (49 CFR Part 

512). 

Docket: For access to the Docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the Docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may contact Dr. W. 

Riley Garrott, Vehicle Research and Test 

Center, telephone: (937) 666–3312, 

facsimile: (937) 666–3590. You may 

send mail to this person at: The 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Vehicle Research and 

Test Center, P.O. Box B–37, East Liberty, 

OH 43319. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 24, 2012, NHTSA published in 

the Federal Register a notice proposing 

voluntary NHTSA Driver Distraction 

Guidelines for in-vehicle electronic 

devices (77 FR 11200). The proposed 

NHTSA Guidelines are meant to 

promote safety by discouraging the 

introduction of excessively distracting 

devices in vehicles. These NHTSA 

Guidelines, which are voluntary, apply 

to communications, entertainment, 

information gathering, and navigation 

devices or functions that are not 

required to operate the vehicle safely 

and that are operated by the driver 

through visual-manual means (meaning 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES