67470 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

regulations. The individual petition is

described below including, the party

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions

involved, the nature of the relief being

requested, and the petitioner’s

arguments in favor of relief.

Norfolk Southern Corporation

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2000–

8045]

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS)

seeks to amend temporary waiver PB–

98–1 by extending the expiration date to

December 31, 2001.

Part 232.21(a) requires that ‘‘An

emergency brake application command

from the front unit of the device shall

activate the emergency air valve at the

rear of the train within one second.’’

According to NS, their front unit sends

an emergency brake command in 1.675

seconds, of which a significant portion

of this time is involved in coding the

unique signal that provides a security

barrier against an attempted malicious

emergency command from an outside

source, or an accidental transmission

from another front unit that may have

an erroneous rear number inputted. The

NS system is designed to code a unique

message between the individual

devices. These messages are separate

from the rear unit number and are coded

and initialized only during a five

minute window at the initial terminal

setup and testing of the system. NS

believes this function provides a higher

level of security than the two-way

systems currently used by other Class I

railroads.

Part 232.21(f) requires ‘‘the

availability of the front-to-rear

communications link shall be checked

automatically at least every ten

minutes.’’ The system used by NS does

not have front-to-rear communications

checked automatically every ten

minutes. NS claims their system

communications failure warning is

linked to the rear-to-front portion of the

messaging. If five minutes elapse, since

a good message was received by the

front unit, a ‘‘STANDBY’’ message is

displayed on the front unit. This

message informs the engineer that

communication is lost.

Part 232.23(d) permits NS to use these

devices because ‘‘Each two-way end-oftrain device purchased by any person

prior to promulgation of these

regulations shall be deemed to meet the

design and performance requirements

contained in § 232.21.’’

It is NS’s desire to redesign all of their

devices to comply with § 232.21. In

order to facilitate a smooth transition

from the existing NS mode to the mode

that is currently being used by the rest

of the Class I railroads, NS requested

and on June 8, 1998, was granted a

temporary waiver of § 232.21(a) and (f)

for the procurement and operation of a

dual mode device for three years. The

dual mode device is a dual frequency,

two-way system which will operate in

both the NS and the current compliant

mode. When these devices are operated

in the complaint mode, they will

comply with current regulations.

However, when they are operated in the

NS mode, they will be compatible with

existing NS devices as described above.

NS would like to modify existing

waiver PB–98–1 by extending the

expiration date to December 31, 2001, at

which time they believe the entire NS

locomotive fleet will be compliant with

the current design and operating

standards.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in these proceedings by

submitting written views, data, or

comments. FRA does not anticipate

scheduling a public hearing in

connection with these proceedings since

the facts do not appear to warrant a

hearing. If any interested party desires

an opportunity for oral comment, they

should notify FRA in writing, before the

end of the comment period and specify

the basis for their request.

All communications concerning these

proceedings should identify the

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver

Petition Docket Number FRA–2000–

8045) and must be submitted to the

Docket Management Facility, Room PL–

401, (Plaza level) 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, D.C. 20590–0001.

Communications received within 45

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

the above facility. All documents in the

public docket are also available for

inspection and copying on the Internet

at the docket facility’s web site at http:/

/dms.dot.gov.

Issued in Washington, DC on November 3,

2000.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 00–28730 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[Docket MARAD–2000–8246]

U.S. Ship Management, Inc.; Notice of

Application To Replace the Container

Vessel ‘‘Newark Bay’’ in Maritime

Security Program Operating

Agreement MA/MSP–31

By letter dated October 27, 2000, U.S.

Ship Management, Inc. (USSMI) has

advised that the container vessel

Newark Bay has been sold to Maersk

Line, Limited on October 23, 2000, and

will be utilized by that company as an

ammunition carrier under long-term

charter with the Military Sealift

Command. As a result of this sale, that

vessel is no longer eligible to receive

benefit payments under Maritime

Security Program (MSP) Operating

Agreement MA/MSP–31.

Pursuant to the terms of MSP

Operating Agreement MA/MSP–31,

failure to operate the vessel named

therein for more than 180 days in any

fiscal year may constitute a default.

Accordingly, if USSMI fails to resume

operations under MA/MSP–31 by April

24, 2001, USMMI can, at the discretion

of the Maritime Administration

(MARAD) (we, our, or us), be declared

in default of the terms of MSP Operating

Agreement MA/MSP–31. USSMI has

requested our approval to replace the

Newark Bay with the container vessel

Sealand Pride in order to remedy that

potential default, and continue

receiving benefits under the contract.

The Newark Bay is a container vessel

of approximately 4,600 TEU capacity

built in 1985. The Sealand Pride is a

former Sea-Land Service Atlantic Class

container vessel also built in 1985, and

converted to an SL–31 Class vessel of

approximately 3,700 TEU capacity in

1994. The vessel was extensively

modernized during its conversion.

Due to the policy considerations

involved in USSMI’s request, we have

decided to exercise our discretionary

options and seek comments concerning

this proposed substitution of vessels

from interested parties. A copy of

USSMI’s request will be available for

inspection at the Department of

Transportation (DOT) Dockets Facility

and on the DOT Dockets website

(address information follows).

Any person, firm or corporation

having an interest in this proposal, and

desiring to submit comments

concerning this matter, may file

comments as follows. You should

mention the docket number that appears

at the top of this notice. Written

comments should be submitted to the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67471

Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room

PL–401, Nassif Building, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

Comments may also be submitted by

electronic means via the internet at

http://dms.dot.gov/submit/. You may

call Docket Management at (202) 366–

9324. You may visit the Docket Room to

inspect and copy comments at the

address above between 10 a.m. and 5

p.m. EST, Monday through Friday,

except holidays. An electronic version

of this document is available on the

World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

Comments must be received by close of

business November 24, 2000.

This notice is published as a matter of

discretion, and the fact of its publication

should in no way be considered a

favorable or unfavorable decision on the

application, as filed, or as may be

amended. We will consider all

comments submitted in a timely

fashion, and will take such action

thereto as may be deemed appropriate.

Dated: November 6, 2000.

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28827 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Announcing the Third Quarterly

Meeting of the Crash Injury Research

and Engineering Network

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Meeting announcement.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

Third Quarterly Meeting of members of

the Crash Injury Research and

Engineering Network. CIREN is a

collaborative effort to conduct research

on crashes and injuries at nine Level 1

Trauma Centers which are linked by a

computer network. Researchers can

review data and share expertise, which

could lead to a better understanding of

crash injury mechanisms and the design

of safer vehicles.

DATE AND TIME: The meeting is

scheduled from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on

November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in

Room 6200–04 of the U.S. Department

of Transportation Building, which is

located at 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

CIREN System has been established and

crash cases have been entered into the

database by each Center. NHTSA has

held three Annual Conferences (two in

Detroit and one in conjunction with

STAPP in San Diego) where CIREN

research results were presented. Further

information about the three previous

CIREN conferences is available through

the NHTSA website at: http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/include/

bio_and_trauma/ciren-final.htm.

NHTSA held the first quarterly meeting

on May 5, 2000, with a topic of lower

extremity injuries in motor vehicle

crashes and the second quarterly

meeting on July 21, 2000, with a topic

of side impact crashes. Information from

the May 5 and July 21 meetings are also

available through the NHTSA website.

NHTSA plans to continue holding

quarterly meetings on a regular basis to

disseminate CIREN information to

interested parties. This is the third such

meeting. The topic for this meeting is

thoracic injuries in motor vehicle

crashes. Subsequent meetings have

tentatively been scheduled for March

and June 2001. These quarterly meetings

will be in lieu of an annual CIREN

conference.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.

Donna Stemski, Office of HumanCentered Research, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Room 6206, Washington, DC

20590, telephone: (202) 366–5662.

Issued on: November 2, 2000.

Raymond P. Owings,

Associate Administrator for Research and

Development, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28700 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000–6947, Notice 2]

Subaru of America, Inc.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Non-Compliance

This notice grants the application by

Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru) to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118

and 30120 with respect to a

noncompliance with Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

209, ‘‘Seat Belt Assemblies.’’ Subaru has

filed an appropriate report pursuant to

49 CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and

Noncompliance Reports.’’ Pursuant to

49 CFR Part 556, Subaru has also

applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, ‘‘Motor Vehicle

Safety.’’ The basis of the grant is that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published March 9, 2000, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (65

FR 12615). The closing date was April

10, 2000. No comments were received.

Description of Noncompliance

Replacement seat belt assemblies

were packaged without instruction

sheets required by FMVSS No. 209

S4.1(k) and (l). All of the seat belt

assemblies involved meet all other

requirements of FMVSS No. 209.

Approximately 522 sets of

replacement seat belt assemblies

manufactured and sold were involved.

Subaru Submitted the Following in

Support of Its Application

In accordance with FMVSS No. 209,

S4.1(k) replacement seat belt assemblies must

be accompanied by installation instructions

for installing the assembly in a motor vehicle.

These instructions ‘‘shall state whether the

assembly is for universal installation or for

installation only in specifically stated motor

vehicles and shall include at least those

items specified in SAE Recommended

Practice J800c, Motor Vehicle Seat Belt

Installation, November 1973.

Subaru understands SAE Recommended

Practice J800c, it deals primarily with the

threading of webbing and location and

drilling of anchorage holes and is not

relevant here since all affected Subaru

vehicles have pre-existing anchorage holes.

All of the affected replacement seat belt

assemblies are supplied ready for use with

fully threaded webbing.

Subaru believes that S4.1(k) is intended to

prevent the mismatch of a seat belt assembly

in the wrong model vehicle or the wrong

seating position and prevent improper

installation of a seat belt at the correct

position.

In accordance with FMVSS No. 209, S4.1(l)

requires instructions addressing the

importance of warning seat belts ‘‘snugly and

properly located on the body’’ and

information about seat belt maintenance.

Subaru believes that since the owner’s

manual already provides proper usage and

maintenance information to the vehicle

owner and operator, incorrect usage and

maintenance by the vehicle owner is highly

unlikely.

Subaru has corrected all the replacement

seat belt assembly inventory for shipment to

dealers and will provide additional

instruction documents to dealers with

inventory subject to the noncompliance.

Replacement seat belt assemblies sold at

retail to customers has not resulted in owner

complaints as a result of this inconsequential

noncompliance.

Subaru believes that, based upon the

information described above, this is an

inconsequential noncompliance.

NHTSA has reviewed Subaru’s

application and, for the reasons