Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19467

(b)(1) The supporting document

auditing system’s procedural manual

must be available to all motor carrier

personnel with responsibility to control

or audit compliance with this part and

must be made available to the FHWA

and other appropriate enforcement

agencies for inspection upon authorized

request or demand. The FHWA and

other appropriate enforcement agencies

will only request inspection of the

written manuals at motor carriers’

principal places of business or other

terminal locations where records

required by this part are maintained.

The manual is not required to be

produced at roadside driver-vehicle

inspection locations.

(2) If the audit system can be

demonstrated to be effective to verify

the actual hours of service performed

and the accuracy of the driver’s record

of duty status, the motor carrier is not

required to maintain any additional

supporting documents, and, in the

absence of reasonably reliable

information supported by documentary

evidence to contradict the system found

to be effective, no demand will be made

for additional supporting documents the

motor carrier may maintain for other

purposes.

(c)(1) Each motor carrier who fails to

have a supporting document auditing

system in accordance with paragraphs

(a) and (b) of this section or fails to

provide the FHWA or other enforcement

officers with a written explanation of

the supporting document auditing

system (manual), will be responsible for

requiring every driver to obtain all

supporting documents from the

beginning of every trip to the end of

every trip, including intermediate

points during the trip. All supporting

documents must be made available for

inspection at the motor carrier’s location

and the FHWA or other enforcement

officers will use a reasonably sufficient

number, in the appropriate enforcement

agency’s discretion, to verify the

accuracy of records of duty status.

(2) Failure by a motor carrier to have

either a supporting document auditing

system, required by paragraphs (a) and

(b) of this section, or, in the absence of

the system, to require the driver to

obtain and forward to the motor carrier

every supporting document that is

provided to the driver during a trip, as

required by this section, may result in

monetary penalties or a compliance

order for failure to comply with the

supporting document auditing system

requirement. A failure by the motor

carrier to adequately control the drivers’

falsification of their records of duty

status may also result in a compliance

order. Failure to comply with such

order may subject a motor carrier to

civil or criminal penalties under 49

U.S.C. 521.

(d) In the absence of a verifiable and

effective record of duty status auditing

system, every motor carrier must require

every driver who is required to prepare

records of duty status to retain and

every driver must retain all supporting

documents containing reasonably

reliable references to date, time, or

location, which may come into the

possession of the driver in the ordinary

course of the driving operation. The

driver must provide the supporting

documents and the records of duty

status:

(1) To any duly authorized

enforcement official of Federal, State or

local government upon request or

demand; and

(2) To the motor carrier at the time the

corresponding record of duty status is

required to be submitted.

(e) The driver must identify the

supporting document required under

paragraph (d) of this section by adding

his or her name, and the time, date,

location and vehicle number, if those

items do not already appear on the

document. The driver’s signature

certifies that all entries required by this

section made by the driver are true and

correct.

(f) The driver must retain a copy of

each supporting document with the

record of duty status to which it relates

for the previous seven consecutive days

in his or her possession and available

for inspection while on duty. Exception.

The requirements of this paragraph do

not apply if the driver has submitted the

original record of duty status with the

supporting documents annexed to the

motor carrier following § 395.8(k)(1) of

this part.

(g) The motor carrier must identify

each supporting document received

from the driver under paragraph (d) of

this section, or from any other source

including self-generated documents, by

noting on the document the following

information, if the information does not

already appear on the document:

(1) The time, date or location of the

event that produced the document;

(2) The driver’s name; and

(3) The vehicle number (i.e., truck,

tractor, or coach).

(h) Retention of supporting

documents. Supporting documents for

each calendar month may be retained at

the driver’s home terminal or other

regular work reporting location until the

20th day of the succeeding calendar

month. Such documents must then be

forwarded to the carrier’s principal

place of business, or any location the

motor carrier chooses, where they must

be retained with all records of duty

status for six months from the original

date of receipt. Within 48 hours

(Saturdays, Sundays and official

holidays excluded) after a Federal, State,

or local enforcement official has made a

valid request or demand (for inspection

and verification of the hours of service

requirements and the accuracy of the

driver’s records of duty status), a motor

carrier must make available all records

of duty status, time records in cases of

100-air mile radius exception, and

supporting documents at the motor

carrier’s principal place of business.

(i) The FHWA may use any evidence

whether or not in the motor carrier’s

possession, to determine compliance

with hours of service requirements and

verify the accuracy of the drivers

records of duty status and the motor

carrier’s supporting document auditing

system. If the FHWA discovers that the

motor carrier’s system is ineffective,

misrepresented, or abused, the FHWA

may require the motor carrier to modify

its system or may require the motor

carrier to collect and maintain all

supporting documents as required by

paragraphs (d) through (h) of this

section. Civil or criminal penalties may

also apply if the motor carrier or driver

are determined to have misrepresented

or abused the system.

[Approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under control

number lllll]

[FR Doc. 98–10252 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems;

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document denies a

petition for rulemaking from The

Booster Seat Company Ltd., Hamilton,

New Zealand, requesting that NHTSA

amend the structural integrity

requirement of its Federal motor vehicle

safety standard on child restraint

systems so as to allow its product, a

belt-positioning booster seat made

entirely of polystyrene, to be

manufactured and sold in the United

States. The petitioner believes
19468 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

polystyrene has ‘‘superior cushioning

qualities’’ compared to a blow molded

plastic, yet acknowledges that the

material may fracture or crack in a

crash. This potential would make it

likely that a polystyrene child seat

would fail the structural integrity

requirement in a compliance test.

NHTSA is denying the petition because

the loss of structural integrity of a

restraint could negatively affect the

performance of the system by allowing

injurious forces to be imposed on the

child occupant. Further, because

damage to polystyrene may not be easily

detected, there is a concern that

consumers could mistakenly use

damaged polystyrene seats, putting the

child occupant at risk. Not enough is

known about these potential concerns to

warrant reducing the system integrity

requirement as requested.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For nonlegal issues: Dr. George

Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards (telephone 202–366–4919).

For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office

of the Chief Counsel (202–366–2992).

Both can be reached at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

S5.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint

Systems’’ (49 CFR § 571.213), sets forth

requirements for child restraint system

integrity. Section S5.1.1(a) states that

when dynamically tested, each child

restraint shall:

Exhibit no complete separation of any load

bearing structural element and no partial

separation exposing either surfaces with a

radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with

protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the

immediate adjacent surrounding contactable

surface of any structural element of the

system. * * *

On August 5, 1996, Mr. John Lord of

The Booster Seat Company of Hamilton,

New Zealand, petitioned NHTSA to

amend S5.1.1(a) to permit fractures or

cracks in belt-positioning booster seats

that are made from polystyrene. The

petitioner believes polystyrene has

‘‘superior cushioning qualities’’

compared to blow molded plastic, yet

acknowledges that ‘‘by nature of the

material’’ may fracture or crack in a

manner prohibited by the system

integrity requirement of S5.1.1(a). The

petitioner did not believe the edges

would harm by ‘‘pinching, cutting or

stabbing the child’’ because with

polystyrene, ‘‘[b]y nature, all cracked

edges are soft.’’ The petitioner suggested

that NHTSA should amend S5.1.1.(a) for

belt-positioning seats, to allow for

separation of the structural elements so

long as a sharpness limit is met for the

edges formed by the separation.

NHTSA is denying the petition

because the structural integrity

requirement addresses more than the

sharpness of exposed edges formed by a

separation of materials. The requirement

ensures the structural soundness of a

restraint in a crash. Structural

soundness in a crash is important for

maintaining the proper positioning of

the child. A belt-positioning booster seat

lifts the child so that the vehicle

shoulder belt is positioned on the

child’s shoulder and away from the face

and neck and the lap belt is across the

child’s hips and off of the abdomen. A

loss of structural integrity of a booster

seat during impact can result in the

repositioning of the child in relation to

the belts. If the belts were to be

repositioned on the child’s neck or

abdomen, high forces could be imposed

on those vulnerable regions, resulting in

injury. Because neck and abdominal

loading are not measured by the 3-yearold and 6-year-old dummies used in

Standard 213’s compliance tests to

evaluate booster seats, a booster seat

could meet the standard’s performance

criteria (aside from the integrity

requirement) and still pose a safety risk

for children.

It is also noted that revising S5.1.1(a)

as the petitioner suggested may also

affect the structural soundness of a

restraint over the long term. A

polystyrene child seat could easily be

penetrated by sharp objects and cracked

or fractured during use in a vehicle or

during ordinary handling. Once a crack

has formed in the material, it may

quickly propagate due to the nature of

the material, so that a child seat could

be easily snapped apart along a crack

line. This damage and degradation of

the material could significantly reduce

the performance of the restraint.

Further, fractures in the polystyrene are

not easily seen. The material itself

appears pocketed and lined with tiny

fissures, and crack lines due to material

failure may not be obvious. Not enough

is known at this time about these

potential concerns to warrant reducing

the system integrity requirements of the

standard as requested.

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,

this completes the agency’s review of

the petition. The agency has concluded

that there is no reasonable possibility

that the amendment requested by the

petitioner would be issued at the

conclusion of the rulemaking

proceeding. Accordingly, the petition is

denied.

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on April 14, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–10299 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 222 and 227

[I.D. 052493B]

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Proposed Threatened Status for

Johnson’s Seagrass

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

reopening of comment period

SUMMARY: The National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS), pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), provides notice of

reopening of the comment period on the

proposed listing of Johnson’s seagrass,

Halophila johnsonii as a threatened

species. The comment period has been

reopened to provide opportunity for

public comment since the close of the

original comment period on December

14, 1993.

DATES: The public comment period,

which originally closed on December

14, 1993, now closes June 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for

copies of the technical workshops

proceedings and references should be

sent to the Chief, Endangered Species

Division (F/PR3), Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland

20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Brewer, F/PR3, NMFS, (301)

713–1401, or Colleen Coogan, Southeast

Region, NMFS, (813) 570–5312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 15, 1993, NMFS

published a proposed rule to list

Johnson’s seagrass as a threatened

species (58 FR 48326). Designation of

critical habitat was subsequently

proposed on August 4, 1994 (59 FR

39716). A public hearing on both the

proposed listing and critical habitat