30678 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1Sea Robin Pipeline Company v. FERC, 127 F.3d

365 (Fifth Cir. 1997); reh’g denied, February 5,

1998.

2See Shell Gas Pipeline Company, 78 FERC ¶

61,192 (1997).

3EP Operating Company v. FERC, 876 F.2d 46

(Fifth Cir. 1989).

commenters should double space their

comments.

The original and 14 copies of such

comments must be received by July 14,

1998. Comments should be submitted to

the Office of the Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE, Washington DC 20426

and should refer to Docket No. RM98–

8–000.

In addition, commenters are asked to

submit their written comments and

executive summaries on 31⁄2-inch

diskette formatted for MS–DOS based

computers. In light of the ability to

translate MS–DOS based materials, the

text need only be submitted in the

format and version for which it was

generated (i.e., MS DOS WORD,

WordPerfect, ASC III, etc.). For

Macintosh users, it would be helpful to

save the documents in word processor

format and then write them to files on

a diskette formatted for MS–DOS

machines.

Commissioner Bailey dissented in

part with a separate statement attached.

By direction of the Commission.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

BAILEY, Commissioner, Dissenting in

Part

I am dissenting in part from this NOI.

This document poses a series of

questions for public comment

addressing alternatives to the

Commission’s current method of

exercising its jurisdiction on the OCS. I

have already expressed my

disagreement with many of the

Commission’s jurisdictional

determinations with respect to pipelines

on the offshore. After seeing the

application of the 1996 policy statement

to specific cases, I concluded that

continued application of the primary

function test on the offshore is largely

unworkable. There is a host of

conflicting precedent, as is evident from

looking at the record in the Sea Robin

case.1 Although I certainly understand

the need for this Commission to rethink

these issues, I have already reevaluated

my position as indicated in earlier

dissents.2 And I certainly feel that, to

the extent the Sea Robin remand goes

unanswered, that is unacceptable.

Let me reemphasize some points I

have made in the past. I continue to

believe that we should adopt a common

sense definition of gathering as outlined

by the Court of Appeals in the EP

Operating decision.3 We should

recognize that today’s deep water

production means even longer and

wider lines to move production to

market, and that the movement of gas

across the OCS is often a collection

process. While it might be ideal to

preserve FERC/NGA jurisdiction as a

backstop in case a complaint arises, I do

not think we have that right if the

function of a line can be viewed as

gathering under a common sense

analysis.

Producers on the OCS are not without

statutory protection. The

antidiscrimination provisions of the

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act are

real. The law has not changed. This

Commission has acknowledged its

jurisdiction pursuant to that statue and

would respond promptly to complaints

filed by shippers on OCS gathering lines

that are not otherwise subject to the

Commission’s NGA jurisdiction.

Ultimately, if an unduly discriminatory

rate is found to be without remedy

under the OCSLA, a legislative solution

would be a viable option if that need

were demonstrated.

In sum, I do not find the fear of

regulatory gap to be so compelling that

we should adopt a strained definition of

what constitutes a gathering line. While

I will certainly review the comments we

receive in response to this current NOI,

I do want to emphasize my thinking on

these issues. My thoughts are based on

the extensive record we developed at

the time of the 1996 Policy Statement

addressing many of these questions, as

well as the cases decided subsequently.

I look forward to the continuing

dialogue, and I urge the Commission, for

the sake of those cases that are lingering,

to resolve some of these outstanding

issues as expeditiously as we can.

Vicky A. Bailey,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 98–14964 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 350

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–98–3611]

Development of Functional

Specifications for Performance-based

Brake Testers Used To Inspect

Commercial Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting

public comment concerning the

development of functional

specifications for performance-based

brake testing machines purchased with

Federal funds through the FHWA’s

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program

(MCSAP). The FHWA is nearing the

completion of a multi-year research

program to evaluate prototype

performance-based brake testing

technologies, including roller

dynamometers, flat-plate brake testers,

breakaway torque brake testers, an onboard electronic decelerometer, and an

infrared brake temperature

measurement system. To date, the

FHWA has determined that certain

performance-based brake testing

machines are eligible for funding under

MCSAP, but only as screening and

sorting devices in commercial vehicle

inspections. The FHWA is requesting

public comments on generic functional

specifications that would be applicable

to a range of brake testing technologies.

The States would use the functional

specifications as guidelines to

determine whether the purchase of a

specific brake tester would be an

eligible expense item under the MCSAP.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to the docket identified at the

beginning of this notice, the Docket

Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590–0001. All comments received

will be available for examination at the

above address from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments must

include a self-addressed, stamped

envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Larry W. Minor, Vehicle and Operations

Division, Office of Motor Carrier

Research and Standards, (202) 366–

4009; or Mr. Steve Keppler, Intelligent

Transportation Systems—Commercial

Vehicle Operations Division, Office of

Motor Carrier Safety and Technology,

(202) 366–0950, or Mr. Charles E.

Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202) 366–1354, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, D. C. 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30679

Electronic Access

Internet users can access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Please

follow the instructions online for more

information and help.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the Government Printing Office’s

Electronic Bulletin Board Service at

(202) 512–1661. Internet users may

reach the Federal Register’s home page

at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the

Government Printing Office’s database

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

In 1993, the FHWA initiated a

research program to evaluate various

performance-based brake testing

technologies for application to

commercial motor vehicles. The

purpose of the program was to

determine, through field-test data

collection, if performance-based brake

inspection technologies could improve,

or assist with the throughput and

accuracy of, the current inspection

techniques which involve visual

examination of components,

measurement of push-rod travel on airbraked vehicles, and listening for air

leaks. Following the completion of the

first task of the program, in which

various performance-based technologies

were analyzed, several of the

technologies were selected for

evaluation in a roadside field-test.

During the field tests, inspections

were performed using both visual and

performance-based methods to compare

their ability to detect vehicle brake

defects. In particular, a Commercial

Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Level 4

inspection (consisting of the brake and

tire portion of a Level 1 inspection) was

conducted in addition to a performancebased brake test. The dual inspections

were performed by State officials in

each of ten States (Colorado,

Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland,

Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, West

Virginia, Wisconsin) that volunteered to

participate in the field test program.

The data collected from these dual

inspections were tabulated and

correlations were sought between

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs) violations, the

North American Uniform Vehicle Outof-Service Criteria used by officials in

the United States, Canada, and Mexico,

and various pass/fail criteria used by

manufacturers of performance-based

technology. In addition to the

performance-based brake ‘‘failure’’

information, data relating to the

operational characteristics of each

prototype machine were also collected

and evaluated. These data included

setup and tear down times, vehicle

inspection times, maintenance

requirements, user friendliness,

calibration procedures and results,

operator skill-level requirements and

information to generate a cost-benefit

analysis. A key source of data was the

interviews (performed by the

researchers) with State inspectors.

The preliminary findings from the

first phase of the prototype brake testing

program are documented in an interim

report, ‘‘Evaluation of PerformanceBased Brake Testing Technologies,’’

December 1995, FHWA–MC–96–004. A

copy of this report has been placed in

the docket and may be obtained by

contacting one of the individuals listed

at the beginning of this notice. The

interim report presents findings based

upon approximately one year of data

from roller dynamometers used in

Colorado and Ohio, and a flat plate

tester in Minnesota.

The first phase of the brake testing

program also included an evaluation of

an on-board decelerometer, and an

infrared brake temperature

measurement system. The evaluations of

these technologies did not involve a

year-long data collection effort. The

evaluation of the decelerometer was

conducted using Indiana school buses

that were undergoing annual summer

inspections. Use of this technology in

roadside inspections appears

impractical. The logistics are difficult

and the majority of the vehicles tested

would be loaded with cargo in transit—

few commercial motor vehicle drivers

would be willing to perform panic stops

in other than emergency situations

because of the potential damage to their

cargo. The evaluation of the infrared

brake temperature measurement system

was conducted in Oregon. Since criteria

for using infrared technology for

detecting faulty brakes had not yet been

developed, the field-test data were

collected and analyzed to determine

whether any correlation could be made

between the brake temperature data and

the inspection results.

West Virginia is currently

participating in the field test evaluation

of a roller dynamometer, Wisconsin is

collecting data on a flat-plate tester, and

Maryland and Nevada are collecting

data on breakaway torque testers.

Connecticut participated in the testing

of a roller dynamometer for several

months, but elected to discontinue its

involvement in the research program.

The final report on the research program

will be published later this year.

In addition to research involving State

agencies, the FHWA is also working

with motor carrier fleets to provide the

private sector with the opportunity to

learn about the performance-based brake

testing technologies and determine

whether the use of the technologies

would benefit their maintenance

programs.

Determination of Eligibility for MCSAP

Funding

On April 1, 1996, the FHWA issued

a memorandum advising agency staff

that two specific performance-based

brake testing machines are eligible for

funding under MCSAP. On March 11,

1997, the FHWA issued another

memorandum announcing the eligibility

for funding of a third performance-based

brake testing machine. Copies of the

memoranda are in the docket. The

memoranda indicated that the devices

are prototypes, and are approved for

screening and sorting purposes only.

This means that States may request

MCSAP funding to purchase one of the

approved brake testers for use in

screening or sorting vehicles at

inspection sites. Vehicles failing the

brake performance test would have to be

inspected to determine the reason for

the poor test results. Generally, motor

carriers cannot be cited for brake-related

violations of the FMCSRs solely on the

basis of the results from a performancebased brake tester. Currently, citations

are based upon the specific defects or

deficiencies found during the in-depth

inspection.

The FHWA is considering whether to

the develop pass/fail criteria for braking

force that could be implemented by

Federal and State officials using

performance-based brake testing

technologies. As inspection criteria or

regulations are developed through the

rulemaking process, the use of the

performance-based brake testing

machines could be expanded to include

enforcement of the new Federal brake

performance standards. The new

standards would be an alternative to the

32.2 kilometers per hour (20 miles per

hour) stopping-distance test currently

specified in 49 CFR 393.52, but rarely

enforced by Federal and State officials

because of the difficulty in performing

such tests at the roadside. If

performance-based standards are

developed through the rulemaking

process, the States would be able to

issue citations based upon the output

(e.g., brake force, brake balance,

deceleration, etc.) from the brake testers.

The development of pass/fail criteria

for braking force in commercial motor
30680 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

vehicles is being considered for

rulemaking and comments are not being

requested on the topic at this time.

Public Meeting

On December 8, 1997, the FHWA held

a public meeting at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s

(NHTSA) Vehicle Research and Test

Center to discuss the development of

functional specifications for

performance-based brake testers. A

notice announcing the meeting was

published in the Federal Register on

November 13, 1997 (62 FR 60817). In

addition to the FHWA and NHTSA, the

following companies were represented

at the public meeting: Battelle; B & B

Automotive; B & G Technologies, Inc;

Dennis National Lease; Hicklin

Engineering; Hunter Engineering

Company; Gooch Brake; MGM Brakes;

Motion Control Industries, Inc.; Nepean

Engineering Pty. Ltd.; Radlinski &

Associates, Inc.; and Truckalyser

Canada, Inc.

Most of the participants at the public

meeting were either manufacturers of

performance-based brake testers or

distributors of such devices. The

participants reviewed a draft of the

functional specifications presented in

the appendix to this notice. The

comments from the participants have

been incorporated to the extent

practicable.

Request for Comments

The FHWA is requesting comments

from all interested parties on the

functional specifications in the

appendix to this notice. Although

participants at the public meeting

provided very helpful comments, the

agency is requesting additional

comments through this notice to ensure

that all interested persons who were

unable to attend the public meeting

have an opportunity to comment on this

subject.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be

considered and will be available for

examination in the docket room at the

above address. Comments received after

the comment closing date will be filed

in the docket and will be considered to

the extent practicable, but the FHWA

may adopt, and publish in the Federal

Register, final functional specifications

at any time after the close of the

comment period. In addition to late

comments, the FHWA will also

continue to file in the docket relevant

information that becomes available after

the comment closing date, and

interested persons should continue to

examine the docket for new material.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31502; and 49

CFR 1.48.

Issued on: May 20, 1998.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Federal Highway Administrator.

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30681
30682 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30683
30684 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30685
30686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30687
30688 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30689
30690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30691
30692 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30693
30694 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 98–14678 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–C