Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices 33433

at the northeast and southwest

quadrants, relocation of the east end of

siding at Slinger to the west out of the

curve, and conversion of the east and

west siding switches to hand operation,

equipped with electric locks.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to eliminate the blockage of

a state highway and traffic in the town

of Slinger, associated with interchange

switching movements. The proposed

new alignment and construction of a set

out track at Ackerville will remove

switching moves from Slinger.

BS–AP–No. 3475

Applicant: Burlington Northern and

Santa Fe Railway Company, Mr.

William G. Peterson, Director Signal

Engineering, 4515 Kansas Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66106

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company seeks approval of the

proposed modification of the traffic

control system, on the north main track,

at milepost 55.7, near Lincoln,

Nebraska, on the Nebraska Division,

Creston Subdivision, consisting of the

discontinuance and removal of Holding

Signal N55.71

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that the upgrade of the

highway crossing warning devices at

milepost 55.8 has eliminated the need

for Holding Signal N55.71.

BS–AP–No. 3476

Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad

Company, Mr. Phil Abaray, Chief

Engineer—Signals/Quality, 1416

Dodge Street, Room 1000, Omaha,

Nebraska 68179–1000

Union Pacific Railroad Company

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

automatic block signal system, on the

single main track, between milepost 185

and milepost 195, near Houston, Texas,

on the Houston Subdivision, consisting

of the removal of Signals: D (milepost

185.7), 21, 32, 37, 38, 52, 56, 59, 69, 78,

79, 88, 89, 98, 99, and 108; conversion

of Signal 25 to a D signal; installation

of a new D signal at milepost 188.2; and

the establishment of Yard Limits as the

method of operation.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that signals are no longer

required under train operating practices.

BS–AP–No. 3477

Applicant: Paducah & Louisville

Railway, Incorporated, Mr. C. D.

Edwards, General Supervisor of

Signals and Structures, 1500

Kentucky Avenue, Paducah, Kentucky

42003

Paducah & Louisville Railway,

Incorporated seeks approval of the

proposed discontinuance and removal

of the automatic block signal system, on

the single main track, between

Charolais, milepost J154.18 and Dawson

Springs, milepost J163.73, in Hopkins

County, Kentucky, consisting of the

removal of all existing signals in the

area, and installation of an operative

approach signal near milepost J163.8.

BS–AP–No. 3478

Applicant: CSX Transportation,

Incorporated, Mr. R. M. Kadlick, Chief

Engineer Train Control, 500 Water

Street (S/C J–350), Jacksonville,

Florida 32202

CSX Transportation, Incorporated

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

automatic block signal system, on the

single main track, between Ames,

Indiana, milepost 00Q–148.4 and

Greencastle, Indiana, milepost 00Q–

176.7, on the Monon Subdivision,

Chicago Service Lane, and operate

exclusively under a Direct Traffic

Control Block System. The proposal

includes the installation of operative

approach signals at Ames and

Greencastle.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to eliminate facilities no

longer needed in present day operation.

BS–AP–No. 3479

Applicant: South Orient Railroad

Company, LTD., Mr. Roy D. Williams,

Chief Operating Officer, 210 South

Main Street, Brownwood, Texas

76801

The South Orient Railroad Company,

LTD. seeks approval of the proposed

permanent discontinuance and removal

of the traffic control system, on the

single main track, between Birds Siding,

milepost 1.3 near Fort Worth, Texas,

and Rickers, milepost 134.5, near

Brownwood, Texas, on the Dublin

Subdivision.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that the railroad’s operation

does not warrant a signal system.

Any interested party desiring to

protest the granting of an application

shall set forth specifically the grounds

upon which the protest is made, and

contain a concise statement of the

interest of the Protestant in the

proceeding. The original and two copies

of the protest shall be filed with the

Associate Administrator for Safety,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Mail

Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 within

30 calendar days of the date of

publication of this notice. Additionally,

one copy of the protest shall be

furnished to the applicant at the address

listed above.

FRA expects to be able to determine

these matters without an oral hearing.

However, if a specific request for an oral

hearing is accompanied by a showing

that the party is unable to adequately

present his or her position by written

statements, an application may be set

for public hearing.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 9,

1998.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 98–16177 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3813; Notice 1]

Application for Determination of

Inconsequential Noncompliance to

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

108—Lamps, Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment

General Motors Corporation (GM), has

determined that blackout paint on the

rear window of the 1997 GM EV1

(electric vehicle) may cause the center

high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) to

fail to meet the photometric

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108—

Lamps, Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment. Pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, GM has

applied to the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) for a

decision that the noncompliance is

inconsequential as it relates to motor

vehicle safety. GM has submitted a

noncompliance notification to the

agency pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defects and Noncompliance Reports.’’

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the application.

During the inclusive manufacturing

dates from August 1996 to June 1997,

GM produced 624 model year 1997 EV1

electric cars, that may have CHMSLs

that fail to meet FMVSS No. 108.

GM claims that only 290 of the

vehicles in the field are covered by this

application, and that the other vehicles

are within GM’s control, and will be

remedied before delivery to retail

customers.

GM states that the EV1 CHMSL meets

the requirements of FMVSS No. 108

Figure 10—Photometric Requirements

for Center High-Mounted Stop Lamps.

However, when the CHMSL is mounted

in the vehicle, the blackout paint on the

rear window may inadvertently obscure
33434 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices

a portion of the CHMSL’s photometric

output. GM states that if the worst case

build condition were present on a

vehicle, blackout paint would obscure

the portion of the CHMSL

corresponding to the 5D (5 degrees

below horizontal) photometric

requirements .

GM believes that this noncompliance

is inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety for the following reasons:

The EV1 sits low to the ground, so

light provided by the CHMSL is visible

to drivers of other vehicles, even with

the bottom of the CHMSL obscured.

The specified range of photometric

output for a CHMSL, from 10U to 5D,

was developed from SAE J186a and is

presumably intended to allow

manufacturers latitude in locating

CHMSLs for the myriad of vehicle

designs, while assuring sufficient signal

light to drivers of following vehicles.

Because the EV1 CHMSL is so low to

the ground, the 5D angle is far less

significant to following drivers than it

would be if mounted higher.

A perceived benefit of the CHMSL is

the ability it provides following drivers

to see through intervening vehicles.

Because the EV1 and its CHMSL are low

to the ground, a following driver’s

ability to see the CHMSL through

intervening vehicles is not

compromised by the lost light at the

lower portion of the CHMSL.

To reduce aerodynamic drag, the EV1

was designed to be extremely narrow.

As a consequence of its narrow profile,

the stop lamps are in close proximity to

the CHMSL (510 mm from the center of

the brake lamp to the center of the

CHMSL). This minimizes the effect of

the obscured portion of the CHMSL.

Except for 5D, the EV1 CHMSL meets

all other requirements of FMVSS No.

108, and the photometric output of the

stop lamps, which are supplemented by

the CHMSL, far exceed the FMVSS No.

108 minimum requirements.

GM is not aware of any accidents,

injuries, owner complaints or field

reports related to this issue.

Additionally GM provided two figures

(which are available in the application

filed in the public docket) that illustrate

rear stop lamp visibility to following

vehicle drivers, to support the claims for

inconsequentiality.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application described

above. Comments should refer to the

docket number and be submitted to:

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that six copies be submitted. Docket

hours are 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: July 20, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: June 12, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–16230 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3869]

Western Star Trucks, Inc.; Receipt of

Application for Determination of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Western Star Trucks, Inc. of Kelowna,

British Columbia, Canada, has applied

to be exempted from the notification

and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301 ‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’ for

noncompliance with 49 CFR 571.205,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 205, ‘‘Glazing Materials,’’ on the

basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Western Star Trucks has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

Part 573 ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Information Reports.’’

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgement concerning the

merits of the application.

Paragraph S6.2 of Standard No. 205

specifies that a number designating the

material used, the symbol ‘‘DOT,’’ and

the manufacturer’s code mark, shall be

marked on all glazing materials by the

prime glazing material manufacturer.

Vehicles Involved

Western Star Constellation Series

truck/tractor manufactured between

January 17, 1996 and February 3, 1998

equipped with 58′′ or 72′′ sleepers with

side windows. The serial numbers of the

affected vehicles fall with the range,

944129 to 953410.

Number of Vehicles

Eight hundred ninety-one (891)

vehicles manufactured as of February 3,

1998, potentially contain the

noncompliance.

Description of the Noncompliance

Certain Western Star Constellation

truck/tractors were equipped with 58′′

or 72′′ sleepers with side windows

which were not marked per the

requirements of S6 of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205.

The window glazing is not marked per

the requirements of Section 6 of ANS

Z26. They also were not marked with

the symbol ‘‘DOT’’ or the

manufacturer’s code mark per S6.2 of

FMVSS 205. The window glazing does,

however, meet the physical

requirements of FMVSS 205 and is

located out of the truck/tractor driver’s

compartment in an area where highway

visibility is not required.

Supporting Information

Although the glazing is not marked per the

requirements of FMVSS 205, the glazing has

been tested and complies to Item AS–2 of

ANSIZ26.1 per the attached report 1/95, from

Inchcape Testing Test Services.

The sleeper windows, Western Star

Trucks part numbers 63320–3562 and

63320–3563, were purchased from Sunview Industries Ltd., 15915 Bentley Pl.,

Box 1079, Summerland, British

Columbia, Canada, VOH 1ZO. Sun-view

in turn purchased the 3 mm glazing

from Wescan Glass—Burnaby, 3153

Thunderbird Cres., Burnaby, British

Columbia, V5A 3G2 (A division HGP

Industries, Inc., Moorestown, NJ). The

attached test report was provided by

Inchcape Testing for the test performed

on the glass that Wescan provides to

Sun-view.

The test report 1/95 indicates that the

3 mm glazing meets the requirements

for AS–2 (Safety Glazing Material for

Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle Except

Windshields). However, the sleeper

windows only need meet AS–5 as they

are at a height not requisite with

highway visibility, and are ‘‘glazing to

the rear of the driver in trucks or truck

tractor cabs where other means of

affording visibility of the highway to the

side and rear of the vehicle are

provided.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments on the application of Western

Star, described above. Comments should

refer to the Docket Number and be

submitted to: Docket Management,

Room PL 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, 20590. It is requested

but not required that six copies be

submitted.