32872 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices

The possibility of unintended CHMSL

illumination is very low, for several reasons.

Hazard flashers are infrequently used in

service. The condition can occur only when

the hazard flasher switch is at the extreme

bottom of travel. To turn the hazard flashers

on or off, one need merely push the hazard

flasher switch. It is not necessary to push the

switch all the way to its limit of travel. Even

when the switch is depressed all the way to

its limit of travel, CHMSL illumination may

not occur. In approximately 50% of the

switches it would be moderately difficult to

get a CHMSL activation. With these switches,

it is also necessary to apply a side force to

the hazard flasher switch (in addition to

having the switch at its bottom of travel)

before the CHMSL might illuminate.

Even if the condition does occur, the

duration of unintended CHMSL illumination

would be very brief. The hazard flasher

switch requires less than a second in total to

turn the flashers on or off, and only for a

fraction of this total time would the switch

be all the way to its limit of travel.

About one-third of the affected vehicles

have incandescent CHMSLs. In these

vehicles, visible illumination of the CHMSL

would not occur unless the hazard switch

were depressed to its full limit of travel and

held there long enough for the incandescent

bulb filaments to heat and become visible.

Therefore, unless the hazard switch was

deliberately held at its limit of travel, and

possibly with a side force, any unintended

CHMSL illumination would be momentary

and as a practical matter virtually

imperceptible.

Even if a visible CHMSL illumination

occurs upon hazard flasher activation, it

would almost certainly have no adverse

effect on safety. Hazard flasher lights are

typically used when the vehicle is off the

road or out of traffic. However, if a CHMSL

illuminated due to this condition when the

vehicle was on the road, a following driver

would likely see a brief single flash of the

CHMSL. As a practical matter, the following

driver might not notice this flash at all. Even

if he or she did, there would seem to be no

likelihood of driver confusion or

inappropriate responses. In reaching this

view, we have considered the following

situations and would invite the agency’s

consideration of them as well:

A driver who turns on the hazard flasher

switch does so in order to alert others to

some situation that the driver judges to be a

highway safety hazard. Indeed, the owner’s

manual in each of these vehicles states as

much: Your hazard warning flashers let you

warn others. They also let police know you

have a problem.

When the driver turns them on, the hazard

lamps on these vehicles commence flashing

immediately after the driver releases the

switch. In this situation, any momentarily

illuminated CHMSL would augment the

hazard alert to following drivers.

If the hazard flasher switch is being turned

off, the CHMSL could be illuminated

momentarily while the hazard lamps are

flashing. A following driver is unlikely to

react inappropriately to a momentary CHMSL

illumination when two hazard lamps are

already flashing.

In many situations, it seems likely that a

driver suddenly approaching a hazard

situation might want to slow down, and

therefore the service brakes would be applied

when the hazard switch is depressed. In this

case, the CHMSL would remain illuminated

by the service brakes as required by FMVSS

108. This situation would pose no safety or

compliance issue because the CHMSL would

already be on.

The CHMSL (and the remainder of the

vehicle lighting) otherwise meets all of the

requirements of FMVSS 108.

GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries,

owner complaints or field reports for the

subject vehicles related to this condition.

NHTSA has previously granted

inconsequential treatment for a similar

condition. In 1995, General Motors applied

for inconsequential treatment for a

noncompliance while the hazard switch was

being used (reference Mr. Milford Bennett

letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez dated June 16,

1995). The agency subsequently granted

inconsequential treatment for this condition

(reference Docket 95–57, Notice 2 published

in the Federal Register, 61 Fed. Reg. 2865,

January 29, 1996). No one opposed the

application. NHTSA found in that situation

that ‘‘the transient activation of the CHMSL,

a false signal, is highly unlikely to mislead

a following driver,’’ at 2865–2866.

The current situation would appear to be

even less of a highway safety issue, because

(a) the previous condition could occur at

various positions within the normal

operating travel of the hazard switch, while

the current condition can only occur at the

extreme bottom of travel of the hazard

switch; and (b), the previous condition could

involve up to three momentary flashes of the

CHMSL, while the current condition only has

the potential for a single momentary

illumination of the CHMSL.

No public comments were received in

the docket designated for this action.

However, there was a comment

submitted to a related application

submitted by GM. Notice of receipt of

this application was published on

August 7, 2000 (65 FR 48280). There has

been no agency decision yet on whether

to grant or deny this application. In this

application, GM states that activating

the hazard warning lamps on the same

subject vehicles could also enable the

power windows to be operated. This is

a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 118,

‘‘Power-operated Window, Partition,

and Roof Panel Systems.’’ In its

comments urging denial of GM’s power

window-related application, the Center

for Auto Safety (CAS) also states that the

agency should deny GM’s application

regarding FMVSS No. 108. CAS offered

no rationale to support this assertion

except to state ‘‘[b]oth of these problems

suggest the need for the swift

implementation of an actual remedy,

not the broad exemption GM suggests it

should receive.’’

We have reviewed the application and

agree with GM that the noncompliance

is inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety. We can foresee no negative

effects on motor vehicle safety if a

vehicle’s CHMSL is briefly illuminated

as described upon activation of the

hazard warning lamps. The intended

use of a hazard warning lamp and the

momentary activation of a CHMSL do

not provide a conflicting message. The

illumination of the CHMSL is intended

to signify that the vehicles brakes are

being applied and that the vehicle might

be decelerating. Hazard warning lamps

are intended as a more general message

to nearby drivers that extra attention

should be given to the vehicle. A brief

illumination of the CHMSL while

activating the hazard warning lamps

would not confuse the intended general

message, nor would the brief

illumination in the absence of the other

brake lamps cause confusion that the

brakes were unintentionally applied.

In consideration of the foregoing, we

do not deem this noncompliance to be

a serious safety problem warranting

notification and remedy. Accordingly,

we have decided that the applicant has

met its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance described above is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, its application is granted and

the applicant is exempted from

providing the notification of the

noncompliance that is required by 49

U.S.C. 30118 and from remedying the

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.

30120.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: June 12, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–15275 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

Indexing the Annual Operating

Revenues of Railroads

This Notice sets forth the annual

inflation adjusting index numbers

which are used to adjust gross annual

operating revenues of railroads for

classification purposes. This indexing

methodology will insure that regulated

carriers are classified based on real

business expansion and not from the

effects of inflation. Classification is

important because it determines the

extent of reporting for each carrier.

The railroad’s inflation factors are

based on the annual average Railroad’s

Freight Price Index. This index is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices 32873

1On June 6, 2001, UP and BNSF filed a petition

for exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34055

(Sub-No. 1), Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Trackage Rights Exemption—The Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, wherein

UP and BNSF request that the Board permit the

proposed overhead trackage rights arrangement

described in the present proceeding to expire on

June 22, 2001. That petition will be addressed by

the Board in a separate decision.

developed by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS). This index will be used

to deflate revenues for comparison with

established revenue thresholds.

The base year for railroads is 1991.

The inflation index factors are presented

as follows:

RAILROAD FREIGHT INDEX

Year Index Deflator percent

1991 409.50 1 100.00

1992 411.80 99.45

1993 415.50 98.55

1994 418.80 97.70

1995 418.17 97.85

1996 417.46 98.02

1997 419.67 97.50

1998 424.54 96.38

1999 423.01 96.72

2000 428.64 95.45

1Ex Parte No. 492, Montana Rail Link, Inc.,

and Wisconsin Central Ltd., Joint Petition For

Rulemaking With Respect To 49 CFR 1201, 8

I.C.C. 2d 625 (1992), raised the revenue classification level for Class I railroads from $50

million to $250 million (1991 dollars), effective

for the reporting year beginning January 1,

1992. The Class II threshold was also revised

to reflect a rebasing from $10 million (1978

dollars) to $20 million (1991 dollars).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Decker (202) 565–1531. (TDD for

the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339)

By the Board.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15322 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34055]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Trackage Rights Exemption—The

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company (BNSF) has agreed to

grant overhead trackage rights to Union

Pacific Railroad Company (UP) over

BNSF’s rail lines as follows: (1) between

Shawnee Jct., WY, BNSF milepost 117.1

and Bridger Jct., WY, BNSF milepost

127.3 (Orin Subdivision); (2) between

Bridger Jct., BNSF milepost 133.2 and

East Guernsey, WY, BNSF milepost 91.7

(Canyon Subdivision); (3) between East

Guernsey, BNSF milepost 91.7 and

Northport, NE, BNSF milepost 0.0

(Valley Subdivision); and (4) between

Northport, BNSF milepost 33.8 and

Sidney, NE, BNSF milepost 75.4

(Angora Subdivision), a distance of

approximately 175 miles.1

The transaction is scheduled to be

consummated on June 13, 2001.

The purpose of the trackage rights is

to permit UP to use the BNSF trackage

when UP’s trackage is out of service for

scheduled maintenance.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the trackage

rights will be protected by the

conditions imposed in Norfolk and

Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,

354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 34055 must be filed with the

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each

pleading must be served on Robert T.

Opal, 1416 Dodge Street, Room 830,

Omaha, NE 68179.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: June 11, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15321 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION

AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Notice of Availability for the Pioneer

Irrigation Diversion Final

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Utah Reclamation Mitigation

and Conservation Commission

(Mitigation Commission).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: The Duchesne River in

Duchesne County, Utah, provides both

irrigation water and quality sport and

native non-sport fisheries. However,

some diversion structures impact fish

habitat or inhibit fish passage and

delivery of instream flows. The

Mitigation Commission committed to

work with Central Utah Water

Conservancy District, Duchesne County

Water Conservancy District and other

local water users to modify or replace

selected diversion structures on the

Duchesne River above the confluence

with Strawberry River that are causing

the greatest problem for fish and

wildlife resources.

Diversion structures were evaluated

based on their potential adverse impacts

on fish and wildlife resources.

Diversions to be repaired or replaced

were prioritized in an order most

beneficial to fish and wildlife. The

Mitigation Commission selected Pioneer

Canal Diversion as one of the first

diversions for modification or

replacement.

Two alternatives were fully evaluated

in the environmental assessment (EA):

The ‘‘Proposed Action,’’ which is to

reconstruct the Pioneer Diversion, and

‘‘No Action.’’ However, while only two

alternatives were fully evaluated in the

EA, other approaches were considered

in developing the Proposed Action.

Proposed Action elements include:

Realign about 1,000 feet of existing

channel into a more stable pattern as it

approaches and passes the diversion

location; construct a new diversion, to

include concrete wingwalls, fish

passage notch, two flush bottom gates,

and de-sanding structure; install rock

weirs to increase downstream bed

elevation for fish passage through the

fish passage notch; remove and dispose

of old diversion works; and, cooperate

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by

contributing toward completion of an

agency and public review draft status

review report of the Ute ladies’-tresses

orchid.

Two issues were raised regarding the

proposed action during public and

agency scoping for the EA: Potential for

entrainment of fish into the Pioneer

Canal and potential for effects on Ute

ladies’-tresses (ULT) a threatened plant

species.

The Mitigation Commission

conducted field sampling in July 1999

to assess occurrence of fish in the

Pioneer Canal. Based on sampling

results, there does not appear to be a

significant loss of fish into the canal

system. Also, because the proposed

action is designed to avoid most nearby

ULT plants and suitable habitat, and

because of the Mitigation Commission’s