65262 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph N. Cleary, Paul E. Boymel, or

John K. Light, ADEA Division, Office of

Legal Counsel, EEOC, 1801 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663–

4692.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All

Committee meetings, including the

meeting of January 23–24, 1996, will be

open to the public. Any member of the

public may submit written comments

for the Committee’s consideration, and

may be permitted to speak at the

meeting if time permits. In addition, all

Committee documents and minutes will

be available for public inspection in

EEOC’s Library (6th floor of the EEOC

Headquarters).

Persons who need assistance to

review the comments will be provided

with appropriate aids such as readers or

print magnifiers. To schedule an

appointment call (202) 663–4630

(voice), (202) 663–4630 (TDD). Copies of

this notice are available in the following

alternate formats: large print, braille,

electronic file on computer disk, and

audio tape. Copies may be obtained

from the Office of Equal Employment

Opportunity by calling (202) 663–4395

(voice), (202) 663–4399 (TDD).

Purpose of Meeting/Summary of

Agenda: At the second meeting, the

Committee will continue to discuss the

unsupervised waiver legal issues that

will be considered by the Committee in

drafting a recommended notice of

proposed rulemaking for EEOC

approval.

Dated: December 12, 1995.

Gilbert F. Casellas,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 95–30774 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6570–06–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA44–1–7167b; A–1–FRL–5314–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; Best Available

Controls for Consumer and

Commercial Products (including

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance Coatings)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This

revision establishes and requires VOC

emission standards for architectural and

industrial maintenance coatings and 10

categories of consumer products . In the

Final Rules Section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the State’s

SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this proposal. Any parties interested

in commenting on this proposal should

do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 18, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Acting Director, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg.,

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the State

submittal and EPA’s technical support

document are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours, by appointment at the Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, One Congress Street,

10th floor, Boston, MA and the Division

of Air Quality Control, Department of

Environmental Protection, One Winter

Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanne Cosgrove , (617) 565–3246.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, see the direct

final rule which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q

Dated: September 21, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

[FR Doc. 95–30796 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking;

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document denies a

petition from Mr. Philip Sweeney to

require audible exterior back-up

warning signals on large motor vehicles

such as school buses and city

maintenance vehicles. After analyzing

the petition and data on back-up

accidents, NHTSA concludes that

mandating audible backup warning

signals may not be effective in

minimizing collisions with pedestrians,

especially young children. The Agency

has research underway on other means

to reduce such deaths and injuries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jere Medlin, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr.

Medlin’s telephone number is: (202)

366–5276. His facsimile number is (202)

366–4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At

present, none of the Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards requires that a

motor vehicle sound an audible warning

signal when the vehicle is driven in

reverse or backing up. By letter dated

August 7, 1995, Mr. Philip Sweeney of

San Diego, California, petitioned the

agency to issue a standard to require an

audible exterior maintenance vehicles.

Mr. Sweeney stated in his petition that

drivers of large vehicles have limited

rear visibility, that young children can

sometimes act impulsively, disregarding

safety rules, and that young children

have limited ability to anticipate safety

risks.

The agency has reviewed the

circumstances associated with the

petitioner’s desired solution. It has

found that pedestrian response to

exterior audible back-up alarms already

on large vehicles has been studied. This

study looked at the human factors

involved in relation to conventional

backing-up audible warning systems.

The study, ‘‘The Consideration of

Human Factors in the Design of a

Backing-up Warning System’’ by

Duchon, James C. and Laage, Linneas

W., U.S. Bureau of Mines, is from the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65263

‘‘Proceedings of the Human Factors

Society—30th Annual Meeting—1986.’’

The authors looked at human behavior

associated with back-up alarms. The

specific vehicles were front-end loaders

in the mining industry. The findings

were that vehicle operators lose the

perception of responsibility for vigilant

behavior and that the pedestrians in the

area predictably become habituated to

the alarm. The authors also discussed a

discernible alarm that would activate

only when there was a target in danger

behind the vehicle, which might be

more effective because it sounded when

an object was in proximity to the rear

of the vehicle. Unfortunately, while

possibly reducing habituation, such an

alarm does not resolve the fundamental

problem with alarms—the change in

behavior of the driver towards being less

responsible for the backing maneuver.

Another research effort looked at

pedestrian back-up accidents and

evaluated if an audible exterior back-up

alarm would have been effective in

preventing the accident. The study, ‘‘An

Audible Automobile Back-up Pedestrian

Warning Device—Development and

Evaluation’’, DOT–HS–802–083,

November 1976, found that accidents

where no benefit would be expected

from an audible exterior alarm included

those where the pedestrian saw the

vehicle but was unable to or did not

avoid it (e.g. if the vehicle was backing

too fast), where the vehicle was

unoccupied, and when the victim was a

child less than 5 years old. This last

item was added because, as the

petitioner appears to support, children

have limited abilities to recognize

danger signals and risky situations. It

should be noted that children are overrepresented in backing accidents most

likely because of this limitation and

because they cannot be seen easily

behind a vehicle, even if standing.

Thus, any solution of the back-up

accident problem should be able to

address the deaths and injuries to

children age 5 years and under. It would

appear that an audible exterior warning

signal as proposed by the petitioner

would have little value in addressing

backing accidents, given the above

findings.

The agency is currently conducting

research to investigate the feasibility of

equipping motor vehicles with cost

effective countermeasures to assist

drivers in safely carrying out backing,

lane change and merging maneuvers.

The objectives are to determine the

performance of one or more feasible

countermeasures and to define

specifications in performance terms

without constraining the solutions to

particular devices or technologies.

Should the Agency find that there are

cost effective solutions available when

that research is completed, it would

consider beginning a rulemaking

seeking to mandate those performance

oriented solutions.

Concerning the petitioner’s specific

reference to school buses, in 1995 an

industry-developed standard requiring

audible exterior back-up alarms for all

school buses was promulgated by the

National Standards Conference on

School Transportation. Thirty-one states

have chosen to mandate back-up alarms

on school buses or recommend

voluntary installation. Other regulatory

and standards setting organizations such

as the states can mandate audible

exterior back-up alarms on such state

and locally owned government vehicles,

regardless of the level of effectiveness

and regardless of whether the buses are

new or in service. Thus, audible exterior

back-up alarm installations on school

buses are likely to increase at a

significant rate.

In addition, many new large trucks

are voluntarily equipped with audible

exterior back-up alarms because of

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) regulations for

work site safety that require a person

outside of a vehicle to direct backing

operations or that vehicles in work sites

to be equipped with audible exterior

back-up alarms. Vehicle manufacturers,

in response to purchasers, appear to be

increasing the number of installations of

back-up alarms on large trucks for the

purpose of complying with the OSHA

rules.

In sum, although NHTSA continues to

be concerned about collisions between

pedestrians and vehicles that are

backing up, the agency is not convinced

that mandating audible back-up alarms

on large vehicles is the most effective

means to minimize collisions with

pedestrians. In particular, the data do

not appear to show that mandating

audible backup alarms would result in

minimizing collisions with small

children. NHTSA therefore intends to

continue its research efforts and to look

into possible alternatives, such as the

effectiveness of mirrors installed

specifically for backing maneuvers. It is

premature for NHTSA to make any

decision about mandating any particular

solution at this time.

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 specific requirement requested

by the petitioner would be issued at the

conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding.

Accordingly, it denies Mr. Sweeney’s

petition.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: December 11, 1995.

Barry Felice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–30558 Filed 12–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M