Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2539

Dated: December 28, 1994.

Julia M. Stasch,

Acting Administrator of General Services.

[FR Doc. 95–516 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–24–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Public Land Order 7109

[AK–932–1430–01; AA–6664]

Withdrawal of Public Lands for English

Bay Village Selection; Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

SUMMARY: This order withdraws

16,947.99 acres of public lands located

within the Kenai Fjords National Park or

the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife

Refuge, from all forms of appropriation

under the public land laws, including

the mining and mineral leasing laws,

pursuant to Section 22(j)(2) of the

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

This action also reserves the lands for

selection by the English Bay

Corporation, the village corporation for

English Bay. This withdrawal is for a

period of 120 days; however, any lands

selected shall remain withdrawn by the

order until they are conveyed. Any

lands described herein that are not

selected by the corporation will remain

withdrawn as part of the Kenai Fjords

National Park or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, pursuant to

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, and will be subject to

the terms and conditions of any other

withdrawal of record.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue

A. Wolf, BLM Alaska State Office, 222

W. 7th Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage,

Alaska 99513–7599, 907–271–5477.

By virtue of the authority vested in

the Secretary of the Interior by Section

22(j)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1621(j)(2)

(1988), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the

following described public lands

located within the Kenai Fjords

National Park or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, are hereby

withdrawn from all forms of

appropriation under the public land

laws, including the mining and mineral

leasing laws, and are hereby reserved for

selection under Section 12 of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C.

1611 (1988), by the English Bay

Corporation, the village corporation for

English Bay:

Seward Meridian

T. 3 S., R. 2 W., (unsurveyed)

Secs. 22, 23, 25, and 26;

Sec. 33, parcel B;

Secs. 35 and 36.

T. 4 S., R. 2 W., (unsurveyed)

Secs. 2 through 5, inclusive;

Sec. 11.

T. 5 S., R. 5 W., (unsurveyed)

Sec. 33.

T. 6 S., R. 4 W., (unsurveyed)

Sec. 7.

T. 6 S., R. 5 W., (unsurveyed)

Secs, 4, 9, 28, 29, 32, and 33.

T. 7 S., R. 5 W., (surveyed)

Sec. 3, lot 2;

Secs. 4, 8, 10, and 11.

T. 8 S., R. 6 W., (surveyed)

Secs. 7 through 12, inclusive;

Secs. 14 through 22, inclusive;

Secs. 27 through 34, inclusive.

T. 8 S., R. 7 W., (surveyed)

Secs. 24, 25, 35 and 36.

The areas described contain 16,947.99

acres.

2. Prior to conveyance of any of the

lands withdrawn by this order, the

lands shall be subject to administration

by the Secretary of the Interior under

applicable laws and regulations, and his

authority to make contracts and to grant

leases, permits, rights-of-way, or

easements shall not be impaired by this

withdrawal.

3. This order constitutes final

withdrawal action by the Secretary of

the Interior under Section 22(j)(2) of the

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43

U.S.C. 1621(j)(2) (1988), to make lands

available for selection by the English

Bay Corporation, to fulfill the

entitlement of the village for English

Bay under Section 12 and Section 14(a)

of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement

Act, 43 U.S.C. 1611 and 1613 (1988).

4. This withdrawal will terminate 120

days from the effective date of this

order; provided, any lands selected shall

remain withdrawn pursuant to this

order until they are conveyed. Any

lands described in this order not

selected by the corporation shall remain

withdrawn as part of the Kenai Fjords

National Park or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, pursuant to

Sections 201(5), 206, 303(1) and 304(c)

of the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 410(hh) and

668(dd) (1988); and will be subject to

the terms and conditions of any other

withdrawal of record.

5. It has been determined that this

action is not expected to have any

significant effect on subsistence uses

and needs pursuant to Section 810(c) of

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 3120(c)

(1988), and this action is exempted from

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 note (1988), by

Section 910 of the Alaska National

Interest Lands Conservation Act, 43

U.S.C. 1638 (1988).

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 95–474 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 93–02; Notice 07]

RIN 2127–AF42

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Fuel System Integrity of

Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions

for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: On April 25, 1994, NHTSA

published a new Federal motor vehicle

safety standard, Standard No. 303, Fuel

System Integrity of Compressed Natural

Gas Vehicles. The standard limits the

amount of allowable CNG leakage after

a crash test by limiting the post-crash

pressure drop of the fuel system. Ford

Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation,

and the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association, submitted

petitions for reconsideration of the final

rule. The issues raised in the petitions

include the allowable pressure drop

limit, submitted by Ford and Chrysler,

and other pre-crash test conditions and

procedures, submitted by AAMA.

NHTSA is denying the petitions of Ford

and Chrysler concerning pressure drop

limit, and denying in part and granting

in part the requests by AAMA.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective

September 1, 1995.

Petitions for Reconsideration: Any

petition for reconsideration of this rule

must be received by NHTSA no later

than February 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket and notice

number of this notice and be submitted

to: Administrator, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590.
2540 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Gary R. Woodford, NRM–01.01,

Special Projects Staff, Office of

Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590

(202–366–4931).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

25, 1994, NHTSA published a new

Federal motor vehicle safety standard

(FMVSS) for the fuel system integrity of

compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles

(59 FR 19648). The new standard,

FMVSS No. 303, Fuel System Integrity

of Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles,

limits the amount of allowable CNG

leakage after a crash test. This is done

by placing a limit on the post-crash

pressure drop of the fuel system.

Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less

are subject to front, rear, and side

impact crash tests. Schoolbuses with a

GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds are

subject to moving contoured barrier

crash at any point and angle on the

vehicle. The purpose of the new

standard, which becomes effective

September 1, 1995, is to reduce deaths

and injuries caused by fires resulting

from fuel leakage during and after

crashes involving CNG vehicles.

Ford Motor Company (Ford), Chrysler

Corporation (Chrysler), and the

American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA) submitted

petitions for reconsideration of the final

rule. The issues raised in the petitions

include the post-crash pressure drop

limit of the fuel system, and procedures

and test conditions prior to crash

testing. A discussion of each issue and

the agency’s response follows.

Pressure Drop Limit

The final rule, as specified in S5.2(a),

sets the allowable pressure drop in the

CNG fuel system one hour after any

crash test as follows:

(1) 1062 kPa (154 psi), or

(2) 895 (T/VFS), whichever is higher.

T is the average temperature of the

test gas in degrees Kelvin, stabilized to

ambient temperature before testing.

Average temperature T is determined by

measuring ambient temperature at the

start of the test, and then every 15

minutes until the test time of 60

minutes is completed. The sum of the

five ambient temperatures is then

divided by five to yield average

temperature T. S7.1.7 of the final rule

specifies that ambient temperature is

not to vary more than 5.6 °C (10 °F)

during the course of the test. VFS is the

internal volume of the high pressure

portion of the vehicle fuel system.

The other allowable pressure drop,

1062 kPa (154 psi), represents the

smallest pressure drop measurable using

existing pressure drop measurement

technology is test gas temperature varies

no more than 5.6 °C (10 °F). The agency

established this level based on

comments from AAMA and others in

response to the agency’s January 21,

1993 notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) (58 FR 5323). In its comments

on that notice, AAMA stated that using

a state-of-the-art capacitance type

pressure transducer could still result in

pressure drop measurement error of

±106.1 kPa (±15.4 psi) if test gas

temperature varied no more than ±5.6 °C

(±10 °F). This is due to the cumulative

errors attributable to pressure

transducer accuracy, thermal zero shift,

thermal coefficient sensitivity, and

analogue-digital conversion. These

factors, coupled with the accepted

engineering practice that measurement

error should not exceed ten percent of

the value being measured, led to the

conclusion that pressure drops less than

1062 kPa (154 psi) should not be

measured.

The above pressure drop established

in the final rule represents the

maximum allowable CNG leakage, 895

(T/VFS), within the limits of current

pressure drop measurement technology,

1062 kPa (154 psi).

Both Ford and Chrysler petitioned the

agency for reconsideration of the above

pressure drop limits in S5.2(a). Ford

stated that it believes the agency erred

by disregarding certain information

provided by AAMA in its response to

the January 1993 NPRM (58 FR 5323).

Specifically, AAMA stated that ‘‘* * *

a 10 °F change in the temperature of the

test gas would result in a 60 psi change

in the pressure of the test gas.’’ Noting

that the final rule allows the ambient

temperature to vary as much as 5.6 °C

(10 °F) during the test, Ford stated that

a 10 °F drop in temperature could result

in a 60 psi pressure drop even with zero

leakage. Thus, according to Ford, the

pressure drop limits in the final rule are,

in effect, reduced by 60 psi when the

ambient temperature drops 10 °F and

increased by 60 psi when the ambient

temperature increases 10 °F during the

test. Ford asserted that the pressure

drop limits are, therefore, not

reasonable, practicable, or stated in

objective terms as required by statute,

because they present arbitrary limits

that vary depending on whether

ambient temperature decreases or

increases. Ford further stated that an

appropriate corrective action would be

to amend S5.2(a) so that it states, ‘‘For

all vehicles, the pressure drop in the

high pressure portion of the fuel system,

excluding pressure changes due to

changes in the temperature of the test

gas, expressed in * * *.’’ Ford’s

recommended language is underlined.

Thus, Ford’s alternative would

eliminate that component of any

pressure drop which is due to test gas

temperature change.

Chrysler, in its petition, provided an

almost identical rationale to that of

Ford, stating that the pressure drop

limits specified in the final rule do not

accurately measure fuel leakage when

the internal temperature of the gas

causes change to the pressure within the

fuel system. However, Chrysler’s

suggested corrective action differs from

that of Ford. Chrysler requested that the

agency amend the pressure drop limits

in the final rule to incorporate the 60 psi

adjustment needed to compensate for

the possible change in gas temperature.

Under Chrysler’s request, the amended

pressure drop limits in S5.2(a) would

be:

(1) 1476 kPa (214 psi), or

(2) 895 (T/VFS) + 414 kPa (60 psi),

whichever is higher.

Chrysler stated that ‘‘[t]his would

provide the needed compensation

without the added difficulty of

measuring gas temperature within the

high pressure fuel system, which is

difficult, impracticable, and risks

compromising the fuel system

integrity.’’

After reviewing Ford’s and Chrysler’s

petitions for reconsideration about

permissible pressure drop, NHTSA has

determined that the requested

modifications to S5.2(a) would be

inappropriate. NHTSA continues to

believe that the pressure drop limits and

test procedure established in the final

rule are the most appropriate and

feasible, and that they provide a

relatively simple and accurate method

to determine CNG fuel leakage. The

agency believes that under real world

test conditions, any variation in test gas

temperature will not significantly affect

test results.

NHTSA notes that because CNG is a

gas, and not a liquid, measuring a safe

level of allowable leakage after a crash

test is much more complex than

measuring similar levels for liquid fuels.

This is because of the relationship

between the temperature and pressure

of a gas. The two are directly

proportional. A change in either,

pressure or temperature, directly affects

the other.

In arriving at the allowable pressure

drop limit and test procedure

established in the final rule, NHTSA

addressed the issue of temperature and

pressure, along with other related issues
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2541

raised by commenters on the January

1993 NPRM. These included whether to

measure test gas temperature during the

60-minute period following barrier

impact, whether to specify an ambient

test temperature, the accuracy of

available pressure drop measurement

technology, and the time period over

which pressure drop is measured.

These, along with commenters’

concerns, presented complex, and, in

some cases, competing issues to resolve.

There were a variety of possible

solutions, some more feasible than

others, to the problem of measuring

CNG fuel system leakage.

Contrary to the assertion made by

Ford in its petition, the agency

considered the information provided by

AAMA about the effect of temperature

on pressure. That information is

specifically referenced in the preamble

to the final rule (59 FR 19652). In

addition, the agency noted in the

preamble that several commenters,

including AAMA, stated that

temperature variations should be

compensated for when conducting the

crash test. However, neither AAMA nor

other commenters suggested any

method to correct for this. After

reviewing the components, NHTSA

decided not to specify an ambient test

temperature, but to limit the amount of

ambient temperature variation during

the 60-minute test period to 5.6 °C (10

°F). A temperature variation exceeding

this amount will invalidate the test

results. The agency noted that, ‘‘Without

such control, a large change in

temperature could artificially affect the

test results.’’ NHTSA continues to

believe that this test condition will

sufficiently minimize changes in test gas

temperature, as well as pressure drop

measurement accuracy.

NHTSA appreciates the concerns

expressed by Ford and Chrysler in their

petitions. However, as noted above,

under real world test conditions, any

variation in test gas temperature will not

significantly affect test results. The

agency believes there are three leakage

scenarios that could potentially occur

during the 60-minute test period

following barrier impact: No leak, a

large leak, and a small or marginal leak

condition. In the case of no leak, Ford

and Chrysler stated in their petitions

that a 5.6 °C (10 °F) drop in ambient

temperature could result in a 60 psi

pressure drop even though there is no

leakage. However, since the allowable

pressure drop established in the final

rule is at least 1062 kPa (154 psi), a 60

psi pressure drop will not affect

compliance test results since it is well

below the amount allowed in the final

rule. Similarly, in the case of a large

leak, any change in test gas temperature

should not influence compliance test

results, since all or most of the gas will

leak out during the 60-minute test

period, thereby making a noncompliance obvious. Based on

supplemental information which the

agency obtained by telephone from Ford

and Blue Bird Body Company on the

NPRM, the agency believes these two

conditions, no leak or a large leak, will

account for most of the leakage

scenarios after real world CNG vehicle

crash tests. However, in the event there

is a slow leak, NHTSA believes that

here, too, test gas temperature will

remain relatively constant during

testing, due to thermal contact between

the test gas and fuel container walls.

Any change in test gas temperature will

tend to be offset by the temperature or

thermal energy of the surrounding

container walls, which along with the

test gas have been stabilized to ambient

temperature prior to testing.

NHTSA rejects Ford’s

recommendation that the final rule

exclude pressure changes due to test gas

temperature changes, because it would

require that test gas temperature be

measured. NHTSA believes that this

would unnecessarily result in a more

costly and complex test procedure.

Further, it could make the fuel system

more vulnerable to leakage in a crash,

since an additional fuel system

measurement fitting may be required. In

its petition for reconsideration, Chrysler

referred to this as ‘‘* * * the added

difficulty of measuring gas temperature

within the high pressure fuel system,

which is difficult, impracticable, and

risks compromising the fuel system

integrity.’’ In addition, supplemental

information which the agency obtained

by telephone from Ford indicates that

measuring gas temperature in a CNG

fuel system is not always accurate.

NHTSA also rejects Chrysler’s

recommendation that an additional 60

psi be added to the allowable pressure

drop in the final rule. In the case of an

allowable pressure drop of 1062 kPa

(154 psi), adopting Chrysler’s request

would have raised this level by

approximately 40 percent. The agency

believes that that addition could make

the allowable pressure drop levels

unsafe, since it would allow more fuel

leakage. This would be clearly

inconsistent with the agency’s goal of

establishing a minimum leakage

requirement that is as close to a no

leakage requirement as possible while

still being readily measurable.

For the above reasons, NHTSA denies

the requests of Ford and Chrysler

regarding pressure drop.

Fill Condition

As part of the test conditions prior to

CNG vehicle crash testing, S7.1.1 of

Standard No. 304 specifies that, ‘‘Each

fuel storage container is filled to 100

percent of service pressure with

nitrogen, N2.’’ S4 states that, ‘‘Service

pressure means the internal pressure of

a CNG fuel container when filled to

design capacity with CNG at 20° Celsius

(68° Fahrenheit).’’

In its petition, AAMA stated that

since the final rule places no absolute

limits on the ambient temperatures at

which testing may be performed, but

merely requires that ambient

temperature not change more than 10 °F

during the course of the test, fuel storage

containers will not always be filled at

and stabilized to a temperature of 20°

Celsius (68° Fahrenheit). According to

the petitioner, the fill pressure to be

used for ambient temperatures other

than 20° Celsius (68° Fahrenheit) is

unclear and therefore not reasonable,

practicable, or stated in objective terms.

AAMA further stated that an

appropriate corrective action would be

to amend S7.1.1 of the Standard to state

that, ‘‘Each fuel storage container is

filled with nitrogen, N2, to 100 percent

of service pressure adjusted for ambient

temperature.’’ AAMA’s suggested

language is italicized.

After reviewing AAMA’s petition for

reconsideration about fill pressure,

NHTSA has determined that that

organization’s requested modification to

S7.1.1 would be inappropriate.

The agency’s purpose in specifying

that CNG containers be filled to 100

percent of service pressure in S7.1.1 is

to provide a reference point for the fill

condition from which crash tests are

performed, e.g., 20,684 kPa (3000 psi) at

20 °C (68 °F). NHTSA recognizes that

since the final rule does not specify an

ambient temperature at which crash

testing is performed, fuel containers will

not always be filled and stabilized to 20

°C (68 °F). This will result in CNG

container pressures which are different

than if testing were performed at 20 °C

(68 °F), because of the relationship

between gas temperature and pressure.

Thus, manufacturers may fill and

stabilize the CNG containers prior to

testing to a pressure that is adjusted for

ambient temperature. The final rule

does not prohibit this. However, that

pressure, which is adjusted for ambient

temperature, must be such that if

ambient temperature were 20 °C (68 °F),

pressure in the CNG containers would

be equal to service pressure. Since the

final rule does not prohibit this

adjustment for ambient temperature

prior to testing, NHTSA sees no need to
2542 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

adopt the revised language suggested by

AAMA. Therefore, AAMA’s petition

concerning fill condition is denied.

Pressurizing the High Pressure Side

S7.1.2 of the final rule states that,

‘‘Any shutoff valve at the fuel container

is in the open position.’’ AAMA states

in its petition that some CNG fuel

systems include additional manual

shutoff valves in the high pressure side

of the fuel system, and that these valves

must also be open so that pressure is

distributed to the entire high pressure

side of the fuel system. If these valves

are closed, the vehicle test conditions

would not simulate, to the extent

practicable, conditions present in a real

world crash. These observations led that

organization to conclude that the final

rule is not reasonable or practicable. In

addition, AAMA stated that this aspect

of the final rule does not meet the need

for motor vehicle safety. This is because

manual valves located downstream from

the pressure measurement point, if

closed, would seal off part of the high

pressure side of the fuel system. Thus,

pressure measurement upstream of the

closed valve would not detect a leak in

the sealed off, high pressure portion of

the fuel system.

AAMA stated that an appropriate

corrective action would be to amend

S7.1.2 to state that ‘‘* * * normal

operating pressures. All manual shutoff

valves are to be left in the open

position.’’ AAMA’s suggested language

is underlined.

After reviewing AAMA’s

recommendation about shutoff valves,

NHTSA has decided to amend S7.1.2 to

state ‘‘All manual shutoff valves are to

be in the open position.’’

The agency believes that this change

is consistent with the goal in S7.1.2

which is to have the vehicle test

conditions be representative of real

world crash test conditions and to meet

the need for motor vehicle safety. The

agency was not aware that there may be

manual shutoff valves within the high

pressure portion of the fuel system other

than those located at the fuel containers.

In addition, the phrase in S7.1.2 stating

‘‘Any shutoff valve * * *’’ was meant to

refer to manual shutoff valves. Based on

the above consideration, NHTSA has

decided to adopt AAMA’s request

concerning pressurizing the high

pressure side.

Pressure Measurement Location

AAMA stated that the final rule does

not specify how fuel system pressure is

to be accessed for measurement. In its

response to the January 1993 NPRM,

AAMA stated that it

* * * is concerned about adding pressure

transducers to points in the fuel line solely

for purposes of conducting the test. Doing so

creates a point of potential leakage where a

fitting joint does not exist in a non-test

vehicle.

AAMA stated that if a NHTSA

contractor were to test for compliance

by creating such a pressure

measurement point, AAMA member

companies likely would object, pointing

out that the fuel system on the vehicle

has been disrupted and therefore would

not be representative of the vehicle as

manufactured. AAMA stated that it is

not reasonable, practicable, or

appropriate to have a final rule that is

silent on where the pressure is to be

measured, thereby leaving its selection

to the discretion of a NHTSA test

contractor.

AAMA stated that an appropriate

corrective action would be to add a new

S7.1.8, which states, ‘‘The pressure drop

measurement specified in S7.2 (sic) is to

be made using a location recommended

by the vehicle manufacturer.’’ AAMA’s

proposed language is underlined. (Note:

NHTSA has verified with AAMA that it

intended to reference S5.2 rather than

S7.2 in this statement.)

NHTSA agrees with AAMA’s

assessment. Based on additional

comments obtained from AAMA in

response to the January 1993 NPRM, the

agency understands that vehicle

manufacturers will be providing a tap

point on the vehicle’s fuel system where

pressure measurement is to be obtained.

It would be consistent with the intent of

Standard 304 if that pressure

measurement of the fuel system were

made at the location specified by the

vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly,

AAMA’s petition concerning pressure

measurement location is granted.

Miscellaneous Correction

NHTSA is also making a word

correction to one of the definitions in

S4, which AAMA pointed out in its

petition. The definition for CNG fuel

container currently reads CNG full

container. Therefore, the word full is

changed to fuel.

Rulemaking Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under Executive

Order 12866 and the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. This rulemaking document

was reviewed under E.O. 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’

This action has been determined to be

‘‘non-significant’’ under the Department

of Transportation’s regulatory policies

and procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

effects of this rulemaking action under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based

upon the agency’s evaluation, I certify

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Information

available to the agency indicates that

currently there are very few businesses

manufacturing passenger cars or light

trucks for CNG use. The agency further

believes that as the market expands for

CNG vehicles, original vehicle

manufacturers will begin to produce

CNG vehicles because they will be able

to do so at less expense than final stage

manufacturers and alterers. Few, if any,

original vehicle manufacturers which

manufacture CNG vehicles are small

businesses.

C. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in Executive

Order 12612. NHTSA has determined

that the rule will not have sufficient

Federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

NHTSA has considered the

environmental impacts of this rule. The

agency has determined that this rule

will have no adverse impact on the

quality of the human environment. On

the contrary, because NHTSA

anticipates that ensuring the safety of

CNG vehicles will encourage their use,

NHTSA believes that the rule will have

positive environmental impacts since

CNG vehicles are expected to have nearzero evaporative emissions and the

potential to produce very low exhaust

emissions as well.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the State requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2543

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 571

continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.303 is amended by

revising the definition of CNG fuel

container in S4, revising S7.1.2, and

adding S7.1.8 to read as follows:

§ 571.303 Standard No. 303; Fuel system

integrity of compressed natural gas

vehicles.

* * * * *

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

CNG fuel container means a container

designed to store CNG as motor fuel

onboard a motor vehicle.

* * * * *

S7.1.2 After each fuel storage

container is filled as specified in S7.1.1,

the fuel system other than each fuel

storage container is filled with nitrogen,

N2, to normal operating pressures. All

manual shutoff valves are to be in the

open position.

* * * * *

S7.1.8 The pressure drop

measurement specified in S5.2 is to be

made using a location on the high

pressure side of the fuel system in

accordance with the vehicle

manufacturer’s recommendation.

* * * * *

Issued on: January 4, 1994.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–464 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–50–M

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

49 CFR Parts 1002, 1011, and 1130

[Ex Parte No. MC–219]

Implementation of Section 4 of the

Negotiated Rates Act of 1993

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Adoption of final rules.

SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting

final rules to implement section 4 of the

Negotiated Rates Act of 1993. These

rules provide a mechanism for obtaining

Commission review of motor carrier and

shipper resolutions of overcharge and

undercharge claims resulting from

incorrect tariff provisions or billing

errors arising from the inadvertent

failure to properly and timely file and

maintain agreed-upon rates in

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 10761 and

10762.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rules are effective

February 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence C. Herzig, (202) 927–5180.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in

Ex Parte No. MC–219, Implementation

of Section 4 of the Negotiated Rates Act

(not printed), served March 4, 1994, and

published at 59 FR 11240, March 10,

1994, we proposed rules which would

implement section 4 of the Negotiated

Rates Act of 1993 (NRA), Pub. L. No.

103–180. The NPR proposed a

mechanism for obtaining Commission

review of motor carrier and shipper

resolutions of overcharge and

undercharge claims. These claims result

from incorrect tariff provisions or billing

errors arising from the inadvertent

failure to properly and timely file and

maintain agreed-upon rates in

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 10761 and

10762.

The NPR proposed two alternate

methods of settlement. Under the first

method, a petition to depart from the

filed rate would be filed which would

become equivalent to an order of the

Commission after 45 days if it was not

protested or investigated; the second

method would require a formal order to

be issued in all instances, whether or

not there was a protest or investigation.

The NPR also proposed standards for

the information required to be included

in a petition to depart from the filed

rate, and set a filing fee of $70.

Nine comments were received. In

response to these comments, we are

modifying the information required to

be included in a petition, and we will

permit either a carrier or a shipper to

file a petition. We will also adopt the

first method of settlement and filing fees

of $40 and $80, depending on the

amount involved in the petition.

Consolidated Freightways

Corporation of Delaware states that the

proposed rules are too burdensome in

requiring written Commission orders in

all cases, prefiling of the petitions for

relief, and a docketing fee on

insignificant amounts. Also, it is

concerned that the proposed rules do

not clarify that multiple tariff errors may

be resolved by a single filing. The final

rules will not require an order on any

uncontested petition. Also, while each

petition should encompass only one

shipper or one consignee, it can include

multiple tariff errors. However, we will

require payment of a fee for all

petitions.

D &J Associates, a freight

transportation consulting firm, is

concerned that the proposed rules apply

only to publishing errors and not to

billing errors and overcharge claims

based on published and timely filed

rates. In this regard section 4 of the NRA

is very clear; it applies only to

overcharge and undercharge claims

resulting from incorrect tariff provisions

or billing errors arising from the

inadvertent failure to properly and

timely file and maintain agreed upon

rates. Thus, the concerns of D & J

Associates need not be addressed

further.

The National Industrial

Transportation League (NITL) states that

the proposed procedures are too

complex and formalistic. First, it argues

that they will prevent the parties from

quickly and efficiently resolving

paperwork errors. We agree, and will

simplify the requirements for

information to be included in each

petition. Also, NITL is concerned that

any private party, even though not a

party to the transportation at issue,

could protest petitions. We do not

consider this to be a significant

problem. The right of any interested

party to protest a petition has been part

of the rail special docket procedures for

a number of years, without causing any

problems.

The Transportation Brokers

Conference of America generally

endorses the proposed rules. However,

it favors the method whereby an

uncontested petition automatically

becomes an order of the Commission

after 45 days. We are adopting this

method in the final rules.

The National Motor Freight Traffic

Association, which publishes the

National Motor Freight Classification on

behalf of its member carriers, generally

supports the proposed rules. However,

it suggests that a notice should be

published by the Commission when a

petition concerning classification

matters is investigated on the

Commission’s own motion or is

protested. We consider this publication

to be unnecessary. Petitions will

concern tariff publishing errors or the

failure to publish agreed-upon rates,

covering primarily discounts or