2896 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

No State laws will be affected.

National Environmental Policy Act

Finally, the agency has considered the

environmental implications of this final

rule in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and

determined that the rule will not

significantly affect the human

environment.

F. 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

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, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended to read as

follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571

continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.121 is amended by

revising S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.1 to read as

follows:

§ 571.121 Standard No. 121; Air brake

systems.

* * * * *

S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all

service reservoirs and supply reservoirs

shall be at least 12 times the combined

volume of all service brake chambers.

For each brake chamber type having a

full stroke at least as great as the first

number in Column 1 of Table V, but no

more than the second number in

Column 1 of Table V, the volume of

each brake chamber for purposes of

calculating the required combined

service and supply reservoir volume

shall be either that specified in Column

2 of Table V or the actual volume of the

brake chamber at maximum travel of the

brake piston or pushrod, whichever is

lower. The volume of a brake chamber

not listed in Table V is the volume of

the brake chamber at maximum travel of

the brake piston or pushrod. The

reservoirs of the truck portion of an auto

transporter need not meet this

requirement for reservoir volume.

* * * * *

S5.2.1.1 The total volume of each

service reservoir shall be at least eight

times the combined volume of all

service brake chambers serviced by that

reservoir. For each brake chamber type

having a full stroke at least as great as

the first number in Column 1 of Table

V, but no more than the second number

in column 1, the volume of each brake

chamber for purposes of calculating the

required total service reservoir volume

shall be either that number specified in

Column 2 of Table V or the actual

volume of the brake chamber at

maximum travel of the brake piston or

pushrod, whichever is lower. The

volume of a brake chamber not listed in

Table V is the volume of the brake

chamber at maximum travel of the brake

piston or pushrod. The reservoirs on a

heavy hauler trailer and the trailer

portion of an auto transporter need not

meet this requirement for reservoir

volume.

* * * * *

§ 571.121 [Amended]

3. Section 571.121 is amended to

include the following table to be placed

after Figure 3.

TABLE V.—BRAKE CHAMBER RATED

VOLUMES

Brake chamber type

(nominal area of piston or diaphragm in

square inches)

Column 1,

full stroke

(inches)

Column

2, rated

volume

(cubic

inches)

Type 9 ..................... 1.75/2.10 25

Type 12 ................... 1.75/2.10 30

Type 14 ................... 2.25/2.70 40

Type 16 ................... 2.25/2.70 50

Type 18 ................... 2.25/2.70 55

Type 20 ................... 2.25/2.70 60

Type 24 ................... 2.25/2.70 70

Type 30 ................... 2.50/3.20 95

Type 36 ................... 3.00/3.60 135

Issued on January 5, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–752 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. 95–01, Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AF48

Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; SixYear Old Dummy

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: This document makes a minor

correction to the thorax assembly and

test procedure in NHTSA’s regulation

for the six-year-old child dummy. This

document corrects inconsistencies

between the figure in the regulation that

illustrates the test set-up for calibrating

the dummy’s thorax and the regulatory

text that describes the calibration test

procedure. This action removes

potential sources of concern and

confusion for manufacturers and users

of the dummy about whether a

particular six-year-old child dummy

meets the specifications of NHTSA’s

regulation for the dummy (part 572,

subpart I).

EFFECTIVE DATE: The changes made in

this rule are effective January 12, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Stan Backaitis, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–4912.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 14, 1991, NHTSA published

a rule that added specifications for a 6-

year-old child test dummy to NHTSA’s

set of regulations for ‘‘Anthropomorphic

Test Dummies’’ (49 CFR part 572). The

agency explained in the rule that the 6-

year-old child dummy would be used to

test child restraint systems for older

children. The dummy is instrumented

with accelerometers for measuring

accelerations in the head and thorax

during dynamic testing. The rule

adopted performance criteria as

calibration checks to assure the

repeatability and reproducibility of the

dummy’s dynamic performance. These

specifications for the dummy are set

forth in subpart I of 49 CFR part 572.

In February 1994, First Technology

Safety Systems, Inc. (First Technology),

a manufacturer of test dummies,

informed the agency that figure 41 in

subpart I appears to have two errors.

Figure 41 illustrates the test set-up for

calibrating the dummy’s thorax (figure

41, ‘‘thorax impact test set-up’’). Both

errors are due to inconsistencies

between figure 41 and the regulatory
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2897

text in subpart I that describes the test

procedure for calibrating the dummy’s

thorax (49 CFR section 572.74(c)(2)). In

the calibration test, the dummy’s chest

is impacted by a test probe at a specific

point and the accelerometer’s

measurements are evaluated.

First Technology described the first error

thusly:

The thorax test procedure [of section

572.74] states that the impact point should be

2.25 inches below the centerline of the

clavicle retaining screw. The impact point

based on that dimension would fall between

the first and second rib. In contrast, figure 41

* * * shows the centerline of the impactor

in line with the centerline of the third rib.

The second error relates to how the

dummy is positioned for the thorax

impact test. Section 572.74(c)(2)

specifies that the dummy is adjusted ‘‘so

that the longitudinal centerline of the

No. 3 rib is horizontal.’’ In contrast, an

instruction in figure 41 specifies that the

dummy is set up with the centerline of

the number three rib horizontal ‘‘±1⁄2

[inch].’’ First Technology stated in its

letter, ‘‘[T]he tolerance on figure 41 is

±1⁄2 inch, which would result in 14

degrees variation.’’

Technical Amendment

NHTSA has examined First

Technology’s concerns and agrees that

figure 41 and section 572.74 need to be

amended so that they are consistent. As

to the first error, the correct

specification for the location of the

impact point for the impactor is in

section 572.74, and not in figure 41. The

centerline of the impactor and the

centerline of the third rib were drawn

on figure 41 to be coincident instead of

being slightly apart. This makes it

appear that the impactor’s first contact

occurs at the centerline of the third rib,

instead of approximately 13⁄8 inch above

it, in accordance with section 572.74.

NHTSA is correcting figure 41 to depict

the centerline for the thorax impactor as

being slightly above the depicted

centerline of the dummy’s third rib.

As to the second error, the instruction

in figure 41 that specifies that the

dummy is ‘‘set up with centerline of #3

rib horizontal ±1⁄2 inch’’ is inconsistent

with the instruction in section

572.74(c)(2) concerning dummy set-up.

The regulatory text states: ‘‘adjust the

dummy so that the longitudinal

centerline of the No. 3 rib is horizontal.’’

The ‘‘±1⁄2 inch’’ tolerance provided in

figure 41 is inconsistent with the

regulatory text since the centerline of

the No. 3 rib of a dummy adjusted to the

allowable limit could be far from

horizontal. On the other hand, NHTSA

believes that the tolerance should not be

altogether eliminated. A 1 degree

tolerance in section 572.74(c)(2) would

provide some flexibility while ensuring

that the centerline of the rib will be

essentially, if not exactly, horizontal.

Accordingly, NHTSA amends section

572.74(c)(2) to provide for ±1 degree of

tolerance. In addition, the instruction in

figure 41 that specifies the dummy is

‘‘set up with centerline of #3 rib

horizontal ±1⁄2 inch’’ is revised to

provide for the ±1 degree of tolerance.

The regulatory text of section

572.74(c)(2) is also revised with regard

to its reference to the ‘‘longitudinal

centerline’’ of the No. 3 rib as the

portion of the dummy that must be

horizontal. Using the word

‘‘longitudinal’’ is inaccurate, since

‘‘longitudinal’’ describes a characteristic

of a line, while what was actually meant

was the alignment of the dummy in a

plane. To more accurately describe the

positioning of the dummy, the direction

in section 572.74(c)(2) that the

‘‘longitudinal centerline of the No. 3 rib

is horizontal’’ is changed to ‘‘the plane

that bisects the No. 3 rib into upper and

lower halves is horizontal’’ (±1 degree).

This text is also added to the instruction

on positioning the dummy in figure 41.

NHTSA believes this rule is needed to

avoid potential sources of complaint

and confusion. In the past, dummy

manufacturers have urged NHTSA to

correct any inconsistency between the

part 572 specifications and the actual

design and manufacture of the test

dummies. (See, e.g., correction of

NHTSA’s regulation for the side impact

test dummy, 59 FR 52089; October 14,

1994.) These manufacturers are

concerned that customers could

complain that a dummy they purchased

does not meet the specifications of the

part 572 regulation, even when the

problems are with the regulation rather

than the dummy, and are relatively

minor.

This document does not impose any

additional responsibilities on any

vehicle or dummy manufacturer.

NHTSA confirmed with several test

facilities that they locate the impactor

according to section 572.74, and not

figure 41. Since this rule does not

impose any additional burdens, and

because it corrects minor

inconsistencies in the regulation and

removes potential sources of question

for dummy manufacturers, NHTSA

finds for good cause that notice and an

opportunity for comment on this

document are unnecessary, and that this

rule should be effective upon

publication.

These minor technical amendments

were not reviewed under E.O. 12866.

NHTSA has considered costs and other

factors associated with these

amendments, and determined that these

amendments do not change any of the

conclusions in the November 1991 final

rule regarding the impacts of that final

rule, including the impacts on small

businesses, manufacturers and other

entities.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

Motor vehicle safety.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 572 as

follows:

PART 572—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 572

is revised to read as follows:

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart I—6-Year-Old Child

2. In § 572.74, paragraph (c)(2) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 572.74 Thorax assembly and test

procedure.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Establish the impact point at the

chest midsagittal plane so that the

impact point is 2.25 inches below the

longitudinal center of the clavicle

retainer screw, and adjust the dummy so

that the plane that bisects the No. 3 rib

into upper and lower halves is

horizontal ±1 degree.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
2898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * * * *

3. Figure 41 in subpart I is revised to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2899

Issued on January 5, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–751 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AB84

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Addition of 30 African

Birds to List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Service adds 30 kinds of

birds, found in Africa and on associated

islands, to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife. All have restricted

distributions and are threatened by

habitat destruction, human hunting,

predation by introduced animals, and

various other factors. All were subjects

of petitions from the International

Council for Bird Preservation submitted

in 1980 and 1991. This rule implements

the protection of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

for these birds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, in Room

750, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia 22203. Comments

may be sent to the Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority; Mail Stop:

Arlington Square, Room 725; U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service; Washington, D.C.

20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority (phone 703–358–

1708; FAX 703–358–2276).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In a petition of November 24, 1980, to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), the International Council for

Bird Preservation (ICBP)—now known

as Bird Life International—requested the

addition of 79 kinds of birds to the U.S.

List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife. Of that number, 58 occurred

entirely outside of the United States and

its territories. Of those foreign birds, 6

have now been listed and the rest have

been covered by petition findings that

their listing is warranted but precluded

by other listing activity.

Subsequently, in a petition dated

April 30, 1991, and received by the

Service on May 6, 1991, the ICBP

requested the addition of another 53

species of foreign birds to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In

the Federal Register of December 16,

1991 (56 FR 65207–65208), the Service

announced the finding that this petition

had presented substantial information

indicating that the requested action may

be warranted. At that same time the

Service initiated a status review of these

53 birds, with the comment period

lasting until March 16, 1992.

Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended in

1982 (Act), requires that, within 12

months of receipt of a petition to list,

delist, or reclassify a species, a finding

be made as to whether the requested

action is warranted, not warranted, or

warranted but precluded by other listing

activity. In the case of the 1991 ICBP

petition, available information supports

listing of all 53 species. With respect to

15 of these species—those occurring in

Africa and Madagascar and on

associated islands of the Atlantic and

Indian Oceans—an ICBP Red Data Book

(Collar and Stuart 1985) provides

detailed status data. This same source

provides data supporting the listing of

13 of the African birds covered by the

1980 ICBP petition, and the Service also

possesses sufficient data to support the

listing of the other 2 African birds. With

respect to the other birds included in

the two petitions, data are available

from several sources, some of which are

unpublished. Compilation of these data

is in progress, and a listing proposal

will be completed as soon as allowed by

the Service’s other listing

responsibilities.

Considering the above, the Service

made the finding that the action

requested by the ICBP 1980 and 1991

petitions, with respect to the 30 African

birds named below in the ‘‘Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species,’’ is

warranted, and that the action requested

by the 1991 petition, with respect to the

38 remaining species covered therein, is

warranted but precluded by other listing

activity. That finding was incorporated

and published together with a proposal

in the Federal Register of March 28,

1994 (59 FR 14496–14502), to add the

30 birds named below to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the proposed rule of March 28,

1994, and associated notifications, all

interested parties were requested to

submit information that might

contribute to development of a final

rule. Cables were sent to United States

embassies in countries within the ranges

of the subject species, requesting new

data and the comments of the

governments of those countries. None of

the 13 responses opposed the proposal;

substantive information provided has

been added to the following discussion

(as ‘‘in litt.’’). There was one request for

classifying the dappled mountain robin

and Van Dam’s vanga as endangered,

rather than threatened as originally

proposed. While such a measure will be

given future consideration, immediately

available scientific data suggest that the

threatened category is appropriate. In

contrast, data received on the whitebreasted guineafowl, originally

proposed as endangered, indicate that a

threatened classification may more

accurately describe its status, and such

is now applied.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and

regulations (50 CFR Part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act set forth the

procedures for adding species to the

Federal Lists. A species may be

determined to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

following five factors described in

Section 4(a)(1): (A) The present or

threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)

overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)

the inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or

manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The application of these

factors to the 30 African species named

below is shown by the appropriate letter

in parentheses (information from Collar

and Andrew 1988, Collar and Stuart

1985, and Grzimek 1975, unless

otherwise noted). Also indicated is the

date of the petition covering each

species, the classification given in

pertinent ICBP Red Data Books, and the

U.S. classification that now will apply.

Amsterdam albatross (Diomedia

amsterdamensis).—1991 petition, ICBP

endangered, U.S. endangered; a large

sea bird of the family Diomedeidae;

known to breed only on Amsterdam

Island, a French possession in the

southern Indian Ocean. Destruction of

nesting habitat by fires and introduced

cattle (A) and predation by introduced

rats and cats (C) have reduced numbers

drastically. On the average only five