Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2865

scoping meetings for this EIS at the

times and locations listed under the

heading DATES AND LOCATIONS. Sign

interpretation can be made available at

a meeting if requested 10 calendar days

before the specific meeting at which the

service is required.

Comments from interested parties on

the scope of the EIS are encouraged and

should be submitted to the FAA in

writing or presented verbally at the

scoping meetings. Written comments

must be received by April 2, 1996.

Comments should discuss

environmental concerns and issues

related to the proposed action,

suggested analyses and methodologies

for inclusion in the EIS, possible

sources of relevant data or information

or feasible alternatives to the proposed

action. Submit written comments to

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 28365, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington DC 20591.

DATES AND LOCATIONS: March 5, 1996, 7–

10 p.m., Travel Lodge, Building #144,

JFK International Airport, Jamaica, NY,

11430; March 6, 1996, 9 a.m.–12 noon

and 7 p.m.–10 p.m., Kingsborough

Community College, 2001 Oriental

Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, 11235; March 7,

1996, 7 p.m.–10 p.m., Ramada Inn, 90–

10 Grand Central Parkway, East

Elmhurst, NY 11369.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerome D. Schwartz, Environmental

Specialist, Federal Aviation

Administration, Wind Shear Products

Team, AND–420, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20591,

telephone (202) 358–4946.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23,

1996.

Loni Czekalski,

Director of Communications, Navigation, and

Surveillance Systems, AND–1.

[FR Doc. 96–1535 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 95–57; Notice 2]

General Motors Corp.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) of

Warren, Michigan, determined that

some of its vehicles failed to comply

with the requirements of 49 CFR

571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps,

Reflective Devices, and Associated

Equipment,’’ and filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

GM also applied to be exempted from

the notification and remedy

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—

‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’— on the basis

that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on July 26, 1995, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (60

FR 38392).

Paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No.

108 requires that ‘‘all other lamps [not

mentioned in Paragraphs S5.5.10(a–c)

which includes all stop lamps such as

center high-mounted stop lamps

(CHMSLs)] shall be wired to be steadyburning.’’

During the 1995 model year, GM

manufactured a total of 96,607 GMC and

Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon, and

Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles with CHMSLs

that were inadvertently wired in a

manner which permits the CHMSLs to

momentarily flash under certain

conditions while the driver is in the

process of activating or deactivating the

hazard flashers. As a result, they do not

meet the requirement of Paragraph

S5.5.10(d) that they be ‘‘wired to be

steady-burning.’’ While GM designed

the vehicles to meet this requirement, it

subsequently discovered a transient

contact condition inside the multifunction (stop lamp, CHMSL, turn

signal, and hazard flasher) switch which

occasionally causes the CHMSL to flash

while the driver is in the process of

turning the hazard flasher switch ‘‘on’’

or ‘‘off.’’ The error was corrected in

production in March 1995 by adding a

brake lamp relay to the I/P harness to

provide isolation from the multifunction switch transient.

GM supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

The CHMSL performs properly at all times

when the service brakes are applied. The

transient condition will not occur if the

service brakes are applied when the driver

activates or deactivates the hazard flasher

switch. Therefore, the CHMSL will not flash

when it is required to be steady-burning. The

CHMSL will not flash if the ignition switch

is in the ‘‘off’’ position. Thus, the condition

will not occur if the hazard flashers are

turned ‘‘off’’ or ‘‘on’’ when the ignition is off

and the vehicle is parked at the side of the

road, for example.

If the CHMSL flashes at all, it will

illuminate a maximum of three times during

the transient condition, with each pulse

lasting 0.5 [millisecond (ms)] to 4.0 ms. The

entire unintended event, in its worst case,

lasts no more than 125.8 ms. This extremely

short duration is likely to go entirely

unnoticed by following drivers in many

instances. In the event that it is noticed, it is

not likely to be confused with anything other

than the hazard flashers. Since the flashers

will be activated while the unintended

condition occurs, but the brake lamps will

not be, this will not present a safety risk.

The CHMSL otherwise meets all of the

requirements of FMVSS 108.

In a 1989 interpretation, NHTSA discussed

the difference between the requirements that

stop lamps be steady-burning and hazard

warning lights flash. NHTSA explained:

Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be

steady-burning, and hazard warning signal

lamps to flash (generally through the turn

signal lamps). The primary reason for the

distinction is that the stop lamps are

intended to be operated while the vehicle is

in motion, while hazard warning lamps are

intended to indicate that the vehicle is

stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a

single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp

which is ordinarily steady burning begins to

flash, the agency is concerned that the signal

will prove confusing to motorists, thereby

diluting the effectiveness.

August 8, 1989 letter from S.P. Wood, Acting

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to L.P. Egley

While this condition technically causes a

lamp which is ordinarily steady burning to

begin to flash, it will not likely ‘‘prove

confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its

effectiveness,’’ because it will not occur if the

service brakes are applied. Even if the

condition were mistaken for a brake signal

(which is doubtful since CHMSLs do not

flash with brake lamp activation), the

following driver would not likely react to it.

According to recent research studies

conducted by GM, as well as field data, it

takes a following driver at least 0.5 seconds

to react to a signal and apply the service

brakes once [a] preceding vehicle’s brake

lamps are activated. Given the extremely

short duration of the transient CHMSL

condition, the misinterpreted signal would

be gone long before the following driver

could respond.

Hazard flashers are not frequently used.

Thus, the exposure of following drivers to the

noncompliant condition would be very

limited. This is particularly true because of

the transient nature of the condition, its short

duration, and the fact that it will not occur

at all if the service brakes are applied or the

vehicle’s ignition is off.

GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries,

owner complaints, or field reports related to

this condition.

No comments were received on the

application.

GM states that ‘‘[t]he entire

unintended event, in its worst case, lasts

no more than 125.8 ms.’’ This is 1⁄8th of

a second. As GM further stated,

according its research studies and field

data, it takes a following driver at least

half a second to react to a signal and to

apply the service brakes once a

preceding vehicle’s brakes are activated.

NHTSA finds this a convincing

argument that the transient activation of

the CHMSL, a false signal, is highly

unlikely to mislead a following driver
2866 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

into applying the service brakes when

there is no need to do so.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that the applicant has met

its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance herein described is

inconsequential to safety. Accordingly,

the applicant is hereby exempted from

its obligations to provide notice of the

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.

30118, and to remedy the

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.

30120.

49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

Issued on: January 23, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–1505 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 93–37, Notice 4]

Panoz Auto Development Co.; Grant of

Application for Renewal of Temporary

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 208

Panoz Auto Development Company of

Hoschton, Ga., applied for a renewal of

its exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. The

basis of the application was that

compliance will cause substantial

economic hardship to a manufacturer

that has tried to comply with the

standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on October 13, 1995, and

an opportunity afforded for comment

(60 FR 53454). This notice grants the

renewal.

Panoz received NHTSA Exemption

No. 93–5 from S4.1.4 of Standard No.

208, which was scheduled to expire

August 1, 1995 (58 FR 43007). However,

its application for renewal was filed on

May 26, 1995, which was more than 60

days before the scheduled expiration

date of its exemption. In accordance

with 49 CFR 555.8(e), Panoz’ filing of its

application before the 60th day stays the

expiration until the Administrator

grants or denies the application for

renewal.

Panoz’s original exemption was

granted pursuant to the representation

that its Roadster would be equipped

with a Ford-supplied driver and

passenger airbag system, and would

comply with Standard No. 208 by April

5, 1995, after estimated expenditures of

$472,000. As of April 1993, the

company had expended 750 man hours

and $15,000 on the project.

According to its application for

renewal:

Panoz has continued the process of

researching and developing the installation

of a driver and passenger side airbag system

on the Roadster since the original exemption

petition was submitted to NHTSA on April

5, 1993. To date, an estimated 1680 manhours and approximately $50,400 have been

spent on this project.

Panoz uses a 5.0L Ford Mustang GT

engine and five speed manual

transmission in its car. Because ‘‘the

1995 model year and associated

emission components were revised by

Ford’’, this caused

a delay in the implementation of the airbag

system on the Roadster due to further

research and development time requirements

and expenditure of additional monies to

evaluate the effects of these changes on the

airbag adaptation program.

In addition, the applicant learned that

Ford will be replacing the 5.0L engine

and emission control system on the

1996 Mustang and other passenger cars

with a modular 4.6L engine and

associated emission components. The

1995 system does not meet 1996 OnBoard Diagnostic emission control

requirements, and Panoz will have to

use the 1996 engine and emission

control system in its cars. The majority

of the money and man hours to date

have been spent on adapting an airbag

system to the 5.0L engine car, and the

applicant is now concentrating on

adapting it to a 4.6L engine car. Panoz

listed eight types of modifications and

testing necessary for compliance that

would cost it $337,000 if compliance

were required at the end of a one-year

period. It has asked for a two-year

renewal of its exemption.

Panoz sold 13 cars in 1993 and 13

more in 1994. It did not state its sales

to date in 1995. At the time of its

original petition, its cumulative net

losses since incorporation in 1989 were

$1,265,176. It lost an additional

$249,478 in 1993 and $169,713 in 1994.

The applicant reiterated its original

arguments that an exemption would be

in the public interest and consistent

with the objectives of traffic safety.

Specifically, the Roadster is built in the

United States and uses 100 percent U.S.

components, bought from Ford and

approximately 75 other companies. It

provides full time employment for 7

persons, and ‘‘at least 200 employees

from over 80 different companies

remain involved in the Panoz project.’’

The Roadster is said to ‘‘provide the

public with a classic alternative to

current production vehicles.’’ It is the

only vehicle that incorporates ‘‘molded

aluminum body panels for the entire

car’’, a process which is being evaluated

by other manufacturers and which

‘‘results in the reduction of overall

vehicle weight, improved fuel

efficiency, and increased body

strength.’’ With the exception of S4.1.4

of Standard No. 208, the Roadster meets

all other Federal motor vehicle safety

standards including the 1997 side

impact provisions of Standard No. 214.

No comments were received on the

application.

Since its incorporation in 1989, the

applicant’s cumulative net loss exceeds

$1,600,000. Its estimated cost of

$337,000 for immediate conformance is

a convincing hardship argument. In

addition, the on-going compliance

efforts of the company with respect to

two Ford engine configurations indicate

that the company continues to make a

good faith effort to comply with

Standard No. 208. This American-made

vehicle is represented as meeting all

remaining Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, and will comply with new

side intrusion requirements in advance

of its effective date. A renewal of the

exemption is merited.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that to require immediate

compliance with Standard No. 208

would cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has in

good faith attempted to meet the

standard, and that an exemption would

be in the public interest and consistent

with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, NHTSA Exemption No.

93–5 from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR

571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection is

hereby extended to expire November 1,

1997.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.)

Issued on January 23, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1504 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 526]

Notice of Establishment of RailroadShipper Transportation Advisory

Council and Request for

Recommendation of Candidates for

Membership

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Request For Recommendation of

Candidates For Membership on

Railroad-Shipper Transportation

Advisory Council.