60-day FR Notice

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

46646

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices

conformity and associated documents
(referred to as a ‘‘conformity package’’)
the RI must submit to NHTSA under 49
CFR 592.6(d) to obtain release of the
DOT Conformance bond furnished at
the time the vehicle is imported.
Because it is common practice for
transit bus bodies to have seating and
other interior modifications made
during use for the purposes of update
and repair, it is expected that after many
years in service at least some of the
buses eligible for importation under this
decision will not have the same interior
configuration, controls and displays,
etc., as the vehicle(s) described in the
petition. Therefore, NHTSA has decided
that RIs must also include in each
conformity package specific proof to
confirm that the vehicle was originally
manufactured to conform to, or was
successfully altered to conform to, each
applicable standard. Any components
that differ from the original equipment
installed on the vehicle must be fully
described, and if the presence of that
component could impact the vehicle’s
compliance with an applicable safety
standard, the conformity package must
include reports of testing or inspection
sufficient to establish the vehicle’s
compliance with that standard with the
component installed. This additional
information must also be supplied any
time an alteration that requires
replacement of a nonconforming system,
such as the vehicle driver’s seat or
accelerator control system, differs from
that originally described in the petition.
In addition to the modifications
described in the petition as needed to
conform the vehicle to all applicable
FMVSS, NHTSA has decided that
additional or alternative modifications
must be performed, and, for some of
those modifications, proof of
conformance must be provided in the
conformity package, as set forth below.
Standard No. 108—Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment: The
conformity package must include
documentation from the lighting
manufacturer for each lamp mounted on
the bus showing that the lamp has been
certified as conforming to FMVSS No.
108 for the purpose for which the lamp
is used. Specific proof that the
headlamps meet the operating voltage
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 must
also be provided in the conformity
package.
Standard No. 121—Air Brake Systems:
Inspection of each bus to specifically
verify that the critical components listed
below (by the applicable paragraph in
FMVSS No. 121) are present, are
significantly similar to those originally
installed on the Volvo B7L chassis and
function as required for compliance

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:54 Aug 04, 2015

Jkt 235001

with FMVSS No. 121. Should any part
not be present, or prevent compliance
with the requirements of the standard as
installed, modification of the bus and
proof of conformance after modification
must be included with each conformity
package.
S5.1.1—Data related to reservoir volumes
necessary to demonstrate conformance to
compressor recharge rate.
S5.1.2.3—Check valves to protect against
reservoir air loss.
S5.1.2.4—Manually operated condensate
drain valve for reservoirs.
S5.1.4—In-dash pressure gauge.
S5.1.5—Device that gives a low pressure
warning in accordance with this section.
S5.1.8(a)—Automatic slack adjusters.
S5.1.6.2—In-dash ABS malfunction
indicator lamp/check lamp function.
S5.6.4—Identification of the method of
control operation of the parking brake
control.

Photographs of all brake system
related controls and displays must also
be included in each conformity package.
Standard No. 124—Accelerator
Control Systems: Installation of a
specific accelerator control system to
meet the requirements of this standard
was described in the petition.
Documentation showing that, as
modified, the vehicle conforms to the
standard must be provided in each
conformity package.
Standard No. 205—Glazing Materials:
All glazing replaced to meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 217 must
also meet all applicable requirements of
FMVSS No. 205. In addition, all glazing
must be inspected for compliance with
FMVSS No. 205. Any noncompliant
glazing must be replaced with
compliant glazing and proof of
compliance must be included in each
conformity package.
Standard No. 217—Bus Emergency
Exits and Window Retention and
Release: The petition states that the
vehicles must be modified by
installation of an emergency escape
hatch and emergency escape windows
in a manner consistent with the
requirements of this standard. Test
reports were submitted in an effort to
demonstrate that compliance with the
standard can be achieved after these
modifications are performed.
Photographs (including images of all
required labeling) and bus plan view
drawings showing the location and
operation of all exits, must be provided
with each conformity package.
Standard No. 302—Flammability of
Interior Materials: Documentation
showing how the RI has confirmed that
all interior components on each bus
conform to all applicable requirements
of this standard, including any test

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

reports not submitted as part of the
petition, must be provided with each
conformity package.
Decision
Accordingly, on the basis of the
foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that
MY 2000 East Lancashire Coachbuilders
Limited Double Decker Tri-Axle buses
(mounted on a Volvo B7L Chassis), that
were not originally manufactured to
comply with all applicable FMVSS, are
capable of being altered to conform to
all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards.
Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject
Vehicles
The importer of a vehicle admissible
under any final decision must indicate
on the form HS–7 accompanying entry
the appropriate vehicle eligibility
number indicating that the vehicle is
eligible for entry. VCP–59 is the vehicle
eligibility number assigned to vehicles
admissible under this notice of final
decision.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Issued on: July 30, 2015.
John Finneran,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–19210 Filed 8–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2015–0153]

Agency Requests for Approval of a
New Information Collection(s): PostChallenge Year Survey—Mayors’
Challenge for Safer People and Safer
Streets
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

The Department of
Transportation (DOT) invites public
comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval for a new information
collection.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by October 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
[identified by Docket No. DOT–OST–
2015–0153] through one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM

05AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 2015 / Notices
• Fax: 1 (202) 493–2251.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Higgins, 202–366–7098, Office
of Safety, Energy, and Environment,
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number:
Title: Post-Challenge Year Survey—
Mayors’ Challenge for Safer People and
Safer Streets.
Form Numbers:
Type of Review: New Information
Collection.
Background: Over 220 cities are
voluntarily participating in the
‘‘Mayors’ Challenge’’ and through
locally-driven efforts they are improving
bike/ped safety policies, infrastructure,
and awareness. This survey will collect
information on the accomplishments of
the Mayors’ Challenge, and will be used
to identify best practices and to improve
future DOT outreach to cities. Each city

has already identified a point-of-contact
for the Mayors’ Challenge. This survey
will be distributed electronically to
these POCs through an online survey
tool.
Respondents: The survey will be
completed by points-of-contacts
identified in the city agencies
participating in the Mayors’ Challenge.
Number of Respondents: 230 cities
have volunteered to participate in the
Mayors’ Challenge.
Frequency: Once, upon completion of
this challenge.
Number of Annual Responses: 1.
Total Annual Hour Burden: 30
minutes/respondent; Cumulative 115
hours.
Total Annual Cost Burden: $3,388
(Based on an assumption that this
would be completed by someone at an
equivalent to a GS–12 level of seniority,
which is $29.46/hour.).
Synopsis of Information Collection
DOT will survey the cities who have
volunteered to participate in the
Mayors’ Challenge for Safer People and
Safer Streets about their activities,
successes, and obstacles. This
information will be used to establish
best practices bicycle and pedestrian

46647

safety and will identify gaps in data and
resources that DOT can provide. The
questions include:
1. Which of the seven goals did you
adopt, and what activities did you
undertake to meet those goals? For
reference, the seven goals are:
(1) Take a Complete Streets approach;
(2) Identify and address barriers;
(3) Gather and track data;
(4) Use context-sensitive designs;
(5) Complete bike-ped networks;
(6) Improve laws and regulations; and
(7) Educate and enforce proper road
use.
2. What were the primary challenges
and obstacles to bicycle and pedestrian
safety in your community, and what if
any actions did you take to address
these challenges and obstacles?
3. What if any changes have resulted
from the challenge activities, including
changes to physical infrastructure,
decision-making processes, policies or
procedures, enforcement, and education
and awareness of your community?
4. Please use the following table to
indicate whether you have data on the
impact of the Mayors’ Challenge
activities, and what the extent of that
impact is.

Data available? (e.g. yes/no, and if
yes, type of data)

Extent of impact
(e.g. number of bicyclists, compared to previous years)

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

event attendance.
survey results.
crash data.
walking and bicycle counts.
bike lanes, sidewalks, other infrastructure.
new plans, policies, laws, or campaigns.
other indications of political and community support.

5. Which DOT resources, tools, and
data were most useful in your
challenge?
6. Which non-DOT resources, tools,
and data were most useful in your
challenge?
7. What resources, tools, and data did
you wish were available?
8. What are the most useful formats
for receiving information from USDOT,
and why (e.g. webinars, in-person
meetings, conference calls, etc.)?
9. What efforts in your city to improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety in your
community were already underway at
the time of the Mayors’ Challenge? How
did the Mayors’ Challenge add value
and/or help to fill any gaps in your
city’s efforts to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety?
10. In planning and project delivery of
pedestrian and/or bicycle infrastructure
projects, to what extent has your city
coordinated with your Metropolitan

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:54 Aug 04, 2015

Jkt 235001

Planning Organization (MPO), Regional
Planning Organization (RPO), State
Department of Transportation (DOT),
and Federal Regional/Division office
partners? Please note type of outreach
and coordination, and outcomes it led
to.
11. What were the key benefits and
lessons learned as a result of the
Mayors’ Challenge?
12. Do you think the Mayors’
challenge helped make any permanent
changes in pedestrian and bike safety
and accommodation in your city/town?
We are required to publish this notice
in the Federal Register by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 9990

Department’s performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c)
ways for the Department to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways
that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the
collected information. The agency will
summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of this information collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 29,
2015.
Barbara McCann,
Director, Office of Safety, Energy, and
Environment, Office of Policy, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2015–19189 Filed 8–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM

05AUN1