76518 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 

engaged in general railroad 

transportation, and provides railroad 

switching service primarily to the steel 

industry. In addition to steel mills, the 

railroad serves the coal industry through 

Duquesne Wharf, a coke production 

facility at Clairton, Pennsylvania, and 

more than 30 other customers in the 

automotive, chemical, and aggregate 

business. 

The URR currently consists of 65 

miles of main track and approximately 

200 miles of yard tracks and sidings, all 

located within a 10-mile radius in 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The 

northernmost point is located at North 

Bessemer, Pennsylvania, where the 

railroad proceeds southward through 

Turtle Creek, East Pittsburgh, 

Monongahela Junction, Clairton 

Junction and Clairton. 

Laminated safety glass is proposed to 

be used in lieu of glazing materials that 

meet the requirements of FRA Type I 

and Type II. Cabooses on the URR, 

which have been recently retired from 

service and scrapped, were operating 

with laminated safety glazing under a 

similar waiver granted in 1980 [FRA 

Docket Number RSGM–80–1]. There 

have been no reported acts of vandalism 

or breakage of caboose glazing caused by 

striking objects. Cabooses C–100, 101, 

102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, and 109 

will be operating over the same routes 

and schedules as the equipment covered 

by the previous waiver. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written views, data, or 

comments. FRA does not anticipate 

scheduling a public hearing in 

connection with these proceedings since 

the facts do not appear to warrant a 

hearing. If any interested party desires 

an opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA, in writing, before 

the end of the comment period and 

specify the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver 

Petition Docket Number FRA–2004–

19260) and must be submitted in 

triplicate to the Docket Clerk, DOT 

Central Docket Management Facility, 

Room Pl–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. Communications received within 

45 days of the date of this notice will 

be considered by FRA before final 

action is taken. Comments received after 

that date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at DOT 

Central Docket Management Facility, 

Room Pl–401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh 

Street SW., Washington. All documents 

in the public docket are also available 

for inspection and copying on the 

Internet at the docket facility’s Web site 

at http://dms.dot.gov.

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19377–78). The 

statement may also be found at http://

dms.dot.gov.

Issued in Washington, DC on December 13, 

2004. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety.

[FR Doc. 04–27902 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration 

Preparation of Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Tucson Urban 

Corridor in Tucson, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) and the City of 

Tucson, Department of Transportation 

(TDOT), intend to prepare an 

Alternatives Analysis (AA) and an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on a 

proposal by the City of Tucson to 

provide additional transit service to the 

urban core of the City of Tucson. The 

AA/EIS will consider the following 

alternatives: (1) A No-Build Alternative, 

consisting of improvements contained 

in the Pima Association of Governments 

(PAG) 2025 Regional Transportation 

Plan (RTP); (2) Transportation System 

Management Alternative (TSM), 

consisting of all reasonable costeffective transit service improvements 

within the urban core short of a major 

investment in a New Starts project; (3) 

Modern Streetcar in mixed traffic; and 

(4) Heritage Trolley in mixed traffic. The 

type, location, and need for ancillary 

facilities, such as maintenance facilities, 

will also be considered for each 

alternative. In addition, alternatives that 

are identified from the scoping process 

will be evaluated in the AA. Scoping 

will be accomplished through 

correspondence and discussions with 

interested persons; organizations; and 

federal, state, and local agencies; and 

through public and agency meetings. 

Depending on the outcome of the 

scoping process and the analysis of a 

wide range of transit alternatives in the 

Draft EIS (DEIS), a Locally Preferred 

Alternative (LPA) will be selected and 

evaluated in the Final EIS (FEIS). The 

FEIS will evaluate the potential impacts 

of the selected investment strategy (the 

Build Alternative) and a No-Build 

Alternative.

DATES: Comment Due Date: Written 

comments on the scope of alternatives 

and impacts to be considered in the AA/

EIS must be received no later than 

March 28, 2005, and must be sent to the 

City of Tucson at the address indicated 

below. 

Scoping Meeting Date: A public 

scoping meeting will be held from 4:30 

p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 

February 26, 2005 at the Historic Depot, 

400 N. Toole Ave. Oral and written 

comments may be given at the scoping 

meeting; a stenographer will record oral 

comments. Persons with disabilities 

should contact Joan Beckim (see 

ADDRESSES section below) 72 hours 

prior to the scoping meeting for special 

arrangements.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to Ms. Shellie Ginn, Tucson 

Urban Corridor Study Project Manager, 

City of Tucson, Department of 

Transportation, 201 N. Stone Avenue, 

Tucson, Arizona 85701. Email: 

shellie.ginn@tucsonaz.gov. Phone: (520) 

791–4372. 

To be added to the mailing list, 

contact Ms. Shellie Ginn at the address 

listed above. Please specify the mailing 

list of the Tucson Urban Corridor Study 

Alternatives Analysis/Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (AA/

DEIS). Persons with special needs such 

as sign language interpretation should 

contact Joan Beckim, Public 

Involvement Coordinator, City of 

Tucson, 201 N. Stone Avenue, Tucson, 

Arizona 85701. Email: 

joan@kaneenpr.com. Phone (520) 885–

9009. The dates and addresses of the 

scoping meetings are given in the DATES

section above. All locations are 

accessible to people with disabilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request a scoping information packet, 

contact Ms. Shellie Ginn, Tucson Urban 

Corridor Study Project Manager, City of 

Tucson, Department of Transportation, 

201 N. Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 

85701. E-mail 

shellie.ginn@tucsonaz.gov. Phone: (520) 

791–4372. The Federal agency contact is 

Mr. Hymie Luden, Office of Planning 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 76519

and Program Development, FTA, 201 

Mission Street, Room 2210, San 

Francisco, CA 95105. Phone: (415) 744–

2732.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Description of Study Area and Scope 

The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), as joint lead agency with the City 

of Tucson, will prepare an AA/EIS on a 

proposal to improve transit service in an 

approximately five-mile long corridor in 

central Tucson, Arizona. The study area 

for the Tucson Urban Corridor Study is 

bounded by 22nd Street to the south; 

Campbell Avenue to the east; Grant 

Road to the north; and Grande Avenue 

to the west. Most of the study area is 

densely developed with a mixture of 

urban land uses and includes the 

University of Arizona main and medical 

campuses, Main Gate retail area, Fourth 

Avenue retail area, downtown Tucson 

and the emerging Rio Nuevo area. 

Although not a part of the formal AA/

EIS process for the corridor study, 

results and recommendations will be 

coordinated with the Pima Association 

of Government’s effort to prepare a 

multi-modal comprehensive 

transportation plan identifying 

opportunities for future transportation 

connections throughout the Tucson 

metropolitan area. The City of Tucson 

will perform conceptual engineering for 

transit alternatives within the Tucson 

Urban Corridor for the AA/DEIS that 

satisfies NEPA requirements. In 

addition, a financial plan will be 

developed that examines alternative 

funding sources.

II. Purpose and Need 

The Tucson Urban Corridor area is a 

major employment and activity center. 

The study corridor continues to 

experience significant growth in 

population and jobs. The city’s largest 

activity center, the University of 

Arizona, is included in the study area 

and attracts over 50,000 trips daily and 

whose master plan includes significant 

expansion while holding parking to a 

constant 2004 level. The University is a 

land locked urban campus whose 

primary mode of access in the future 

will need to be transit. Along with this 

growth, traffic congestion and capacity 

deficiencies are expected to increase. 

Roadway capacity options would be 

difficult given the urban nature of the 

area and the magnitude of historic 

structures and neighborhoods in the 

study area. Inadequate transit service 

has hampered access to this area and to 

other study area destinations. A major 

transit investment is recognized as a 

feasible alternative to providing 

additional capacity within this area. 

The project is included in the PAG 

2025 RTP as an unfunded project. 

Funding would be considered as part of 

a proposed 2006 RTP financing 

proposal. 

III. Alternatives 

Alternatives have been considered to 

address transportation issues in the 

study corridor, connecting major 

activity centers in the central core, 

including downtown Tucson, the Rio 

Nuevo Master Plan area, the 4th 

Avenue/Main Gate retail corridors, the 

University of Arizona, and the Arizona 

Health Sciences Center (AHSC). 

The Tucson Urban Corridor Study 

will be consistent with Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), Alternatives 

Analysis and Section 5309 New Start 

Program requirements for determining 

future federal funding in recommended 

programs and be consistent with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The alternatives being 

considered will analyze mobility needs 

and identify and compare the costs, 

benefits, and impacts of a range of 

transit alignment and technology 

alternatives. At a minimum, the 

following alternatives will be 

considered: 

fi No-Build. 

fi Transportation System 

Management (TSM). 

fi Historic Trolley. 

fi Modern Streetcar. 

Specific alignment alternatives 

include, but are not limited to: (1) 2nd 

Street through the University of 

Arizona, University Boulevard, Fourth 

Avenue, Congress and Pennington 

streets in the downtown area, and 

Church Avenue to Granada to serve the 

emerging Rio Nuevo area. These 

alternatives will be developed further 

during the preparation of the AA/DEIS. 

Additional reasonable Build 

Alternatives suggested during the 

scoping process, including those 

involving other modes, may be 

considered.

IV. Probable Effects 

The purpose of the EIS is to fully 

disclose the environmental 

consequences of building and operating 

a major capital investment in the 

Tucson Urban Corridor in advance of 

any decisions to commit substantial 

financial or other resources towards its 

implementation. The EIS will explore 

the extent to which study alternatives 

and alignment options result in 

environmental impacts and will discuss 

actions to reduce or eliminate such 

impacts. 

Environmental issues to be examined 

in the EIS include: Potential changes to 

the physical environment (natural 

resources, air quality, noise, water 

quality, geology, visual); changes in the 

social environment (land use, 

development, business and 

neighborhood disruptions); changes in 

traffic bicycle, and pedestrian 

circulation; changes in transit service 

and patronage; associated changes in 

traffic congestion; and impacts on 

parklands and historic sites. Impacts 

will be identified both for the 

construction period and for the longterm operation of the alternatives. The 

proposed evaluation criteria include 

transportation, social, economic, and 

financial measures, as required by 

current federal (NEPA) environmental 

laws and the implementing regulations 

of the Council on Environmental 

Quality and of FTA. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action will be 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the EIS should be 

directed to the City of Tucson, 

Department of Transportation, Manager 

as noted in the ADDRESSES section 

above. 

V. FTA Procedures 

To streamline the NEPA process and 

to avoid duplication of effort, the 

agencies involved in the scoping 

process will consider the results of any 

previous planning studies or financial 

feasibility studies prepared in support 

of a decision by the Pima Association of 

Governments (PAG) to include a 

particular alternative in the RTP for 

metropolitan Tucson. Prior 

transportation planning studies may be 

pertinent to establishing the purpose 

and need for the proposed action and 

the range of alternatives to be evaluated 

in detail in the AA/EIS. Depending on 

the outcome of the scoping process and 

the analysis of a wide range of transit 

alternatives, a Locally Preferred 

Alternative (LPA) will be selected and 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS 

will be prepared simultaneously with 

conceptual engineering for the 

alternatives, including station and 

alignment options. The Draft EIS 

process will address the potential use of 

federal funds for the proposed action, as 

well as assess the social, economic, and 

environmental impacts of the station 

and alignment alternatives. Station 

designs and any alignment options will 

be refined to minimize and mitigate any 

adverse impacts. 

After publication, the Draft EIS will 

be available for public and agency 

review and comment, and a public 

76520 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 

hearing will be held. Based on the Draft 

EIS and comments received, the LPA 

may be refined, and the City of Tucson 

will further assess the LPA in the Final 

EIS and will apply for FTA approval to 

initiate Preliminary Engineering of the 

LPA.

Issued on: December 15, 2004. 

Leslie T. Rogers, 

Region IX Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–27899 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18755; Notice 2] 

Coupled Products, Inc., Denial of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Coupled Products, Inc. (Coupled 

Products) has determined that certain 

hydraulic brake hose assemblies that it 

produced do not comply with S5.3.4 of 

49 CFR 571.106, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, 

‘‘Brake hoses.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h), Coupled 

Products has petitioned for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of 

Coupled Products’ petition was 

published, with a 30 day comment 

period, on August 5, 2004, in the 

Federal Register (69 FR 47484). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 106, tensile 

strength, requires that ‘‘a hydraulic 

brake hose assembly shall withstand a 

pull of 325 pounds without separation 

of the hose from its end fittings.’’ A total 

of approximately 24,622 brake hose 

assemblies, consisting of 3,092 

assemblies bearing Part Number 5478 

and 21,530 assemblies bearing Part 

Number 5480 may not comply with 

S5.3.4. The potentially affected hoses 

were manufactured using a ‘‘straight 

cup’’ procedure rather than the 

appropriate ‘‘step cup’’ procedure. 

Compliance testing by the petitioner of 

eight sample hose assemblies from two 

separate manufacturing lots of these 

hoses revealed that seven of the eight 

samples experienced hose separation 

from the end fittings at from 224 to 317 

pounds. 

Coupled Products believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Coupled 

Products stated in its petition:

Both Part Numbers 5478 and 5480 are 

utilized in specific boat trailer applications of 

a single trailer manufacturer.* * * [T]he 

routing and placement of the hoses on the 

particular boat trailers involved, and the 

shielded nature of the end fittings on those 

trailers are such that a linear, end-to-end 

‘‘straight pull’’ on the hose assembly, such as 

that specified in the FMVSS No. 106 tensile 

strength test procedure, is unlikely to occur 

in real-world use. Because of the manner in 

which these hose assemblies are installed, 

rather than a ‘‘straight pull,’’ it is more likely 

that the free length of the hose itself could 

be entangled or caught on a piece of road 

debris or other obstruction, resulting in a 

‘‘side pull’’ on the assembly. With this 

potential in mind, [Coupled Products] 

conducted a side pull tensile test on a sample 

of the subject brake hose assemblies to 

simulate the possible effect of a side pull on 

the integrity of the assembly. This was 

accomplished by creating special mounting 

fixtures and apparatus to the standard testing 

equipment.* * * The ‘‘side pull’’ test results 

show that the tensile load achieved prior to 

the ends separating from the hose exceeded 

530 pounds in each of the five samples 

tested—well in excess of the 325 pound 

requirement.

Coupled Products further stated:

We believe that it is likely that in order for 

such a [side] pull to occur, the debris or 

obstacle in question would need to be of such 

size and/or weight that its encounter with the 

trailer would result in significant structural 

impact and thus have immediate effect on the 

operation of the trailer. While we have not 

been able to devise a test that would verify 

this theory, we believe that this is a realistic 

scenario. As a result, it seems likely that the 

trailer would likely incur an operational 

impact even before the possible loss of 

braking capability resulting from hose 

assembly failure. 

The axles used in the trailers in question 

are stationary. Unlike sliding axles that are 

used in some trailers, the axles used in these 

trailers are in a fixed location. Consequently, 

the possibility that the sliding movement of 

the axle might result in unintended pull on 

the hose is remote.* * * 

Because the braking system on the trailer 

is independent of the towing vehicle’s 

braking system, any failure of the hose 

assembly due to excessive tensile force—

unlikely as that may be—will not result in a 

loss of braking capability of the towing 

vehicle. Thus, in the unlikely event of 

separation, the driver would still retain full 

braking capability of the towing vehicle and 

would be able to stop the vehicle (although 

additional stopping distance may be required 

depending on the type of vehicle being used).

In support of its petition, Coupled 

Products stated that NHTSA has in 

other cases, determined that a FMVSS 

No. 106 noncompliance is 

inconsequential to safety where, 

‘‘because of the specific vehicle 

application involved, the hose assembly 

will not be subject to the type of forces 

specified in the standard.’’ To support 

this assertion, Coupled Products cited 

two inconsequential petition grants: 

General Motors, 57 FR 1511 (January 14, 

1992) and Mitsubishi Motors America, 

57 FR 45868 (October 5, 1992). The 

petitioner specifically referred to the 

statement in these petition grants that 

the ‘‘end use of the hoses was such that 

they were subject to pressure, not 

vacuum applications.’’

NHTSA has reviewed the petition and 

has determined that the noncompliance 

is not inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. The two prior inconsequentiality 

petition grants cited by the petitioner 

relate to the adhesion requirement for 

air brake hoses, which addresses the 

separation of the inner layers of the 

brake hose. This is distinguishable from 

the noncompliance in Coupled 

Products’ hoses, which relates to the 

tensile strength requirement for 

hydraulic brake hoses, and addresses 

the separation of the hydraulic brake 

hose from the end fittings. Therefore, 

NHTSA’s grant of the petitions cited by 

Coupled Products is not persuasive 

precedent. 

The petitioner states that because of 

the specific vehicle application 

involved, (i.e., the hoses are used in 

specific boat trailer applications of a 

single trailer manufacturer), the hoses 

are installed in such a manner as to 

make it unlikely that the hose assembly 

would be subject to the type of forces to 

which the tensile strength test is 

directed. However, this is also true of 

many automobile brake hose 

applications. 

In addition, the tensile strength test is 

a worst case test, subjecting the crimped 

joint to a separation pull. The purpose 

of the tensile strength test is to test only 

the crimped area in a brake hose. A test 

conducted at an angle to the end fitting 

centerline, such as conducted by the 

petitioner, would not measure the 

strength of the crimped area by itself but 

also the interaction of the end fitting 

with the interior wall of the brake hose. 

This would result in a more lenient test 

for the crimped area. 

The petitioner also asserts that 

because the braking system on the 

trailer is independent of the towing 

vehicle’s braking system, a failure of the 

hose assembly on the trailer would not 

result in a loss of braking capability of 

the towing vehicle, and the driver 

would be able to stop both vehicles. 

However, in the event that the failure of 

the hose assembly occurred, the driver 

of the towing vehicle would be faced 

with a potentially serious safety 

situation due to the reduced stopping 

capability of the vehicle combination. In