11084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Notices 

size tire at 2,180 kg (4,805 pounds) for 

the load range F tires mounted on 15 

degree drop center rims, whereas the GB 

9744 document lists the value of the 

maximum load rating at 2,160 kg (4,752 

pounds), according to the petitioner, or 

20 kg pounds less than the TRA value. 

The petition states that the two 

subject tire sizes are used in the 

intermodal transportation industry on 

dual axle, dual wheel (8 tires and rims) 

trailers and container chassis with a 

total load rating for the two axles of 

15,455 kg (34,000 pounds). Based on the 

maximum tire load rating, the TRA 

maximum load capacity for eight 10–20 

or 11–22.5 bias ply, load range F tires 

is 17,436 kg (38,440 pounds) and the 

maximum load capacity for eight similar 

tires based on the GB 9744 data 

obtained from the petitioner is 17,280 kg 

(38,016 pounds). Both load capacities 

are, according to the petitioner, well 

above the maximum allowable load 

limit (34,000 pounds) for the intermodal 

trailers and container chassis. The 

petitioner further stated that the small 

difference in maximum load rating 

between the GB 9744 and the TRA 

specifications is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

FMVSS No. 119 establishes the safety 

performance requirements for tires used 

on vehicles other than passenger cars. 

The requirements for tire endurance, 

strength, high speed performance, 

treadwear indicators, and tire markings 

are specified in paragraph S6 of the 

standard and are tested in accordance 

with the conditions and procedures 

specified in paragraph S7. 

Paragraph S5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 119 

lists the publications that may be used 

by tire manufacturers for rim matching, 

tire size, and maximum tire load rating 

with corresponding inflation pressure. 

Paragraph S6.6, Maximum load rating, 

requires that the maximum load rating 

labeled on a tire in accordance with 

paragraph S6.5, Tire markings, meet or 

exceed the lowest load rating value 

specified in the publications listed in 

Section 5.1(b) for that tire size. 

B. Discussion 

FMVSS No. 119 allows tire 

manufacturers to use any one of the 

seven publications in S5.1(b) to obtain 

rim, and tire load and inflation pressure 

information for the labeling 

requirements of paragraph S6.5. 

The petitioner provided one page of 

the GB 9744 publication, which 

included one of the two bias ply tire 

sizes discussed in the petition. The 

agency does not recognize specifications 

for one or two tire sizes from a technical 

reference year book, but would consider 

recognition of an entire standardization 

publication. 

If the organization that publishes GB 

9744 would like its publication to be 

considered for inclusion in the list of 

publications in FMVSS No. 119, 

paragraph S5.1(b), that organization is 

invited to submit information to 

NHTSA. The type of information 

contained in these publications includes 

its membership, objectives, and the 

organizations that provide technical 

support, in addition to its tire and rim 

specifications. PCR submitted a petition 

for rulemaking requesting that GB 9744 

maximum tire load ratings for two tire 

sizes be accepted by NHTSA. However, 

PCR did not indicate whether it had any 

communication with the organization 

that publishes GB 9744 prior to 

submitting the petition. NHTSA does 

not consider recognizing tire 

standardization organizations upon the 

request of tire distributors. 

The petitioner believes that the 

agency is accepting tire markings 

(paragraph S6.5, Tire markings) from 

sources that are not on the list in 

paragraph S5.1(b). The agency does not 

accept tire maximum load ratings that 

do not comply with the requirements in 

paragraph S6.6, which state that the 

maximum load rating for a particular 

tire size must be equal to or greater than 

the lowest maximum load rating for that 

tire size published in the list of 

technical reference year books in 

paragraph S5.1(b). 

C. Agency Determination 

After review of the tire specifications 

from the sources listed in FMVSS No. 

119, the Scandinavian Tire and Rim 

Technical Organization publication has 

the lowest values for the maximum load 

rating of the 10–20 size tire with 2,305 

kg (5,071 pounds) for the single 

application rating and 2,120 kg (4,664 

pounds) for the dual rating. The GB 

9744 values for the maximum load 

rating for 10–20 bias ply tire, load range 

F, 2,465 kg (5,434 pounds) for the single 

rating and 2,160 kg (4,752 pounds) for 

the dual rating, are greater than the 

values specified in the Scandinavian 

Tire and Rim Technical Organization 

publication for that size tire. Tire 

manufacturers may label the 10–20 size 

tires with the GB 9744 value for the 

rated maximum load without violating 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, 

S6.6 Maximum load rating. Therefore, 

PCR’s petition is moot with regard to the 

10–20 tire size. 

The Tire and Rim Association value 

for maximum load rating is the lowest 

value for 11–22.5 size tires 2,180 kg 

(4,805 pounds) specified in the 

publications listed in paragraph S5.1(b) 

of FMVSS No. 119. The documents 

forwarded to the agency by the 

petitioner do not include maximum 

load data for the 11–22.5 tire size, but 

NHTSA was informed by the petitioner 

that the 11–22.5 tire size has the same 

maximum load rating as the 10–20 tire 

size. Therefore, labeling an 11–22.5 size 

tire with the GB 9744 value for 

maximum load rating would not comply 

with the standard as currently written. 

The PCR petition with respect to the 

11–22.5 size tires is denied because the 

agency does not consider adding 

specifications for a single tire size to the 

accepted reference documents in 

paragraph S5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 119. 

Issued: March 6, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–4301 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration Office of 

Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of 

Delays in Processing of Special Permit 

Applications 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: List of Applications Delayed 

more than 180 days. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), 

PHMSA is publishing the following list 

of special permit applications that have 

been in process for 180 days or more. 

The reason(s) for delay and the expected 

completion date for action on each 

application is provided in association 

with each identified application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Mazzullo, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 

366–4535. 

Key to ‘‘Reason for Delay’’

1. Awaiting additional information 

from applicant. 

2. Extensive public comment under 

review. 

3. Application is technically complex 

and is of significant impact or 

precedent-setting and requires extensive 

analysis. 

4. Staff review delayed by other 

priority issues or volume special permit 

applications. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Notices 11085 

1Congressional Budget Office Report, Freight Rail 

Transportation: Long-Term Issues, at 4–5 (January 

2006). 

2 Id. at 6, citing, Federal Highway Administration, 

Freight Analysis Framework (October 2002). 

Meaning of Application Number 

Suffixes 

N—New application 

M—Modification request 

X—Renewal 

PM—Party to application with 

modification request 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 

2007. 

Delmer F. Billings, 

Director, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Safety, Special Permits & Approvals. 

Application No. Applicant Reason for 

delay 

Estimated 

date of 

completion 

New Special Permit Applications 

14314–N ........... North American Automotive Hazmat Action Committee .......................................................... 1 07–31–2007 

14330–N ........... Chemical & Metal Industries, Inc., Hudson, Co ....................................................................... 4 03–31–2007 

14343–N ........... Valero St. Charles, Norco, LA .................................................................................................. 1 04–30–2007 

14385–N ........... Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Kansas City, MO ................................................... 4 03–31–2007 

14397–N ........... UltraCell Corporation, Livermore, CA ....................................................................................... 1 03–31–2007 

14402–N ........... Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE .............................................................................................. 1 12–31–2007 

14398–N ........... Lyondell Chemical Company, Houston, TX ............................................................................. 4 03–31–2007 

Modification to Special Permits 

10481–M ........... M–Engineering Limited, Bradford, West Yorkshire .................................................................. 4 03–31–2007 

11447–M ........... SAES Pure Gas, Inc., San Louis Obispo, CA .......................................................................... 4 03–31–2007 

[FR Doc. 07–1130 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 671] 

Rail Capacity and Infrastructure 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board will hold a public hearing 

beginning at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 

April 11, 2007, at its new offices in 

Washington, DC. The purpose of the 

public hearing will be to examine issues 

related to rail traffic forecasts and 

infrastructure requirements. Persons 

wishing to speak at the hearing should 

notify the Board in writing. 

DATES: The public hearing will take 

place on Wednesday, April 11, 2007. 

Any person wishing to speak at the 

hearing should file with the Board a 

written notice of intent to participate, 

and should identify the party, the 

proposed speaker, the time requested, 

and the topic(s) to be covered, as soon 

as possible but no later than March 21, 

2007. Each speaker should also file with 

the Board his/her written testimony by 

April 4, 2007. Written submissions by 

interested persons who do not wish to 

appear at the hearing will also be due 

by April 4, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: All notices of intent to 

participate and testimony may be 

submitted either via the Board’s e-filing 

format or in the traditional paper 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

comply with the Board’s http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov Web site, at the ‘‘EFILING’’ link. Any person submitting a 

filing in the traditional paper format 

should send an original and 10 copies 

of the filing to: Surface Transportation 

Board, Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 671, 395 

E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 245–0395. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 

(800) 877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In recent 

years, there has been growing 

recognition that rail capacity in the 

United States has become constrained. 

Those capacity constraints come at the 

same time as many forecasts predict that 

rail freight demands will continue to 

grow over the next twenty years. 

Railroads experienced a more than 50% 

increase in traffic from 1990 to 2003, 

and traffic is projected to continue to 

increase as the economy grows.1 Some 

forecasters predict that multimodal 

freight tonnage in the United States will 

rise by nearly 70% between 1998 and 

2020.2 The convergence of increased 

demand with constrained capacity has 

highlighted the need to address what 

further infrastructure investment will be 

required to meet these demands. While 

some railroads have announced 

significant infrastructure investment 

plans, some observers have questioned 

whether that investment alone will be 

sufficient to meet the rail transport 

needs of a growing economy. 

In regulating the railroad industry, the 

Board is called upon, among other 

things, to ensure the development and 

continuation of a sound rail 

transportation system with effective 

competition and coordination between 

rail carriers and other modes. Pursuant 

to that objective, the Board will hold a 

public hearing as a forum for interested 

persons to provide views and 

information about: Freight traffic 

forecasts; the extent of the capacity 

constraints and the ability of the 

railroads to meet the rising demand; the 

infrastructure investment needed to 

ensure that the Nation’s freight rail 

system continues to operate in an 

efficient and reliable manner; possible 

solutions to the challenges presented by 

growing rail traffic and limited capacity; 

and the potential role of public-private 

partnerships and innovative financing 

tools in meeting these challenges. We 

look forward to hearing from all parties 

affected by these issues, including 

carriers, shippers, port administrators, 

state entities and federal agencies. 

Date of Hearing. The hearing will 

begin at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, April 11, 

2007, in the 1st floor hearing room at 

the Board’s new headquarters at 395 E 

Street, SW., in Washington, DC, and 

will continue, with short breaks if 

necessary, until every person scheduled 

to speak has been heard. 

Notice of Intent To Participate. Any 

person wishing to speak at the hearing 

should file with the Board a written 

notice of intent to participate, and 

should identify the party, the proposed 

speaker, the time requested, and topic(s) 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES