3904 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 17 / Friday, January 26, 2007 / Notices 

1The nine motor carriers who cosigned the Road 

Safe America petition are Schneider National, Inc., 

C.R. England, Inc., H.O. Wolding, Inc., ATS 

Intermodal, LLC, Dart Transit Company, J.B. Hunt 

Transport, Inc., U.S. Xpress, Inc., Convenant 

Transport, Inc., and Jet Express, Inc. 

the amount to be transferred. The form 

must be approved by the applicable 

State Department of Transportation and 

concurred on by the correlating FHWA 

Division Office. 

Respondents: 50 State Transportation 

Departments, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico. 

Frequency: As Needed. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: 30 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: It is estimated that a total of 600 

responses will be received annually, 

which would equal a total annual 

burden of 300 hours. 

Electronic Access: Internet users may 

access all comments received by the 

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, by 

using the universal resource locator 

(URL): http://dms.dot.gov, 24 hours 

each day, 365 days each year. Please 

follow the instructions online for more 

information and help. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 

and 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued on: January 23, 2007. 

James R. Kabel, 

Chief, Management Programs and Analysis 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E7–1030 Filed 1–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–26851] 

Motor Vehicle and Carrier Safety 

Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA and FMCSA solicit 

comments on separate, but similar 

petitions for rulemaking from the 

American Trucking Associations (ATA) 

and Road Safe America and a group of 

nine motor carriers, to require devices 

that would limit the speed of certain 

trucks and to prohibit owners and 

operators from adjusting the speed 

limiting devices. The agencies are 

soliciting public comments to 

supplement a review of the material 

presented by the petitioners, along with 

an evaluation of data or other relevant 

information the agencies may already 

have, in conducting a technical review 

of the petitions. After considering the 

technical review, and taking into 

account appropriate factors, the NHTSA 

Administrator will make a decision 

whether to grant or deny either or both 

of these petitions. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them not 

later than March 27, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments in writing to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Alternatively, you may submit 

your comments electronically by logging 

onto the Docket Management System 

Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help & Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to 

view instructions for filing your 

comments electronically. Regardless of 

how you submit your comments, you 

should mention the docket number of 

this document. 

You may call the Docket at 202–366–

9324. You may visit the Docket from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except for Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration at (202) 366–2720 or by 

FAX at (202) 366–7002, or Mr. Mike 

Huntley of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration at (202) 366–4009 

or by FAX at (202) 366–8842. 

You may send mail to either of these 

officials in care of their respective 

agencies at 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

American Trucking Associations 

(ATA) Petition. On October 20, 2006, 

the ATA submitted a petition to 

NHTSA, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.3, to 

initiate a rulemaking to amend the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) to require vehicle 

manufacturers to install a device 

limiting the speed of trucks with a Gross 

Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 

greater than 26,000 pounds to no more 

than 68 miles per hour (mph). 

Concurrently, the ATA petitioned 

FMCSA, pursuant to 49 CFR 389.31, to 

initiate a rulemaking to amend the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSR) to prohibit owners 

and operators from adjusting the speed 

limiting devices in affected vehicles in 

a way that enables the vehicles to 

exceed a speed of 68 mph. 

The ATA contends that reducing 

speed-related crashes involving trucks is 

critical to the safety mission of both 

NHTSA and FMCSA, and that these 

new requirements are necessary in order 

to reduce the number and severity of 

crashes involving large trucks. ATA’s 

petition states: 

A lack of focus on speed as a causal or 

significant contributing factor in crashes 

involving large trucks represents a significant 

gap in the federal government’s truck safety 

strategy. While much of the federal truck 

safety budget has focused on ensuring the 

safe condition of equipment, on driver 

fatigue, and on prevention of impaired 

driving, it is clear from the research that 

speeding is a more significant factor in 

crashes involving trucks than any of the 

factors that currently receive the largest 

proportion of agency attention and resources. 

The ‘‘Justification’’ section of ATA’s 

petition also states: 

ATA analyzed five years of fatal truckinvolved crash data. We found that in 20 

percent of truck-involved crashes where 

speeding on the part of the truck driver was 

cited as a factor in the crash, and the truck’s 

speed was recorded, the speed of the truck 

exceeded 68 mph. However, because the 

truck’s speed is reported by investigating 

officers in only about half of truck-involved 

fatal crashes, it is impossible to determine 

the actual number of potential crashes that 

might be avoided by limiting top truck speed 

to 68 mph. However, reasonable assumptions 

can be made and ATA believes the number 

of fatal crashes that could be avoided is 

significant. 

The ATA stated in its petition that 

reducing the speed of trucks will likely 

reduce both the number and severity of 

crashes, although ATA did not quantify 

injury or fatality reduction benefits. The ATA 

also stated that the reduced number of 

crashes, resulting from the lower speed for 

trucks, will reduce congestion costs when 

considering the lost productivity that occurs 

when vehicles have been disabled in a crash 

or delayed at a crash site. 

According to the ATA, there will be little 

or no cost increase for trucks and truck 

tractors associated with the speed limiting 

devices since they are already installed on 

these vehicles during manufacture. Also, the 

ATA contends that the cost to carriers for the 

increase in time required to complete a 

delivery will be off-set by savings in fuel 

consumption, fewer crashes, and less 

equipment wear. 

The ATA petition may be accessed on-line 

through the Department of Transportation’s 

Docket Management System at the following 

Web address: http://dms.dot.gov, at the 

docket number cited in the heading of this 

document. 

Road Safe America Petition. On September 

8, 2006, Road Safe America, a public safety 

interest group, and a group of nine motor 

carriers 1 petitioned FMCSA to amend the 

FMCSRs to require (1) Electronic speed 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 17 / Friday, January 26, 2007 / Notices 3905 

2FARS data may be accessed at http://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/. 3The LTCCS data can be downloaded at http:// 

ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/ltccs/. 

governors on all trucks with a GVWR over 

26,000 pounds, (2) that these electronic 

speed governors be set at not more than 68 

mph, and (3) that all trucks manufactured 

after 1990 be equipped with such electronic 

speed governors. The Road Safe America 

petition stated that the proposal to limit truck 

speed to 68 mph would reduce the number 

of truck collisions and save lives. According 

to Road Safe America, limiting truck speed 

to 68 mph will have an immediate and 

uniform impact with little or no detrimental 

effect on the lawful operation of commercial 

motor vehicles (CMV). 

The Road Safe America petition 

states: 

Sixty eight miles per hour is the correct 

maximum speed setting. This is the speed 

setting promoted by the American Trucking 

Associations. It allows truck traffic to 

maintain flow without reaching dangerously 

high speeds. It is estimated that over 50% of 

commercial trucks in operation today are 

voluntarily governed through the engine 

electronic control modules at speeds not 

exceeding 70 mph. Many companies, 

including the motor carrier Petitioners, have 

adopted speed governing policies at or below 

65 mph. No studies suggest that the adoption 

of speed governed limitations below 70 mph 

have in any way detracted from truck safety. 

On the contrary, it has been the experience 

of those Petitioners that governed speed in 

this range reduces accident frequency. 

It is noted that NHTSA, and not 

FMCSA, is the agency within the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

that is responsible for developing and 

issuing FMVSSs that establish the 

minimum safety requirements that every 

new motor vehicle sold in the United 

States must meet. If, as a result of the 

ATA and Road Safe America petitions, 

a rulemaking proceeding is conducted 

that ultimately establishes requirements 

to equip trucks with electronic speed 

governors as requested, FMCSA would 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 

amend the FMCSRs as necessary to 

ensure that trucks are equipped and 

maintained with a speed governor 

meeting the requirements specified in 

the applicable FMVSS. 

As the ATA and Road Safe America 

petitions address substantively identical 

issues, and given that NHTSA has been 

delegated the authority to both (1) 

Establish regulations for newly 

manufactured motor vehicles, and (2) if 

deemed appropriate, require existing 

CMV to be retrofitted with equipment if 

such equipment is based upon or 

similar to an FMVSS, the Road Safe 

America petition has been placed in the 

same docket as the ATA petition. 

NHTSA and FMCSA will work together 

to address both petitions concurrently. 

Large Truck Crash Data 

In general, the number of large trucks 

(GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) 

involved in fatal and injury crashes has 

remained relatively steady from 1995 to 

2005, and the corresponding 

involvement rates (rate per 100,000 

registered vehicles and rate per 100 

million vehicle miles traveled), have 

steadily decreased during that time 

period. In the latest data available, the 

vehicle involvement rates for large 

trucks involved in fatal crashes in 2004 

were near the record lows established in 

2002, and the vehicle involvement rates 

for large trucks involved in injury 

crashes established new lows by a 

significant margin. 

Specifically, in 2005, 442,000 large 

trucks (GVWR greater than 10,000 

pounds) were involved in traffic crashes 

in the United States, of which 4,932 

were involved in fatal crashes. A total 

of 5,212 people died (12 percent of all 

the traffic fatalities reported in 2005), 

and an additional 114,000 were injured 

in those crashes. In 2005, large trucks 

accounted for 8 percent of all vehicles 

involved in fatal crashes and 4 percent 

of all vehicles involved in injury and 

property-damage-only crashes. In 2004, 

large trucks accounted for 3 percent of 

all registered vehicles and 8 percent of 

total vehicle miles traveled (2005 

registered vehicle and vehicle miles 

traveled data are not available). 

No motor vehicle crash database in 

the U.S. focuses on the causes of, or the 

factors related to, large truck crashes. 

The primary national traffic safety 

databases all contain descriptive data 

primarily collected from police crash 

reports. NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) includes 

descriptive data on vehicles, drivers, 

roadways, and environmental 

conditions collected from police reports, 

emergency medical service reports, 

hospital records, and coroner’s reports.2

The Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents 

(TIFA) database from the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute supplements FARS data with 

additional data from interviews with 

police, drivers, and motor carriers. 

NHTSA’s General Estimates System 

(GES) is a probability-based, nationally 

representative sample of all policereported fatal, injury, and propertydamage-only crashes, which collects 

descriptive data based exclusively on 

police crash reports. FMCSA’s Motor 

Carrier Management Information System 

includes a limited amount of descriptive 

data on all trucks and buses involved in 

fatal, injury, or tow-away crashes, 

reported by the States from their police 

reports, and is used primarily for 

enforcement purposes. 

With respect to the issue of speed in 

large truck crashes, the 2004 FARS data 

indicate that ‘‘driving too fast for 

conditions or in excess of the posted 

speed limit’’ was listed as a driverrelated factor in 8.1 percent of all fatal 

crashes involving large trucks (505 of 

4,799 total crashes). According to the 

2004 FARS data, driving too fast for 

conditions or in excess of the posted 

speed limit trailed only ‘‘not in lane’’

(noted in 10.5 percent of all fatal 

crashes) in the list of truck driverrelated factors recorded in fatal large 

truck crashes. Importantly, driverrelated factors were only recorded in 

39.4 percent of the large truck fatal 

crashes in the 2004 FARS data; no 

driver-related factors were recorded in 

the remaining 60.6 percent of large truck 

fatal crashes. 

Given the shortcomings regarding the 

causes of, or the factors related to, large 

truck crashes as described above, the 

Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 

of 1999 (MCSIA), P.L. 106–159, 

mandated a study to determine the 

causes of, and contributing factors to, 

crashes involving CMVs. In response, 

FMCSA and NHTSA conducted a 

multiyear, nationwide study that 

contains the same type of descriptive 

data as the primary national traffic 

safety databases described above, but 

also focuses on pre-crash factors such as 

driver fatigue and distraction, vehicle 

condition, weather, and roadway 

problems. As a result, the Large-Truck 

Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) is a 

comprehensive national examination of 

all factors related to causation in large 

truck crashes.3

A nationally representative sample of 

large-truck fatal and injury crashes was 

investigated during 2001 to 2003, at 24 

sites in 17 States. Each crash involved 

at least one large truck and resulted in 

at least one fatality or injury. Data were 

collected on up to 1,000 elements in 

each crash. The total sample involved 

967 crashes, which included 1,127 large 

trucks, 959 non-truck motor vehicles, 

251 fatalities, and 1,408 injuries. 

The data collected by the LTCCS 

provide detailed descriptions about the 

crash environment (i.e., weather, road 

conditions, lighting conditions), 

vehicles involved in the crash (i.e., 

vehicle type, weight, cargo type, brakes, 

air bag status), and drivers (i.e., driving 

record, fatigue, sleep patterns, restraint 

use), as well as information about 

passengers and nonmotorists involved 

in the large-truck crashes. Key factors 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
3906 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 17 / Friday, January 26, 2007 / Notices 

4The Report to Congress has been placed in the 

docket. 

that led to the crash were recorded to 

assist researchers in measuring 

associations between certain crash types 

and the events that led to the crashes. 

The coding of the events surrounding 

the crash begins with the ‘‘critical 

event,’’ ‘‘critical reason’’ for the critical 

event, and ‘‘associated factors’’ present. 

Associated factors include any of 

approximately 1,000 conditions or 

circumstances present at the time of the 

crash, and were selected from a broad 

range of factors thought to contribute to 

crash risk. Specifically with respect to 

the issue of speed, ‘‘traveling too fast for 

conditions’’ was the second-most coded 

associated factor in all truck crashes, 

having been coded in 22.9 percent of all 

crashes. 

The LTCCS contains a large amount of 

descriptive data, and additional analysis 

must be conducted in order to identify 

specific crash risk factors. The LTCCS 

has been made electronically available 

to the public so that organizations and 

individuals will have access to it in 

order to conduct analyses that are of 

special interest to them. NHTSA and 

FMCSA believe that analysis of these 

data by government agencies, 

universities, private groups, and 

individuals will increase the total truck 

crash factors knowledge base. 

Report to Congress on Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices 

Section 9108 of the Truck and Bus 

Regulatory Reform Act of 1988, Public 

Law 101–690, dated November 18, 1988, 

required: 

‘‘The Secretary shall conduct a study on 

whether or not devices which control the 

speed of commercial motor vehicles enhance 

safe operation of such vehicles * * * (and) 

* * * not later than thirty months after the 

date of enactment of this Act, * * * shall 

submit to Congress a report on the results of 

the study * * * together with 

recommendations * * * on whether or not to 

make the use of speed control devices 

mandatory for commercial motor vehicles.’’

In response, NHTSA published a 

Report to Congress titled ‘‘Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Speed Control Safety,’’

(DOT HS 807 725; May 10, 1991).4 This 

report reviewed the problem of heavy 

vehicle speeding (in particular, at 

speeds greater than 65 mph) and 

speeding-related crash involvements. 

The report described and assessed 

devices available to control truck speed, 

and addressed the mandatory use of 

speed control devices by heavy trucks. 

The report found that, by all measures 

of crash involvement, speeding was not 

a significant factor in the crashes 

involving single-unit trucks. Thus, most 

of the report addressed combinationunit trucks, which present a more 

complex picture. 

The report found that non-detectable 

radar studies show that highway speed 

limit compliance by combination-unit 

trucks was poor, but better than that of 

passenger vehicles. In that study, most 

trucks that were speeding traveled at 

just over the posted speed limit. Crash 

statistics indicated that speeding was 

generally less involved in combinationunit truck crashes than it was in 

passenger vehicle crashes. The report 

described devices available to control 

truck speed, and ways that they were 

applied in commercial fleet settings. 

The report was supportive of fleet 

applications of speed-monitoring and 

speed-limiting devices, but concluded 

that there was not sufficient justification 

to consider requiring all heavy trucks to 

be so equipped. Problem size statistics 

suggested that the number of target 

crashes was low, e.g., approximately 30 

fatal crash involvements per year for 

combination-unit trucks. This small 

crash problem size, together with 

uncertainties regarding the potential for 

crash reduction, suggested that the 

benefits of mandatory speed limitation 

were questionable. 

The report also noted that an 

important caveat related to all speedingrelated crash statistics cited in the 

report was that the categorization 

‘‘speeding-related’’ or ‘‘high-speed 

related’’ did not necessarily assure that 

speeding was the primary cause of the 

crash or any resulting fatalities. 

Virtually all crashes involve multiple 

contributing factors. The elimination of 

any one factor—e.g., high speed—may 

or may not prevent the crash. Thus, the 

speeding-related and high-speed-related 

crashes identified in the report should 

actually be viewed as potential target 

crashes for speed control devices. 

Although speed control devices (if not 

tampered with) are likely to reduce the 

highway speeds of those trucks that do 

speed, their effectiveness in preventing 

and/or reducing the severity of these 

potential target crashes is unknown. 

Request for Comments 

In order to supplement the 

information provided by ATA and Road 

Safe America in support of the petitions 

for rulemaking, and the data and 

relevant information that is already 

available to the agencies regarding 

speed limiters, NHTSA and FMCSA are 

requesting public comments on the 

issue presented in the petitions. NHTSA 

and FMCSA will use this collective 

information in the development of the 

technical review that will serve as the 

basis for determining whether to grant 

or deny either or both of the petitions. 

Currently, vehicle speed limits are 

established by the State and local 

governments, and enforced by 

monitoring the speed of the vehicles on 

the highways. Specific questions are 

presented below: 

1. NHTSA and FMCSA are aware that 

several motor carriers already 

voluntarily equip their fleets with 

devices that limit the maximum speed 

of trucks. What different types of speedlimiting technology are currently being 

used, and what are the costs associated 

with installing and maintaining these 

devices? Should the Federal government 

require that trucks with a GVWR 

exceeding 26,000 pounds be equipped 

with devices that would limit the speed 

of those trucks to not more than 68 

mph? What has been the experience of 

truck fleets with the use of speedlimiting devices? What speed settings 

are used by these truck fleets? To what 

extent are these speed-limiting devices 

tamper resistant? How reliable are the 

speed limiting devices currently in use? 

Have there been durability or accuracy 

problems? Where possible, please 

quantify the impact on crash 

involvement with data comparing the 

crash experience (number of crashes, 

number of fatalities, amount of property 

damage, or other crash statistics) before 

the speed-limiting devices were 

installed with the crash experience after 

the devices were installed. Also, what 

has been the impact of these speed 

limiting devices on truck engine 

emissions, fuel efficiency, and tire life? 

2. The 1991 Report to Congress 

concluded that the safety or crash 

reduction benefits that might be 

obtained from truck speed limiting 

devices were not sufficient to justify 

mandating the devices. The conclusion 

was based on the determination that 

speed-limiting devices would have no 

effect on vehicle speed or crash 

likelihood at travel speeds below their 

set speed (e.g., 70 mph); the vast 

majority of truck crashes occur on 

roadways with a speed limit of 65 mph 

or less; police crash report data indicate 

that very few truck crashes (about 0.2 

percent) occur at estimated truck travel 

speeds in excess of 70 mph; and the 

report also concluded that speedlimiting devices can effectively limit 

truck speed but may not be tamperproof. Are the data and associated 

findings of the 1991 Report to Congress 

on the same subjects still valid? Are 

there any other studies on the 

effectiveness of truck speed-limiting 

devices, which were conducted since 

the 1991 Report to Congress? 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 17 / Friday, January 26, 2007 / Notices 3907 

3. Are alternative approaches (i.e., 

public information and education 

programs, increased speed enforcement, 

driver licensing programs) available, 

and if implemented, have these 

alternative approaches improved 

highway speed limit compliance? Have 

these alternatives reduced the number 

or severity of truck crash events? 

4. ATA stated in its petition that ‘‘it 

is impossible to determine the actual 

number of potential crashes that might 

be avoided by limiting top truck speed 

to 68 mph.’’ The ATA further stated that 

‘‘reasonable assumptions can be made to 

show that the number of crashes that 

could be avoided is significant.’’ What 

assumptions can be made to estimate 

the number of potential crashes that 

might be avoided or mitigated by 

limiting truck speeds to 68 mph? 

5. What impact will limiting truck 

speeds to 68 mph across the U.S. have 

on truck crash involvement (number of 

crashes, number of fatalities, amount of 

property damage, or other crash 

parameters)? Are there potential safety 

implications regarding the increased 

speed differentials between heavy 

trucks and light vehicles using the same 

roadways? 

6. The ATA petition stated that 

limiting the speed of trucks to 68 mph 

may have a small negative impact on 

driver’s wages in the ‘‘long-haul truck 

load sector.’’ What is the anticipated 

‘‘long-haul truck load sector’’ driver 

wage impact associated with limiting 

the speed of trucks to 68 mph and the 

wage impact for drivers in other sectors 

of the truck transportation industry? 

What vehicle operating cost impact 

would a truck speed limit of 68 mph 

have on companies in the truck 

transportation industry? The Road Safe 

America petition contained a proposal 

that speed limiters be retrofitted on all 

trucks manufactured after 1990. What 

are the cost and practicability 

implications of retrofitting these 

devices? 

7. In the European Union (EU), heavy 

trucks with a GVWR over 26,000 

pounds are regulated with speed 

limiting devices and limited to 90 km/ 

h (56 mph). Are there any available data 

or analyses of the European experience 

regarding the use of speed limiting 

devices on trucks and their effectiveness 

in reducing crashes? 

8. The ATA petition stated that the 

enforcement costs of the 68 mph speed 

limit for trucks could be minimized by 

using an enforcement system with 

several features. ATA recommended use 

of the Safety Status Measurement 

System (SafeStat) to identify trucking 

companies with speed limit violations. 

SafeStat is an automated analysis 

system developed for FMCSA which 

combines current and historical safety 

performance data to measure the 

relative safety fitness of interstate 

commercial motor carriers. The ATA 

also recommended that compliance 

reviews (CR) be used to ensure that 

companies have a maintenance program 

for the speed controllers, that a test for 

maximum vehicle speed be added to 49 

CFR Part 396, that penalties for 

tampering with the speed control 

devices be high, and that drivers be 

required to report any problems with 

the speed control device during a posttrip vehicle inspection report. What 

would be the vehicle operating costs 

associated with maintenance of the 

speed limiting devices? What would be 

the cost of identifying companies with 

speeding truck drivers through SafeStat, 

CR, or some other vehicle monitoring 

system? 

9. The ATA and Road Safe America 

petitions request that the top speed of 

trucks with a GVWR of greater than 

26,000 pounds be limited to not more 

than 68 mph. Under the definitions in 

49 CFR Part 390.5, a truck is defined as 

‘‘any self-propelled commercial motor 

vehicle except a truck tractor, designed 

and/or used for the transportation of 

property.’’ This definition does not 

include motor coaches, and neither of 

the petitions addresses the potential 

applicability of the proposed 

requirements for speed limiters on 

motor coaches. However, motor coaches 

are considered CMVs under the 

definitions in 49 CFR Part 390.5, and 

the majority of motor coaches exceed 

the 26,000-pound GVWR threshold 

proposed in the petitions. Should the 

proposed amendments to require speed 

limiters on trucks with a GVWR of 

greater than 26,000 pounds be extended 

to apply also to motor coaches? Do any 

existing motor coaches utilize speedlimiting devices/technology in current 

operations? 

Decision To Grant or Deny 

If either or both of the petitions for 

rulemaking are granted, a rulemaking 

proceeding will be initiated in 

accordance with the applicable NHTSA 

procedures. However, it is emphasized 

that the granting of a petition, and the 

initiation of a rulemaking, does not 

mean that the rule in question will be 

issued. The decision to issue a rule will 

be made on the basis of all available 

data and information gathered in the 

course of the rulemaking proceeding, 

and an analysis of the public comments 

received in response to any rulemaking 

notices that may be published in the 

Federal Register. 

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

30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Motor Carrier 

Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 

106–159, Section 101(f); FMCSA: 49 U.S.C. 

31136 and 31502; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.73. 

Issued on: January 22, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, 

NHTSA. 

Rose A. McMurray, 

Chief Safety Officer, FMCSA. 

[FR Doc. 07–326 Filed 1–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P; 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Advisory 2007–02 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory; 

Specialized Maintenance Equipment. 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety 

Advisory 2007–02 in order to provide 

interested parties guidance on the 

proper application of existing statutory 

and regulatory requirements concerning 

self-propelled specialized maintenance 

equipment. This document also strongly 

recommends that owners and operators 

of such equipment properly inspect the 

equipment and ensure that properly 

qualified individuals are operating and 

piloting the equipment while in transit. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Track 

Division (RRS–15), FRA Office of Safety 

Assurance and Compliance, 1120 

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 

20590, telephone: 202–493–6236; 

Ronald Newman, Staff Director, Motive 

Power and Equipment Division (RRS–

14), FRA Office of Safety Assurance and 

Compliance, 1120 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 

202–493–6241; or Michael Masci, Trial 

Attorney, 1120 Vermont Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202–

493–6037. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 9, 2006, a rail grinder train 

owned and operated by Harsco Track 

Technologies (Harsco), a rail services 

contractor, derailed while in transit 

from Sparks, Nevada, to Bakersfield, 

California. The grinder train, classified 

as maintenance-of-way (MOW) 

equipment, was operating in a westward 

direction on a 2.2 percent descending 

grade on the Union Pacific Railroad 

(UP) Roseville Subdivision. Ten of the 

13 cars in the train derailed, resulting in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES