1574 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Notices 

work in developing and implementing 

the Unified Carrier Registration Plan 

and Agreement. The Board’s 

Subcommittees, including the Industry 

Advisory Subcommittee, will also meet. 

Further, any action taken by the Board 

at the last Board meeting held on 

December 4 and 5, 2006, in Chicago, IL 

will be considered for ratification. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

William Quade, (202)366–2172, 

Director, Office of Safety Programs, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, or Mr. Bryan Price, 

(412) 395–4816, FMCSA Pennsylvania 

Division Office. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

John H. Hill, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–116 Filed 1–10–07; 10:42 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

In accordance with Part 211 of Title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), notice is hereby given that the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

received a request for a waiver of 

compliance with certain requirements of 

its safety standards. The individual 

petition is described below, including 

the party seeking relief, the regulatory 

provisions involved, the nature of the 

relief being requested, and the 

petitioner’s arguments in favor of relief. 

City of Placentia, California 

[Docket Number FRA–2006–24654] 

The City of Placentia, California (City) 

and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) 

have petitioned for a second extension 

to the waiver granted on June 21, 2006, 

in FRA Docket No. FRA–2006–24654. In 

the June 21, 2006 waiver, FRA agreed to 

extend the original deadline of June 24, 

2006, set forth in 49 CFR 222.42 for 

continuation of an intermediate partial 

quiet zone until September 22, 2006. 

Subsequently, FRA received a waiver 

requesting an extension of September 

22, 2006, to January 20, 2007, from the 

parties. FRA granted this extension on 

September 21, 2006. In this current 

request, the City and BNSF state that 

they will be unable to meet the January 

20, 2007, deadline due to technical 

problems with the radio 

communications system that required 

the ordering of new radio equipment 

and the need to conduct a 30-day test 

period of the radio communications 

system. The City and BNSF seek to 

retain the current partial quiet zone in 

order to avoid disruption and confusion 

in the interim and state that safety will 

not be compromised. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written views, data or 

comments. Each comment shall 

specifically set forth the basis upon 

which it is made and contain a concise 

statement of the interest of the 

commenter in the proceeding. FRA does 

not anticipate the need to schedule a 

public hearing in connection with this 

proceeding since the facts do not appear 

to warrant a hearing. If any interested 

party desires an opportunity to 

comment, they should notify FRA in 

writing within 15 days of the date of 

publication of this notice and specify 

the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the docket 

number set forth above and may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. to the Docket Clerk, DOT 

Docket Management Facility, Room PL–

401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Communications received within 15 

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. FRA reserves the right to 

grant temporary relief to avoid lapse of 

the existing partial quiet zone while the 

comment period is open, after 

consideration of any comments filed 

prior to the initial date of decision. All 

written communications concerning this 

proceeding are available for 

examination during regular business 

hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the above 

facility. All documents in the public 

docket are available for inspection and 

copying on the Internet at the docket 

facility’s Web site: 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 the Department of 

Transportation’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement, which was published in the 

Federal Register on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–

78). The Privacy Act Statement may also 

be found at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 9, 

2007. 

Michael Logue, 

Deputy Associate Administrator, for Safety 

Compliance and Program Implementation. 

[FR Doc. E7–319 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

In accordance with Part 211 of Title 

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) received 

a request for a waiver of compliance 

with certain requirements of its safety 

standards. The individual petition is 

described below, including the party 

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions 

involved, the nature of the relief being 

requested, and the petitioner’s 

arguments in favor of relief. 

New Jersey Transit Corporation 

[Supplement to Waiver Petition Docket 

Number FRA–1999–6135] 

As a supplement to New Jersey 

Transit Corporation’s (NJ Transit) 

Petition for Approval of Shared Use and 

Waiver of Certain FRA Regulations (the 

original shared use waiver was granted 

by the FRA Railroad Safety Board on 

December 3, 1999, and a five year 

extension was granted by the FRA 

Railroad Safety Board on May 2, 2005), 

NJ Transit is making signal 

improvements between CP45 and CP70 

in order to create an ‘‘Extended 

Temporal Separation Mode’’ of 

operation. This will allow NJ Transit 

and Conrail to safely share a limited and 

specific section of the River Line 

outside of the fixed-windows of 

temporal separation. NJ Transit submits 

that this request is consistent with the 

waiver process for Shared Use. See 

Statement of Agency Policy Concerning 

Jurisdiction Over the Safety of Railroad 

Passenger Operations and Waivers 

Related to Shared Use of the Tracks of 

the General Railroad System by Light 

Rail and Conventional Equipment, 65 

FR 42529 (July 10, 2000); see also Joint 

Statement of Agency Policy Concerning 

Shared Use of the Tracks of the General 

Railroad System by Conventional 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Notices 1575 

Railroads and Light Rail Transit 

Systems, 65 FR 42526 (July 10, 2000). 

Currently, River Line passenger 

operations and Conrail operations are 

temporally-separated, with light rail 

having exclusive use of the shared track 

from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. during the 

Passenger Period and Conrail 

maintaining exclusive rights at all other 

times during the Freight Period. NJ 

Transit is proposing to make signal 

improvements that will maintain 

temporal separation but provide for 

superior utilization of the existing 

infrastructure by expanding the 

Passenger Period and allow Conrail an 

increased operating flexibility. 

Specifically, the intent of these 

improvements is to: enable the 

provision of passenger service to Route 

73 station in Pennsauken during the 

extended hours of 5:30 a.m. until 12 

a.m.; provide additional flexibility and 

efficiencies for the operation of freight 

trains, specifically to enable Conrail to 

operate between Pavonia Yard and 

Minson Siding/Pennsauken Industrial 

Track under vitally enforced separation 

from light rail vehicles during all hours; 

provide positive train separation 

through the utilization of active trip 

stop transponders for light rail 

encroachment; and power derails for 

freight encroachment. 

NJ Transit further submitted on 

December 15, 2006, a letter offering 

clarification and additional information 

to amend the original petition. First, NJ 

Transit is formally notifying the FRA 

that in September of 2004, NJ Transit 

and Conrail established two separate 

zones of temporal separation: Zone One 

from CP45 (Pennsauken) to CP269 

(Bordentown), with exclusive Passenger 

Period from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m., which 

remains unchanged from the original 

Shared Use Waiver; Zone Two from 

CP269 (Bordentown) to CP329 (Trenton) 

features a revised Passenger Period that 

starts at 5:45 a.m. until 10 p.m. 

Second, as part of the current 

proposed extended temporal separation 

between CP45 and CP70, there is 

potential for a new parallel operation 

between River Line light rail vehicles 

and Conrail freight equipment at track 

centerline distances that in some 

locations are less than 17-ft. NJ Transit 

is informing FRA that it will not install 

an Intrusion Detection System (IDS) in 

this area as was done previously at two 

other locations of the River Line. 

Instead, NJ Transit proposes to maintain 

an equivalent level of safety by 

restricting this section of River Line to 

one mode at a time by prohibiting River 

Line light rail vehicles from operating 

between CP45 and CP70 when a Conrail 

freight train has been authorized 

through this section. 

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 communication concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver 

Petition Docket Number FRA–1999–

6135) and must be submitted to the 

Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management 

Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 

20590. Communications received within 

30 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 the 

above facility. 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. 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 9, 

2007. 

Grady C. Cothen, 

Deputy Associate Administrator, for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E7–318 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2002006–25975; Notice 

2] 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Grant 

of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 

(Honda) has determined that the 

certification labels for certain Pilot 

trucks that it produced in 2006 do not 

comply with S5.3 of 49 CFR 571.120, 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 120, ‘‘Tire selection and 

rims for motor vehicles other than 

passenger cars.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h), Honda has 

petitioned for a determination that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 

Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition 

was published, with a 30-day comment 

period, on October 4, 2006, in the 

Federal Register (71 FR 58660). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

Affected are a total of approximately 

23,000 model year 2006 and 2007 

Honda Pilot trucks produced between 

February 17, 2006 and August 10, 2006. 

S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that 

the vehicles shall show the size 

designation appropriate for the tires. 

The noncompliant vehicles have 

certification labels stating that the rim 

size is 6 inches, when in fact the rim 

size is 16 inches. Honda has corrected 

the problem that caused these errors so 

that they will not be repeated in future 

production. 

Honda believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Honda 

presents the following basis for its 

petition. Most vehicle owners, dealers, 

and tire service technicians would refer 

to the vehicles’ existing tires and/or the 

separate Tire Placard to determine the 

appropriate size for a replacement tire 

rather than to the Certification Label. If 

the vehicle owner, dealer or tire service 

technician read the incorrect rim size on 

the certification label, it would be 

obvious that a full size vehicle could not 

use 6 inch wheels. The owner’s manual 

contains the correct rim size 

information. The correct rim size is cast 

into the wheel itself. 

NHTSA agrees with Honda that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. It would be 

obvious that a full size vehicle could not 

be supported by 6 inch wheels. The 

correct size information is available in 

the owner’s manual, and on the wheel 

itself, in order to determine the correct 

size for replacement wheels and tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Honda’s petition is granted 

and the petitioner is exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a remedy for, the noncompliance. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8). 

Issued on: January 8, 2007. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–316 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES