14640 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 

Centro, California (a distance of 

approximately 10.1 miles). 

FRA received comments from 

interested parties requesting a public 

hearing on the issue and FRA 

subsequently scheduled a public 

hearing for March 29, 2007 in the 

Federal Register on March 5, 2007 (72 

FR 9831). At the same time, FRA 

extended the public comment period in 

the proceeding to April 13, 2007. 

By letters dated March 13, 2007, 

March 15, 2007, and March 19, 2007, 

the interested parties withdrew their 

requests for a public hearing. 

Accordingly, the public hearing 

scheduled for March 29, 2007, in El 

Centro, California, is hereby canceled. 

The comment period will remain open 

until April 13, 2007, as previously 

announced. All communications 

concerning this waiver petition should 

identify the appropriate docket number 

(e.g. Waiver Petition Docket Number 

FRA–2006–25764) and may be 

submitted by one of the following 

methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic 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; or 

• 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. 

All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

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

above facility. Documents in the public 

docket are also available for review and 

copying on the Internet at the docket 

facility Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 22, 

2007. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E7–5616 Filed 3–27–07; 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. 

Union Pacific Railroad Company 

[Docket Number FRA–2006–25564] 

The Union Pacific Railroad Company 

(UPRR) seeks a test waiver (WAIVER) of 

49 CFR 232.207 Class IA brake tests—

1,000-mile inspection based on current 

technology of wayside detection 

systems presently deployed by UPRR. 

The waiver is sought for two ‘‘cyclic’’

coal trains from South Powder River 

Basin (SPRB) to the power plants in 

Pleasant Prairie, WI, and White Bluff, 

AR, respectively. These round trips are 

of loaded trains from SPRB to the power 

plants and empty trains from the power 

plants to SPRB. 

Since this is the first time that such 

a relief is requested based on detection 

and alert thresholds from wayside 

detection systems, the UPRR prepared a 

detailed ‘‘Pilot’’ test plan (latest revision 

dated February 6, 2007) with narrative 

describing, step-by-step, how the 

various requirements in 49 CFR 232.207 

Class IA brake tests—1,000-mile 

inspection will be satisfied and verified 

by the wayside detection technology 

now being deployed by UPRR on the 

designated routes in the letter. UPRR 

states that emerging technology, such as 

the wayside detection technology, is a 

reliable, performance-based and cost 

effective asset that can be used to 

enhance and/or replace existing 

regulatory and rules compliance. 

UPRR believes that wayside detection 

using a proven wheel temperature 

detector can be used to automatically 

rank the braking health of each car to 

prioritize inspections and repairs. The 

brake performance detector will utilize 

a brake shoe and thermal scanning 

module (brake shoe presence and its 

position, and hot/cold wheels) to 

determine that all brake components are 

in proper working order. The cars with 

suspect braking force will have colder 

wheels requiring inspections for 

problems such as air brake leaks, 

inoperative valves, and non-functioning 

slack adjusters. Using such a 

performance-based approach to find, 

document and track suspect brake 

problems allows UPRR to significantly 

increase the ability of the maintenance 

organizations to find and repair brake 

systems. Though this results in an 

increased workload to support the 

higher maintenance standard, it will 

also result in higher reliability of freight 

cars. Braking problems on these cars 

would normally be found by ‘‘visualonly’’ methods at a later date, resulting 

in less reliability. Also, the ‘‘visualonly’’ methods are sometimes imposed 

at undesirable locations that 

significantly impede train operations. 

UPRR contends that predictive 

maintenance using wayside data is 

beneficial to manage freight car defects 

that cannot be effectively found or 

tracked with ‘‘visual-only’’ methods. 

Furthermore, exceedingly higher levels 

of safety and reliability can only be 

attained by modifying the existing 

paradigm for equipment and 

infrastructure maintenance by 

expanding the operational procedures to 

include performance measures. Current 

standards inadvertently limit reliability 

by the requirements to address every 

defect at the time it is discovered. This 

has the effect of causing all work to be 

reactive, which is an inherent 

impediment to further discovery. It is 

the UPRR’s intention to perform more 

maintenance work and/or to work with 

its customers in joint efforts to perform 

the increased maintenance required at 

locations that are most complimentary 

to overall railroad productivity in order 

to offset the increased workload 

necessary to improve the overall 

network reliability of its train 

operations. 

The safety evaluation to assess the 

validity of the waiver will require 

extensive collection of pertinent data 

and consequent validation on the two 

routes specified during the proposed 

‘‘pilot’’ test program. The duration of 

the ‘‘pilot’’ test as proposed by UPRR is 

one year. The ‘‘Pilot’’ project will 

provide for the establishment of a data 

baseline (with existing regulatory 

inspections) in which to compare the 

modified inspections and operations as 

requested by the petition. The task will 

require a comprehensive review of the 

49 CFR 232.207 Class IA brake tests’

requirements: What requirements can be 

detected during the pre-departure 

inspection, which requirements may 

require regulatory modifications to 

provide alternate inspection criteria and 

determination if change toward 

performance-based regulations is 

justified or not. 

Pursuant to the receipt of the waiver 

letter and the revised and detailed test 

plan (latest revision dated February 6, 

2007) from UPRR, FRA is hereby 

providing the public an opportunity to 

comment on the 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 14641 

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 (FRA–2006–

25564) and must be submitted to the 

Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket 

Management Facility, Room PL–401 

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

Washington, DC 20590. 

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 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. 

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 19477–78). The 

statement may also be found at 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 21, 

2007. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E7–5620 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2007–27623] 

Notice of Informal Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of informal safety 

inquiry; technical conference. 

SUMMARY: FRA is conducting an 

informal safety inquiry and technical 

conference to explore the safety 

implications associated with the use of 

a variety of safety-relevant technologies 

that while possibly providing significant 

efficiencies, may not be designed with 

failsafe characteristics. Such 

technologies might range from powerassisted switches historically used in 

yard operations being used on main 

tracks, switch position detection and 

indication in dark territory, to trainpacing software designed for fuel 

savings. FRA seeks to gain a better 

perspective on the use of such 

technology and the safety concerns that 

may be presented. 

DATES: Technical Conference: A 

technical conference will be held on 

April 19, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Washington, 

DC. 

Comments: Interested parties may 

submit comments relevant to the issues 

identified in this notice or discussed at 

the technical conference to the address 

noted below. Such written materials 

should be submitted by May 18, 2007, 

however comments submitted after that 

date will be considered to the extent 

possible. 

ADDRESSES: (1) Technical Conference: 

The technical conference will be held in 

the Washington and Jefferson Rooms at 

the Marriott Residence Inn, 1199 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20005. 

(2) Attendance: Persons wishing to 

participate in the technical conference 

are requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation, and contact 

information, to Michelle Silva, Docket 

Clerk, FRA 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6030). 

(3) Comments: Anyone wishing to file 

a comment related to this informal 

safety inquiry should refer to the FRA 

Docket Number FRA–2007–27623. You 

may submit your comments and related 

material by only one of the following 

methods: 

(i) By mail to the Docket Management 

System, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400 7th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–

0001; or 

(ii) Electronically through the Web 

site for the Docket Management System 

at http://dms.dot.gov. For instructions 

on how to submit comments 

electronically, visit the Docket 

Management System Web site and click 

on the ‘‘help’’ menu. 

The Docket Management Facility 

maintains the public docket for this 

proceeding. Comments and documents 

as indicated in this preamble will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

room PL–401 on the Plaza Level of the 

Nassif building at the same address 

during regular business hours. You may 

also obtain access to this docket on the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 

FRA wishes to inform all potential 

commenters that 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 19477–

78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

McFarlin, Staff Director, Signal and 

Train Control Division, FRA Office of 

Safety Assurance and Compliance, 

RRS–13, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Stop 25, Washington, DC 20950 

(telephone 202–493–6203), or Mark 

Tessler FRA Office of the Chief Counsel, 

RCC–10, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Stop 10, Washington, DC 20950 

(telephone 202–493–6061). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the technical conference is to 

permit the exchange of information, and 

to discuss safety considerations and 

concerns, regarding these various 

systems being developed and installed 

outside of the scope of a ‘‘conventional’’

signal or train control system. 

Historically, FRA has regulated existing 

signal and train control system 

configurations under the provisions of 

49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236, 

Subparts A through G. 

During the past few years, the railroad 

industry has begun to deploy a variety 

of new devices and systems in what has 

traditionally been considered to be nonsignaled territory. These new systems 

and devices, or conventional devices 

used in new applications, are generally 

constructed from aggregations of 

existing traditional technologies. Such 

systems include: remote-controlled 

power-operated switches in nonsignaled track warrant control territory, 

switch position detection and 

indication, power-assisted switches 

used in main track applications, and 

various track integrity warning systems. 

Additionally, ‘‘train pacing’’ systems are 

being developed which could, in the 

near future, be integrated into existing 

positive train control (PTC) systems. 

Generally the separate components that 

make up these systems have 

individually proven to provide a 

reasonably high level of safety. When 

properly designed, implemented, and 

maintained, such integrations may 

result in significant safety and 

operational benefits; however, the level 

of safety of systems resulting from the 

integration of such technologies into 

new configurations has not always been 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES