Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices 42155

Maryland Rail Commuter—110 coaches

Massachusetts Bay Transportation

Authority—358 coaches

North Carolina Department of

Transportation—14 coaches

Virginia Railway Express—59 coaches

Please note that some of the

commuter agencies’ coaches are cab

control cars. 49 CFR 229.14 requires that

components added to the passenger car

that enable it to serve as a lead

locomotive, control the locomotive

actually providing tractive power, and

otherwise control the movement of the

train, are subject to the requirements of

49 CFR part 229. Therefore, only the

brake system components not subject to

the requirements of 49 CFR 229.14 are

to be considered in this petition for any

cab control car.

Amtrak declares that the commuter

rail equipment is maintained in

accordance to all applicable FRA

requirements, Association of American

Railroad’s maintenance practices, and

Amtrak’s standard maintenance

procedures. Amtrak also contends that

the service conditions on the commuter

car fleets are considered to be consistent

with those conditions under which

Amtrak’s four year test for COT&S was

conducted.

Norfolk Southern Corporation (Waiver

Petition Docket Number RST–96–3)

The Norfolk Southern Corporation

(NS) seeks a waiver from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 213.241 to

allow it to submit and maintain track

inspection records via an electronic

system.

In its petition, NS refers to the

provisions of § 213.241 which require

that each record of an inspection be

prepared on the day the inspection is

made and signed by the person making

the inspection. NS believes that these

provisions do not specifically mandate

a paper-based recordkeeping system,

and states that to the extent that this

part implies such a requirement, it be

granted a waiver to substitute electronic

records for paper ones. NS further

requests that it be permitted to input the

records of inspection within one day’s

time of the date on which the inspection

is made.

NS states that the use of the electronic

system would allow the railroad to

significantly reduce the volume of paper

reports (estimated to average

approximately 600 reports each week)

and the associated handling costs. NS

also states that the electronic reporting

system could be effected without cost to

any party and without disrupting or

destroying the integrity of the present

record system.

Under the proposed reporting

procedure, track inspectors would

continue to make their inspections and

gather information on handwritten notes

or, potentially, laptop computers. The

proposed filing system would merely

alter the way in which the inspection

report is submitted, stored, and

retrieved. Each track inspector would

have his/her own personal electronic

identity. The track inspector would call

up a form on NS’s e-mail network, insert

the pertinent information on the form,

and send it electronically to the regional

offices. Upon receipt via e-mail in the

regional offices, hard copy reports

would be placed into files along the

same lines as are currently used. In the

future, NS states that it will develop a

separate database to store all track

inspection reports.

NS declares that its policy prohibits

the sharing and duplication of

passwords, thus preserving the

uniqueness of each user’s identity. Once

the inspection report is completed by

the inspector, the computer system

would not accept subsequent alterations

or modifications of the report. The

computer system would allow

subsequent access to such reports, or

compilations of information generated

therefrom, but would limit this access to

a read-only basis.

NS anticipates that, in virtually all

instances, the record of inspection will

be prepared and entered into the

electronic system on the inspection

date. However, NS states that it is

possible for the input process to be

delayed in rare instances, such as when

the system mainframe computer is taken

off-line for periodic software

maintenance, when the reporting

inspector is called out to respond to an

emergency situation, or when the

inspector is located at a site where he/

she does not have access to a terminal.

NS asks that it be granted the one-day

grace period for these rare

circumstances.

NS believes that the granting of the

petition would provide positive benefits

for all parties involved and an

immediate increase in efficiency while

reducing costs.

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 PB–94–3) and

must be submitted in triplicate to the

Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel,

FRA, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Mail Stop 25, Washington,

DC 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 FRA’s

temporary docket room located at 1120

Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 7051,

Washington, DC 20005.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on July 29,

1997.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 97–20514 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief From

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49

U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads

have petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modification

of the signal system or relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as

detailed below.

Block Signal Application (BS–AP)–No.

3432

Applicant: CSX Transportation,

Incorporated, Mr. R. M. Kadlick, Chief

Engineer Train Control, 500 Water

Street (S/C J–350), Jacksonville, Florida

32202.

CSX Transportation, Incorporated

seeks approval of the proposed

modification of the traffic control

system, on the single main track, at

Haines City, Florida, milepost A–

828.38, Sanford Subdivision,

Jacksonville Service Lane, consisting of

the discontinuance and removal of

controlled signals 106RA and 106LA.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to eliminate facilities no

longer needed in present day operation,
42156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices

due to the previous removal of the

siding.

BS–AP–No. 3433

Applicant: Soo Line Railroad

Company, Mr. M. S. Hanson, District

Manager Engineering Services,

Canadian Pacific Railway, 105 South

5th Street, Box 530, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55440.

The Soo Line Railroad Company seeks

approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

automatic block signal system, on the

single main track, between Preston

Interlocking and Belt Junction

Interlocking, and Belt Junction

Interlocking and Spring Hill

Interlocking, near Terre Haute, Indiana,

on the Latta Subdivision, including

installation of fixed approach signals.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to eliminate facilities no

longer required for present day

operation, as the only freight service on

the line is one local, six days a week.

BS–AP–No. 3434

Applicants: South Kansas &

Oklahoma Railroad and Kansas Eastern

Railroad, Mr. David L. Buccolo, Vice

President Rules and Safety, 315 West

Third, Pittsburg, Kansas 66762.

The South Kansas & Oklahoma

Railroad (SKOL) and the Kansas Eastern

Railroad (KE) jointly seek approval of

the proposed discontinuance and

removal of automatic interlocking

signals 1553 and 1554, at Cherryvale,

Kansas, where a single main track of the

SKOL, Tulsa Subdivision, milepost

155.6, crosses at grade, a single main

track of the KE, Neodesha Subdivision,

milepost 386.8. The proposal includes

removal of the automatic gate

mechanism, retaining a manual gate to

be left lined for the last train movement.

The reasons given for the proposed

changes are that the equipment is

antiquated and replacement parts are

almost impossible to obtain, it will

reduce unnecessary maintenance

expense, train operations in the area

have changed and SKOL and KE are

now joint operating lines, and also help

avoid delays and unnecessary blockages

of the highway road crossings in the

area.

Any interested party desiring to

protest the granting of an application

shall set forth specifically the grounds

upon which the protest is made, and

contain a concise statement of the

interest of the protestant in the

proceeding. The original and two copies

of the protest shall be filed with the

Associate Administrator for Safety,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Mail

Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 within

45 calendar days of the date of issuance

of this notice. Additionally, one copy of

the protest shall be furnished to the

applicant at the address listed above.

FRA expects to be able to determine

these matters without an oral hearing.

However, if a specific request for an oral

hearing is accompanied by a showing

that the party is unable to adequately

present his or her position by written

statements, an application may be set

for public hearing.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 29, 1997.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 97–20515 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 97–049; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1988–

1989 Audi 80 Passenger Cars Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1988–1989

Audi 80 passenger cars are eligible for

importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that 1988–1989 Audi 80

passenger cars that were not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards are eligible for importation

into the United States because (1) They

are substantially similar to vehicles that

were originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and that were certified by their

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards, and (2) they are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is September 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

Room 5109, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)

(formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (the Act)), a motor vehicle

that was not originally manufactured to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards shall be refused

admission into the United States unless

NHTSA has decided that the motor

vehicle is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle originally manufactured

for importation into and sale in the

United States, certified under 49 U.S.C.

30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act),

and of the same model year as the

model of the motor vehicle to be

compared, and is capable of being

readily altered to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale,

Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’)

(Registered Importer 90–009) has

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger cars are

eligible for importation into the United

States. The vehicles which Champagne

believes are substantially similar are

1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger cars that

were manufactured for importation into,

and sale in, the United States and

certified by their manufacturer as

conforming to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared non-U.S. certified 1988–1989

Audi 80 passenger cars to their U.S.

certified counterpart, and found the

vehicles to be substantially similar with

respect to compliance with most Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

Champagne submitted information

with its petition intended to

demonstrate that non-U.S. certified

1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger cars, as

originally manufactured, conform to

many Federal motor vehicle safety

standards in the same manner as their

U.S. certified counterparts, or are