60556 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices

229.125(d) which requires each lead

locomotive operating at speeds over 20

mph over one or more public highwayrail crossings be equipped with

operative auxiliary lights effective

December 31, 1997.

UP indicates that they currently have

3060 locomotives equipped with

auxiliary lights which accounts for 49.4

percent of their locomotive fleet. The

railroad states they have experienced

increased business levels, and

locomotives scheduled for retirement

prior to the rule taking effect will now

be continued in service. The railroad

plans to continue to equip locomotives

as they are shopped for reasons other

than periodic maintenance. Whenever

possible, equipped locomotives will be

utilized as lead units.

Meridian & Bigbee Railroad Company

[Waiver Petition Docket Number PB–97–7]

The Meridian & Bigbee Railroad

Company (MBRR) seeks a permanent

waiver of compliance from certain

provisions of the Railroad Power Brake

and Drawbars regulations, 49 CFR

Section 232.23, requiring the use of twoway end-of-train telemetry devices.

MBRR operates one train at a time,

seven days a week, between the hours

of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., and one train at

a time, four days a week, Monday

through Thursday, between the hours of

6 p.m. and 6 a.m. The day train

originates in Meridian, Mississippi, runs

to Myrtlewood, Alabama, then returns

to Meridian. The night train originates

in Meridian, runs to Naheola, Alabama,

then returns to Meridian. Both trains

operate with a three man crew and

complete the scheduled round-trips

within an average of ten hours. The

maximum track speed is 40 mph and

the ruling grade on the mainline is 0.92

percent. The average tonnage on

eastbound trains is 3,020 tons and

westbound trains 3,454 tons, although

these figures many times go above 4,000

tons. MBRR would continue to use a

one-way end-of-train device on their

trains.

MBRR states that the type of accidents

which would require a two-way device

to apply brakes on the rear portion of

the train has never occurred and

probably would never occur on their

railroad. MBRR does not feel safety

would be compromised if two-way endof-train devices were not required on

their trains, and that to reduce their

track speed to 30 mph would reduce

timely service to their customers and

connecting railroads with no increase in

safety.

White River Scenic Railroad,

Incorporated

[Waiver Petition Docket Number RSGM–97–

5]

The White River Scenic Railroad,

Incorporated (WRR) seeks a permanent

waiver of compliance with the Safety

Glazing Standards, 49 CFR part

223.11(c), which requires certified

glazing in all locomotive windows

except locomotives used in yard service.

WRR is seeking this waiver for

locomotive number WRR 2089, built in

1952 by the American Locomotive

Company for the United States Army

Transportation Corps, which was never

equipped with FRA certified glazing.

The locomotive owner indicates that the

locomotive is utilized in passenger

excursion service between Flippin and

Sylamore, Arkansas, in a rural area

along the White River. The railroad’s

maximum authorized speed is 25 mph.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

[Waiver Petition Docket Numbers SA–97–5

and PB–97–8]

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Railway (BNSF) seeks a waiver of

compliance from certain provisions of

the Safety Appliance Standards, 49 CFR

Section 231, for operating the Triple

Crown RoadRailer trains between

Argentine Yard in Kansas City, Kansas,

and the Saginaw Yard in Saginaw,

Texas.

The train consist will be restricted to

125 RoadRailers equipped with a

CouplerMate between the hauling

locomotive and the first car in the

RoadRailer train.

The RoadRailer has no safety

appliances and the waiver would permit

non-compliance with all the provisions

of the Safety Appliance Standards.

These regulatory standards include

provisions for the number, location, and

dimensional specification for the

handholds, ladders, sill steps, and hand

brakes that are required for each railroad

freight car.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

[Waiver Petition Docket Numbers SA–97–6

and PB–97–11]

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Railway (BNSF) seeks a waiver of

compliance from certain provisions of

the Safety Appliance Standards, 49 CFR

Section 231, for operating a Thrall built

articulated multi-level car and Wabash

AllRailer and AutoRailer train between

San Diego and Richmond, California.

The train makeup would consist of

the two units, Thrall built, articulated

multi-level car on the head end,

followed by a CouplerMate and three

unit AllRailers, and then another

CouplerMate and eleven AutoRailers.

The RoadRailer has no safety

appliances and the waiver would permit

non-compliance with all the provisions

of the Safety Appliance Standards.

These regulatory standards include

provisions for the number, location, and

dimensional specification for the

handholds, ladders, sill steps, and hand

brakes that are required for each railroad

freight car.

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 LI–97–5) and

must be submitted in triplicate to the

Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel,

FRA, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, 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 (9:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.) at

FRA’s temporary docket room located at

1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Room

7051, Washington, D.C. 20005.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on November 5,

1997.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 97–29615 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3056]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1992

BMW 7 Series Passenger Cars Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1992 BMW
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices 60557

7 Series 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 1992 BMW 7 Series

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 December 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. [Docket hours are from 10 am to

5 pm.]

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), 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, 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.

J.K. Motors of Kingsville, Maryland

(‘‘J.K.’’) (Registered Importer 90–006)

has petitioned NHTSA to decide

whether 1992 BMW 7 Series passenger

cars are eligible for importation into the

United States. The vehicles which J.K.

believes are substantially similar are

1992 BMW 7 Series passenger cars that

were manufactured for importation into,

and sale in, the United States and

certified by their manufacturer,

Bayerische Motoren Werke, A.G., as

conforming to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared non-U.S. certified 1992 BMW

7 Series passenger cars to their U.S.

certified counterparts, and found the

vehicles to be substantially similar with

respect to compliance with most Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

J.K. submitted information with its

petition intended to demonstrate that

non-U.S. certified 1992 BMW 7 Series

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 capable of being

readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

non-U.S. certified 1992 BMW 7 Series

passenger cars are identical to their U.S.

certified counterparts with respect to

compliance with Standard Nos. 102

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence

* * *., 103 Defrosting and Defogging

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and

Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake

Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New

Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch

Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124

Accelerator Control Systems, 201

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,

202 Head Restraints, 203 Impact

Protection for the Driver From the

Steering Control System, 204 Steering

Control Rearward Displacement, 205

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and

Door Retention Components, 207

Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt

Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages, 212 Windshield Retention,

214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof

Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone

Intrusion, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and

302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

non-U.S. certified 1992 BMW 7 Series

passenger cars comply with the Bumper

Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicles are capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and

Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens

marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with the ECE

symbol on the brake failure indicator

lamp; (b) recalibration of the

speedometer/odometer from kilometers

to miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

Installation of U.S.-model sealed beam

headlamps and front sidemarker lights;

(b) installation of U.S.-model taillamps

which incorporate rear sidemarker

lights; (c) installation of a U.S.-model

high mounted stop lamp.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and

Rims: installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror:

replacement of the passenger side

rearview mirror with a U.S.-model

component.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection:

installation of a warning buzzer

microswitch in the steering lock

assembly and a warning buzzer.

Standard No. 118 Power Window

Systems: installation of a relay in the

power window system so that the

window transport is inoperative when

the ignition is switched off.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection: installation of a seat belt

warning buzzer, wired to the driver’s

seat belt latch. The petitioner states that

non-U.S. certified 1992 BMW 7 Series

passenger cars are equipped in both

front seating positions with a doormounted automatic belt system that is

identical to the automatic belt system

found on their U.S. certified

counterparts. Additionally, the

petitioner states that the vehicles are

equipped in their rear seating positions

with manual belts identical to those on

U.S. certified vehicles.

The petitioner also states that a

vehicle identification number plate

must be affixed to the vehicles to meet

the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: Docket Management, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated above will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.
60558 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: November 4, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–29603 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3067; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1992–

1994 Kawasaki EL250 Motorcycles Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1992–1994

Kawasaki EL250 motorcycles are

eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This document announces

receipt by the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a

petition for a decision that 1992–1994

Kawasaki EL250 motorcycles 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 December 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. [Docket hours are from 10 am to

5 pm.]

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), 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, 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

1992–1994 Kawasaki EL250 motorcycles

are eligible for importation into the

United States. The vehicles which

Champagne believes are substantially

similar are 1992–1994 Kawasaki EX–250

motorcycles 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 1992–1994 Kawasaki EL250

motorcycles to 1992–1994 Kawasaki

EX–250 motorcycles, 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

1992–1994 Kawasaki EL250

motorcycles, as originally

manufactured, conform to many Federal

motor vehicle safety standards in the

same manner as 1992–1994 Kawasaki

EX–250 motorcycles, or are capable of

being readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

1992–1994 Kawasaki EL250 motorcycles

are identical to 1992–1994 Kawasaki

EX–250 motorcycles with respect to

compliance with Standard Nos. 106

Brake Hoses, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 116

Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires

for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars,

and 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicles are capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment:

installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies.

Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and

Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger

Cars: installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls

and Displays: installation of a U.S.

model speedometer calibrated in miles

per hour.

The petitioner also states that vehicle

identification number plates meeting

the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565

will be affixed to 1992–1994 Kawasaki

EL250 motorcycles.

Comments should refer to the docket

number and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated above will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: November 4, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–29604 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3021; Notice 2]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1994–

1997 BMW R1100 Motorcycles Are

Eligible for Importation; Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Correction to notice of receipt of

petition for decision that

nonconforming 1994–1997 BMW R1100

motorcycles are eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This document corrects a

notice published Wednesday, October

22, 1997 (62 FR 54896) announcing

receipt by NHTSA of a petition for a