Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67429

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief from

the Requirements of Signal System

Regulations

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.

3446

Applicant: SOO Line Railroad

Company,

Mr. Roscoe VanPelt,

District Coordinator Signals &

Communications,

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 signals, on the single

main track, between milepost 12.27 and

milepost 16.55, near St. Paul,

Minnesota, on the Paynesville

Subdivision, consisting of the removal

of signals No. 2 and No. 3.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that the facilities are no

longer needed for present operations

and to reduce maintenance.

BS–AP–No. 3447

Applicant: Central Kansas Railway,

L.L.C.,

Mr. L. R. Mitchell,

Superintendent,

1825 West Harry Street,

Wichita, Kansas 67213.

The Central Kansas Railway, L.L.C.

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

automatic block signal (ABS) system, on

the single main track, between

Bridgeport, Kansas, milepost 491.2 and

Towner, Colorado, milepost 747.5.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that the present train traffic

in the area does not warrant the need for

the ABS system, and the signal pole line

is in fragile condition and will not

survive the first ice storm of the season.

BS–AP–No. 3448

Applicant: Burlington Northern and

Santa Fe Railway,

Mr. William G. Peterson,

Director Signal Engineering,

4515 Kansas Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66106.

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway seeks approval of the proposed

modification of the traffic control

system, on the No. 2 Main Track,

between 30th Street and Bravo, milepost

2.2 and milepost 5.6, near Kansas City,

Kansas, Fort Scott Subdivision, Kansas

Division, consisting of the

discontinuance and removal of

automatic absolute signal 6RB, which is

located on the elevator track and

controlled by the switch position of the

Electric Lock 7.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to improve train operations

in the area, and that the switch is

electrically locked in CTC territory, and

does not require a signal.

BS–AP–No. 3449

Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad

Company,

Mr. P. M. Abaray,

Chief Engineer-Signals/Quality,

1416 Dodge Street, Room 1000,

Omaha, Nebraska 68179–1000.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the rail

locks and associated power-operated

switch machines, on the single main

track Morley Bridge, milepost 95.0, near

Morley, Louisiana, on the Alexandria

Subdivision.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to modernize the operation of

the Morley Bridge.

BS–AP–No. 3450

Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad

Company,

Mr. P. M. Abaray,

Chief Engineer-Signals/Quality,

1416 Dodge Street, Room 1000,

Omaha, Nebraska 68179–1000.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the rail

locks and associated power-operated

switch machines, on the single main

track Melville Bridge, milepost 129.7,

near Melville, Louisiana, on the

Alexandria Subdivision.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to modernize the operation of

the Melville Bridge.

BS–AP–No. 3451

Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad

Company,

Mr. P. M. Abaray,

Chief Engineer-Signals/Quality,

1416 Dodge Street, Room 1000,

Omaha, Nebraska 68179–1000.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

hand-operated electric rail locks, on the

single main track Ouachita River Bridge,

milepost 528.2, approximately 27 miles

south of Monroe, Louisiana, on the

Monroe Subdivision.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to modernize the operation of

the Ouachita River Bridge.

BS–AP–No. 3452

Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad

Company,

Mr. P. M. Abaray,

Chief Engineer-Signals/Quality,

1416 Dodge Street, Room 1000,

Omaha, Nebraska 68179–1000.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the rail

locks and associated power-operated

switch machines, on the single main

track Canal Bridge, milepost 6.2, near

Port Allen, Louisiana, on the Avoyelles

Branch.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to modernize the operation of

the Canal Bridge.

BS–AP–No. 3453

Applicant: National Railroad Passenger

Corporation,

Mr. R. C. VanderClute,

Vice President, Operations,

60 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20002.

The National Railroad Passenger

Corporation seeks approval of the

proposed conversion of a portion of ‘‘R’’

Interlocking, at Sunnyside Yard,

milepost E3.7, Queens Borough, New

York, on the Metropolitan Division of

the Northeast Corridor, to a modern

Yard Switching Center, with yard

switches and route indicators to

authorize non-passenger train

movements to and from the yard. The

proposed changes include reliable logic

to protect against conflicting routes,

yard switches locked for movements

with non-vital logic, and route

indicators which will not permit

movements exceeding Restricted Speed.

The reasons given for the proposed

changes are that the original electropneumatic switches with mechanical

locking bed at ‘‘R’’ Interlocking is 87

years old and in need of replacement,

and maintenance of the interlocking in

a yard area, where no train movements

carry revenue passengers, can no longer

be justified.

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
67430 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

proceeding. The original and two copies

of the protest shall be filed with the

Associate Administrator for Safety,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Mail

Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 within

45 calendar days of the date of

publication 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, D.C. on December

10, 1997.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator,

for Safety Standards and

Program Development.

[FR Doc. 97–33554 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket Nos. 97–060; Notice 2; 97–061;

Notice 2; 97–064; Notice 2; 97–065; Notice

2; 97–068; Notice 2; 97–069; Notice 2;

NHTSA–97–3021]

Decision That Certain Nonconforming

Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA

that certain nonconforming motor

vehicles are eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces

decisions by NHTSA that certain motor

vehicles not originally manufactured to

comply with all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards are

eligible for importation into the United

States because they are substantially

similar to vehicles originally

manufactured for importation into and/

or sale in the United States and certified

by their manufacturers as complying

with the safety standards, and they are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to the standards.

DATES: These decisions are effective as

of the date of their publication in the

Federal Register.

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.

NHTSA received petitions from

registered importers to decide whether

the vehicles listed in Annex A to this

notice are eligible for importation into

the United States. To afford an

opportunity for public comment,

NHTSA published notice of these

petitions as specified in Annex A. The

reader is referred to those notices for a

thorough description of the petitions.

No comments were received in response

to these notices. Based on its review of

the information submitted by the

petitioners, NHTSA has decided to grant

the petitions.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject

Vehicles

The importer of a vehicle admissible

under any final decision must indicate

on the form HS–7 accompanying entry

the appropriate vehicle eligibility

number indicating that the vehicle is

eligible for entry. Vehicle eligibility

numbers assigned to vehicles admissible

under this decision are specified in

Annex A.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that

each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to

this notice, which was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle manufactured for

importation into and/or sale in the

United States, and certified under 49

U.S.C. 30115, as specified in Annex A,

and is capable of being readily altered

to conform to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

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: December 19, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Annex A.—Nonconforming Motor

Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for

Importation

1. Docket No. 97–060

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991–1996

Lexus SC300 and SC400

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1991–1996 Lexus SC300

and SC400

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

48709 (September 16, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–225

2. Docket No. 97–061

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1979 Jeep

CJ–7

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1979 Jeep CJ7

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

48711 (September 16, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–224

3. Docket No. 97–064

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1990–1993

BMW K1 Motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1990–1993 BMW K1

Motorcycles

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

51177 (September 30, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–228

4. Docket No. 97–065

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1986—1997

Suzuki GSXR 1100 Motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1986—1997 Suzuki GSXR

1100 Motorcycles

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

51178 (September 30, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–227

5. Docket No. 97–068

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1990–1991

Mercedes Benz 420 SE

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1990–1991 Mercedes Benz

420 SEL

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

53047 (October 10, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–230

6. Docket No. 97–069

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1987–1995

BMW K75S Motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1987–1995 BMW K75S