Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices 17281

Notice is also given that Lykes has

been authorized to be a party to

operating agreements under the

Maritime Security Program (MSP)

Contract Nos. MA/MSP–21 through

MA/MSP–23. Section 656 of the Act

provides that no contractor or related

party shall receive MSP payments

during a period when it participates in

a noncontiguous trade without written

permission. The SEA-LAND

NAVIGATOR operates in the

noncontiguous trade to Hawaii. SeaLand made application under section

656 for the operation of the SEA-LAND

NAVIGATOR among others. A Gilman

subsidiary is the Owner Participant of

the SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR. The

section 656 aspects are being addressed

in Docket MSP–002.

The application may be inspected in

the Office of the Secretary, Maritime

Administration. Any person, firm or

corporation having any interest (within

the meaning of section 805(a)) in Lykes’

request and desiring to submit

comments concerning the request must

by 5:00 PM on April 16, 1997, file

written comments in triplicate with the

Secretary, Maritime Administration,

together with petition for leave to

intervene. The petition shall state

clearly and concisely the grounds of

interest, and the alleged facts relied on

for relief.

If no petition for leave to intervene is

received within the specified time or if

it is determined that petitions filed do

not demonstrate sufficient interest to

warrant a hearing, the Maritime

Administration will take such actions as

may be deemed appropriate.

In the event petitions regarding the

relevant section 805(a) issues are

received from parties with standing to

be heard, a hearing will be held, the

purpose of which will be to receive

evidence under section 805(a) relative to

whether the proposed operations (a)

could result in unfair competition to

any person, firm, or corporation

operating exclusively in the coastwise

or intercoastal service, or (b) would be

prejudicial to the objects and policy of

the Act relative to domestic trade

operations.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 20.805 (Operating-Differential

Subsidy)).

Dated: April 7, 1997.

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9205 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9410–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 96–110; Notice 2]

Cosco, Inc.; Mootness of Application

for Decision of Inconsequential

Noncompliance

On August 29, 1996, Cosco, Inc.

(Cosco), filed an application with the

agency for exemption from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 for

noncompliance with the requirements

of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems.’’

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on October 29, 1996, and

an opportunity afforded for comment

(61 FR 55836). The comment closing

date was November 29, 1996. The reader

is referred to that notice for further

information.

After the comment period closed, in

a December 6, 1996, letter to the agency,

Cosco made a request to withdraw its

application for the following reasons:

Upon further review, we (Cosco) do not

believe these booster seats (Cosco Grand

Explorer-Model #02–424 OXF and 02–424

GDM) fall under the jurisdiction of this

section (S5.2.3.2 of S5.2.3, Head Impact

Protection). S5.2.3.1 specifies the child

restraints systems which must meet the

S5.2.3.2 criteria:

S5.2.3.1 Each child restraint system, other

than a child harness, which is recommended

under S5.5.2(f) or children whose masses are

less than 10 kg, shall comply with S5.2.3.2.

The booster seats in question are

recommended for 30 lbs. (13.6 kg) to 60 lbs.

(27 kg), therefore, they are not recommended

for children under 10 kg and the booster seats

are not required to meet S5.2.3.2.

After review of Standard No. 213 and

the facts of this case, the agency agrees

with Cosco’s interpretation of the

applicable sections of the Standard.

Therefore, Cosco’s application is moot,

and the agency is closing Docket No.

96–110 without making a decision on

Cosco’s application.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

Issued on: April 3, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–9054 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. PDA–15(R)]

Application by Association of Waste

Hazardous Materials Transporters for a

Preemption Determination as to

Houston, Texas, Requirements on the

Storage, Use, Dispensing and Handling

of Hazardous Materials

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Public Notice Reopening

Comment Period.

SUMMARY: RSPA is reopening the

comment period on the application by

the Association of Waste Hazardous

Materials Transporters (AWHMT) for an

administrative determination that

Federal hazardous material

transportation law preempts certain

provisions of the Fire Code of the City

of Houston, Texas (Houston Fire Code),

relating to the storage, use, dispensing,

and handling of hazardous materials. In

November 1996, the Houston City

Council amended the Houston Fire

Code, including provisions challenged

in AWHMT’s application. The comment

period is being reopened to allow

interested parties the opportunity to

comment upon the amended

requirements in the Houston Fire Code

and the manner in which these

requirements are presently being

applied and enforced.

DATES: Comments received on or before

May 27, 1997, and rebuttal comments

received on or before July 8, 1997, will

be considered before an administrative

ruling is issued by RSPA’s Associate

Administrator for Hazardous Materials

Safety. Rebuttal comments may discuss

only those issues raised by comments

received during the initial comment

period and may not discuss new issues.

ADDRESSES: The application and all

comments received may be reviewed in

the Dockets Unit, Research and Special

Programs Administration, Room 8421,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590–0001 (Tel.

No. 202–366–4453). Comments and

rebuttal comments on the application

may be submitted to the Dockets Unit at

the above address, and should include

the Docket Number (PDA–15(R)). Three

copies of each should be submitted. In

addition, a copy of each comment and

each rebuttal comment must also be sent

to (1) Mr. Charles Dickhut, Chairman,

Association of Waste Hazardous

Materials Transporters, 2200 Mill Road,

Alexandria, VA 22314, and (2) Mr. Gene
17282 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices

L. Locke, City Attorney, City of Houston

Legal Department, P.O. Box 1562,

Houston, TX 77251. A certification that

a copy has been sent to these persons

must also be included with the

comment. (The following format is

suggested: ‘‘I hereby certify that copies

of this comment have been sent to

Messrs. Dickhut and Locke at the

addresses specified in the Federal

Register.’’)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frazer C. Hilder, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Research and Special Programs

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590–

0001 (Tel. No. 202–366–4400).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 20, 1996, RSPA published

in the Federal Register, and invited

comments on, an application by

AWHMT for an administrative

determination that Federal hazardous

material transportation law preempts

certain provisions of the Houston Fire

Code, as adopted May 15, 1995, in

Ordinance No. 95–279. Public Notice

and Invitation to Comment, 61 FR

11463. The Houston Fire Code adopted

in Ordinance No. 95–279 consisted of

the Uniform Fire Code (1991 edition), as

modified in a ‘‘Conversion Document.’’

The specific provisions challenged by

AWHMT concerned the storage, use,

dispensing, and handling of hazardous

materials.

AWHMT separately provided copies

of citations issued to operators of cargo

tank motor vehicles for loading or

unloading corrosive materials without

the permit required by the Houston Fire

Code. In its application, AWHMT noted

the exception in Sec. 80.101 of the

Houston Fire Code for ‘‘[o]ff-site

hazardous materials transportation in

accordance with DOT requirements,’’

but stated that the Houston Fire

Department did not consider ‘‘off-site’’

transportation to include loading,

unloading, or storage incidental to

transportation.

According to comments submitted by

the Texas Tank Truck Carriers

Association, Inc. (TTTC), the Houston

Fire Department was applying the

Houston Fire Code’s permit

requirements to any vehicle transporting

hazardous materials (above threshold

quantities) that was not transiting the

City of Houston (City) on a designated

‘‘hazardous material route.’’ TTTC also

stated that, in adopting Ordinance No.

95–279, the City had eliminated

previous exemptions for: (a) Tank trucks

that operated within the City for no

more than 30 days per year and were in

compliance with U.S. Department of

Transportation requirements, and (b)

liquid petroleum gas trucks that

possessed a valid ‘‘Form 4 Card’’ issued

by the Texas Railroad Commission.

In its initial May 1996 comments, the

City stated that the Houston Fire

Department did not construe the

Houston Fire Code adopted in

Ordinance No. 95–279 as applying to

‘‘over-the-road (or off-site)

transportation of flammable and

combustible liquids or hazardous

materials,’’ but acknowledged that the

Fire Department’s practice had been to

regulate and require a permit for ‘‘any

tank vehicle transporting those

materials inside the city limits for more

than thirty days.’’ The City further

stated that the Houston Fire Department

intended to submit the 1994 edition of

the Uniform Fire Code to the Houston

City Council for adoption and would:

—Make clear that permit requirements would

not apply to over-the-road (off-site)

transportation of hazardous materials;

—Propose the deletion of Sec. 79.1203(n)

which required a tank vehicle used for

flammable or combustible liquids to be

marked with a serial number issued by the

fire chief, ‘‘FLAMMABLE’’ and ‘‘NO

SMOKING’’ signs, and the company name

or corporate symbol; and

—Propose the deletion of Houston’s

modification of Sec. 79.1207 which

required two fire extinguishers (rather than

one) on a tank vehicle used for flammable

or combustible liquids.

In a February 13, 1997

‘‘supplementary comment,’’ the City

provided a certified copy of Ordinance

No. 96–1249, approved by the Houston

City Council on November 26, 1996,

which (among other matters) amended

Ordinance No. 95–279 to adopt the 1994

edition of the Uniform Fire Code

together with certain ‘‘City of Houston

Amendments.’’ The City also provided a

three-page excerpt from Article 1 of the

revised Houston Fire Code in which

exceptions to Secs. 106.8(f) and (h)

(concerning permit requirements for the

storage, use, dispensing, and handling

of flammable and combustible liquids

and hazardous materials) state that ‘‘A

permit is not required for any activity

where the requirement of local permits

is preempted by federal or state law.’’

The City did not otherwise explain the

current status of the provisions

challenged in the AWHMT application

(including those requirements that the

City’s May 1996 comments stated would

be proposed for deletion) or discuss the

manner in which those provisions are

currently applied and enforced. The

City did not provide other excerpts from

(or a complete copy of) the current

Houston Fire Code.

On March 17, 1997, AWHMT

provided RSPA with a copy of TTTC’s

Circular Letter No. 1224, dated February

21, 1997, in which TTTC expressed the

opinion that, because ‘‘federal

preemption in this area prevails * * *

bulk carriers will not be required to get

hazardous materials permits for bulk

equipment under the Uniform Fire Code

for the City of Houston.’’ TTTC stated

that it was attempting to obtain

information from ‘‘the legal division of

the Houston City Council’’ regarding the

City’s interpretation of Ordinance No.

96–1249, and that it was still seeking

deletion of the marking requirements in

Sec. 79.1203(n) and the two-fire

extinguisher requirement in Sec.

79.1207. TTTC also indicated that it had

not yet obtained any parts of the revised

Houston Fire Code other than the same

three-page excerpt that the City

included with its supplementary

comment.

II. Reopening of Comment Period

The comment period on AWHMT’s

application is being reopened so that

interested parties may provide further

information on the current status of the

challenged provisions in the Houston

Fire Code and how those provisions are

being applied or enforced. Interested

parties are invited to submit comments

on all issues relevant to whether 49

U.S.C. 5125 preempts provisions of the

Houston Fire Code, including:

(1) The current text of the provisions that

AHWMT’s application asserted to be

preempted by Federal hazardous material

transportation law (see 49 CFR

107.203(b)(2)), and clarification as to which

provisions challenged in AWHMT’s

application have been eliminated by

Ordinance No. 96–1249;

(2) The manner in which the challenged

provisions of the Houston Fire Code are

applied and enforced, including examples of

any recent enforcement actions taken by the

Houston Fire Department;

(3) Whether the Houston Fire Code

(including permit and inspection

requirements) are currently being applied to

operators of vehicles transporting hazardous

materials that:

(a) Pick-up or deliver hazardous materials

within the City;

(b) Depart from a designated ‘‘hazardous

material route’’ for rest, fuel, food, or other

purposes; or

(c) Are operated within the City for no

more than 30 calendar days per year;

(4) The scope and meaning of the

exceptions in Secs. 79.101(a) and 80.101(a) of

the Houston Fire Code, including the City’s

construction of ‘‘transportation * * * in

accordance with DOT regulations’’ in Sec.

79.101(a) and ‘‘off-site transportation’’ in Sec.

80.101(a), and whether the exceptions in

Secs. 79.101(a) and 80.101(a) apply to permit

requirements set forth in Article 4 (or

elsewhere) in the Houston Fire Code; and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices 17283

1This proceeding is related to STB Finance

Docket No. 33327, wherein Dennis Washington,

William H. Brodsky, Mort Lowenthal, Dorn

Parkinson, J. Fred Simpson, and Thomas J. Walsh

have filed a notice of exemption to continue in

control of I&M upon I&M’s becoming a Class II rail

carrier. 2 I&M indicates that, to the extent the assumption

by I&M of any of these trackage rights requires the

consent of third parties, I&M will take appropriate

steps to obtain such consent. 3Operations into and out of Kansas City are via:

a paired track agreement with the Union Pacific

Railroad Company (UP) from Polo, MO (MP 456.7)

to Birmingham, MO (MP 494.5); a joint track

agreement with UP from Birmingham, MO (MP

494.5) to Airline Jct., MO (MP 499.2); and beyond

for approximately 0.13 miles to Sheffield, MO, on

a segment owned jointly by CPR and the Kansas

City Southern Railway Company (KCS).

4Operation on the mainline at Clinton, IA, will

require assumption of CPR’s trackage rights through

the UP interlocking at approximately MP 158.4. 5Over the Nitrin Branch, which is owned by The

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

Company (BNSF), I&M will acquire incidental

trackage rights through an assignment of rights from

CPR. 6Over the segment of the Janesville Branch that

lies between Davis Jct. and Rockford (the Rockford

Segment), which segment is owned by BNSF, I&M

will acquire incidental trackage rights through an

assignment of rights from CPR. 7Operation on the ‘‘Dubuque Segment’’ through

Dubuque, IA, will involve the assumption by I&M

of CPR’s rights to operate on 1.7 miles of the former

Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Company. 8 I&M will assume CPR’s trackage rights

agreement for operation on the Iowa Northern

Railway Company (IANR) from Plymouth Jct., IA

(IANR MP 219.5), to Nora Springs, IA (IANR MP

210.7) (the Nora Springs Segment). 9Operation from Fairmont, MN (MP 182.97), to

Welcome, MN (MP 190.28) will be by assumption

of CPR’s trackage rights on UP (the Welcome

Segment).

(5) Whether AWHMT’s application raises

issues concerning the applicability of the

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 CFR

parts 171–180, that should be considered by

RSPA (in addition to or instead of action on

AWHMT’s application) in the rulemaking

under Docket No. HM–223, ‘‘Applicability of

the Hazardous Materials Regulations to

Loading, Unloading and Storage.’’ See

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61

FR 39522 (July 29, 1996), and Notices of

Meeting, 61 FR 49723 (Sept. 23, 1996), 61 FR

53483 (Oct. 11, 1996).

Persons intending to comment should

review the standards and procedures

governing applications for preemption

determinations, set forth at 49 CFR

107.201–107.211.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3,

1997.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–9038 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33384]

Consolidated Rail Corporation;

Trackage Rights Exemption;

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company (BNSF) will agree to

grant local trackage rights to

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)

between a connection near Panhandle

Crossing (Ash Street) located in

Chicago, IL, BNSF’s milepost 4.51 and

a connection near McCook, IL, at

BNSF’s milepost 12.9, to the town of

Willow Springs, IL, BNSF’s milepost

17.72, a distance of approximately 13.21

miles.

The transaction is scheduled to be

consummated on or about April 7, 1997.

The purpose of the trackage rights is to

allow Conrail to operate intermodal

trains into BNSF’s intermodal terminal

at Willow Springs, IL.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the trackage

rights will be protected by the

conditions imposed in Norfolk and

Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,

354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33384, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on John K.

Enright, Esq., Conrail Law Department,

16–A, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia,

PA 19101–1416.

Decided: April 2, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9098 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33326]

I&M Rail Link, LLC; Acquisition and

Operation Exemption; Certain Lines of

Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a

Canadian Pacific Railway

I&M Rail Link, LLC (I&M), a

noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 and

1150.35 to acquire from Soo Line

Railroad Company,

d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR),

and operate approximately 1,109 miles

of rail line and 262 miles of trackage

rights in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota,

Missouri, Wisconsin, and Kansas. I&M

will become a Class II rail carrier.1

The system to be acquired consists of:

(1) CPR’s ‘‘KC Mainline’’ between

Kansas City, MO, and Pingree Grove, IL,

including trackage rights between

Pingree Grove and Chicago, IL; and (2)

CPR’s ‘‘Corn Lines’’ between Sabula and

Sheldon, IA, including branch lines and

trackage rights in southern Minnesota. 2

The KC Mainline. The KC Mainline

runs from Kansas City, MO (MP 499.2),3

northeasterly through Missouri and

Iowa to a junction near Sabula, IA (MP

141.6), at the Iowa-Illinois border,4

including branch lines from Davenport,

IA (MP 0.0), to Eldridge, IA (MP 9.7)

(the Eldridge Branch), and from

Davenport, IA (MP 0.0) to Albany, IL

(MP 35.0) (the Nitrin Branch); 5 and then

from the junction near Sabula, IA (MP

141.6), easterly across northern Illinois

to Pingree Grove, IL (MP 41.9),

including a branch line from Davis Jct.,

IL (MP 0.0), to Rockford, IL (MP 12.9),

and then beyond to Janesville, WI (MP

45.8) (the Janesville Branch).6

The Corn Lines. The Corn Lines run

from the junction near Sabula, IA (MP

141.6), north-northwesterly,

approximately following Iowa’s eastern

border, to a junction near Marquette, IA

(MP 98.0),7 and then northerly into

Minnesota to La Crescent, MN (MP

160.1); from the junction near Marquette

(MP 0.0), westerly across northern Iowa

to a junction at Mason City, IA (MP

116.7),8 and continuing westerly to

Sheldon, IA (MP 253.4); from the

junction near Mason City northerly into

Minnesota to a junction near Comus,

MN (MP 123.8); and from a junction

near Ramsey, MN (MP 43.0), westerly

across southern Minnesota to Jackson,

MN (MP 149.4),9 including a branch line

from Wells, MN (MP 0.0), to Minnesota

Lake, MN (MP 9.0).

Additional Incidental Trackage

Rights. I&M will also acquire from CPR

additional incidental trackage rights: (i)

For certain traffic over 34.9 miles of rail

line from the end of CPR’s line at

Pingree Grove, IL, over certain lines

owned by the Commuter Rail Division

of the Regional Transportation

Authority (METRA), to a connection

with the Belt Railway Company of

Chicago at Cragin Jct. (MP 7.0) in the

Chicago Terminal; (ii) for overhead

traffic over 125.8 miles of rail line

owned by CPR, part of which is owned

in common with BNSF, from River Jct.,