70654 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Transport Standards 

Propulsion and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANM–112, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056; 

telephone (425) 227–2147; fax (425) 

227–1320; e-mail: 

stephen.happenny@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Disposition of Comments 

A notice of proposed policy was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 19, 2003 (68 FR 8073). Seven 

(7) commenters responded to the 

request for comments. 

Background 

The final policy further simplifies the 

certification process pertaining to the 

acceptable amount of smoke penetration 

permitted into the cabin during a below 

deck cargo compartment smoke 

penetration test. It clarifies the test 

criteria for the means of compliance 

addressed in AC 25–9A and 

supplements that material. 

The final policy as well as the 

disposition of comments received is 

available on the Internet at the following 

address: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl. 

If you do not have access to the Internet, 

you can obtain a copy of the policy by 

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 4, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–23016 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2005–

21964] 

Long Island Railroad; Supplemental 

Notice of Public Hearing and Extension 

of Comment Period 

On September 16, 2005, FRA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing the Long Island 

Railroad’s (LIRR) intent to be granted a 

waiver of compliance from certain 

provisions of the Railroad Operating 

Practices regulations, 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 218, 

regarding blue signal protection of 

workers. See 70 FR 54801. Specifically, 

LIRR requests relief from the 

requirements of 49 CFR 218.29 

Alternate methods of protection, at its 

Diesel Service Facilities in Richmond 

Hills, NY, and Long Island City, NY. 

According to LIRR, both facilities are 

stub-end yards jointly used by both its 

transportation and mechanical forces. 

These yards function to service, 

maintain, inspect, and dispatch the 

diesel passenger fleet for the LIRR. Each 

facility has a speed limit of 5 mph, with 

fixed derails on each service track, and 

manually operated switches. Yard 

movement is controlled by a 

yardmaster. Due to the configuration 

and service demands, the yard cannot 

facilitate the placement of a derail at the 

150-foot interval as prescribed in 

§ 218.29. Additionally, LIRR believes 

that lining and locking the manual 

switches increases potential error of 

proper switch alignment, and is a safety 

concern for all employees working in 

the area. Therefore, LIRR requests that 

employees at these two facilities be 

allowed to place derails at a distance of 

50-feet from the equipment. LIRR states 

that they will post signage to reinforce 

the 5-mph speed restriction, as well as 

paint physical clearance lines denoting 

the 50-foot distance. 

As a result of the comments received 

by FRA concerning this waiver petition, 

FRA has determined that a public 

hearing is necessary before a final 

decision is made on this petition. 

Accordingly, a public hearing is hearby 

set to begin at 9 a.m. on December 21, 

2005, in Conference Room 820 at the 

Hunters Point Plaza, 47–40 21st Street, 

Long Island City, New York 11101. 

Interested parties are invited to present 

oral statements at this hearing. 

The hearing will be informal and will 

be conducted in accordance with FRA’s 

Rules of Practice (49 CFR part 211.25) 

by a representative designated by FRA. 

FRA’s representative will make an 

opening statement outlining the scope 

of the hearing, as well as any additional 

procedures for the conduct of the 

hearing. The hearing will be a nonadversarial proceeding in which all 

interested parties will be given the 

opportunity to express their views 

regarding this waiver petition, without 

cross-examination. After all initial 

statements have been completed, those 

persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal 

statements will be given an opportunity 

to do so in the same order in which 

initial statements were made. 

In addition, FRA is extending the 

comment period in this proceeding until 

December 30, 2005. FRA reserves the 

right to announce a further extension of 

the comment period for the purpose of 

receiving post-hearing submissions 

should that appear appropriate in the 

judgment of the Board based on 

testimony received at the public 

hearing. All communications 

concerning these proceedings should 

identify the appropriate docket number 

(Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–

2005–21964) and must be submitted to 

the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket 

Management Facility, Room PL–401 

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

Washington, DC 20590. 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 November 15, 

2005. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 05–23027 Filed 11–21–05; 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. 20502(a), the following railroad 

has 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. 

Docket Number FRA–2005–22824 

Applicant: National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation, Mr. William 

Crosbie, Senior Vice President, 

Operations, 60 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Washington, DC 20002. 

The National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) with the 

concurrence from Connecticut 

Department of Transportation (CDOT) 

and the Providence and Worcester 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 70655 

Railroad Company (P&W), seeks 

approval of the proposed modification 

of five remote-controlled interlockings 

protecting movable bridges on Amtrak’s 

Northeast Corridor, New England 

Division, in Connecticut, on Main 

Tracks No. 1 and No. 2, as follows: 

1. The discontinuance and removal of 

the four power-operated derails at 

‘‘Conn,’’ milepost 106.8, at the 

Connecticut River, in Old Saybrook, 

Connecticut; 

2. The discontinuance and removal of 

the four power-operated derails at 

‘‘Nan,’’ milepost 116.7, at the Niantic 

River, in Niantic, Connecticut; 

3. The discontinuance and removal of 

the four power-operated derails at 

‘‘Shaws Cove,’’ milepost 122.5, in New 

London, Connecticut; 

4. The discontinuance and removal of 

the four power-operated derails at 

‘‘Groton,’’ milepost 124.2, at the Thames 

River, Groton, Connecticut; and 

5. The discontinuance and removal of 

the four power-operated derails at 

‘‘Mystic River,’’ milepost 131.9, in 

Mystic, Connecticut; 

The changes proposed consist of the 

removal of four derails at each 

interlocking, one for each track in each 

direction. Each of the interlocking home 

signals protecting these derails and the 

associated movable bridges have been 

equipped with the Northeast Corridor 

100 Hz coded cab signal system with 

speed control, or Automatic Train 

Control (ATC). The interlockings have 

also been equipped with Amtrak’s 

Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement 

System (ACSES) Positive Train Stop 

(PTS), in addition to ATC. 

The reason given for the proposed 

changes is that removal of the derails is 

to eliminate maintenance and operation 

of obsolete hardware no longer needed, 

and to reduce delays to trains caused by 

failures of the derails and the associated 

movable bridges. The derails have been 

rendered obsolete by ATC and ACSES 

technologies, which enforce slowing 

and stopping of trains prior to passing 

the interlocking home signals in stop 

position, rather than derail the train 

after it passes the stop signal. 

Any interested party desiring to 

protest the granting of an application 

shall set forth specifically the grounds 

upon which the protest is made, and 

include a concise statement of the 

interest of the party in the proceeding. 

Additionally, one copy of the protest 

shall be furnished to the applicant at the 

address listed above. 

All communications concerning this 

proceeding should be identified by the 

docket number and must be submitted 

to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket 

Management Facility, Room PL–401 

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

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by the 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. 

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. 

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 November 15, 

2005. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 05–23026 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19549; Notice 2] 

Decision That Nonconforming 2001 

Chevrolet Blazer (Plant Code ‘‘K’’ or 

‘‘2’’) Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles 

Are Eligible for Importation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of decision by National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

that nonconforming 2001 Chevrolet 

Blazer (plant code ‘‘K’’ or ‘‘2’’) 

multipurpose passenger vehicles are 

eligible for importation. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

decision by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

that certain 2001 Chevrolet Blazer (plant 

code ‘‘K’’ or ‘‘2’’) multipurpose 

passenger vehicles (MPVs) that were not 

originally manufactured to comply with 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible 

for importation into the United States 

because they are substantially similar to 

vehicles originally manufactured for 

sale in the United States and that were 

certified by their manufacturer as 

complying with the safety standards 

(the U.S. certified version of the 2001 

Chevrolet Blazer (plant code ‘‘K’’ or ‘‘2’’) 

MPV), and they are capable of being 

readily altered to conform to the 

standards. 

DATES: This decision was effective 

January 27, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151). 

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 FMVSS 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 sale in the United States, certified as 

required 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 FMVSS. 

Where there is no substantially 

similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 

U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a 

nonconforming motor vehicle to be 

admitted into the United States if its 

safety features comply with, or are 

capable of being altered to comply with, 

all applicable FMVSS based on 

destructive test data or such other 

evidence as NHTSA decides to be 

adequate. 

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. 

Wallace Environmental Testing 

Laboratories, Inc. (WETL) (Registered