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 

70656 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 

Importer 90–005), petitioned NHTSA to 

decide whether 2001 Chevrolet Blazer 

MPVs are eligible for importation into 

the United States. NHTSA published 

notice of the petition on November 16, 

2004 (69 FR 67208) to afford an 

opportunity for public comment. The 

reader is referred to that notice for a 

thorough description of the petition. 

One comment was received in 

response to the notice of the petition 

from General Motors Corporation 

(‘‘GM’’), the manufacturer of the 2001 

Chevrolet Blazer. In this comment, GM 

stated that during the 2001 model year, 

GM and its subsidiaries and affiliates 

assembled Chevrolet Blazers at several 

locations around the world. Those 

intended for sale in the United States, 

Canada, and some other world markets, 

were produced at two assembly plants 

located within the United States, at 

Linden, New Jersey (identified by plant 

code ‘‘K’’ in the 11th position of the 

vehicle identification number or ‘‘VIN’’

assigned to the vehicle) and at Moraine, 

Ohio, (identified by plant code ‘‘2’’ in 

the 11th position of the VIN). 

GM stated that production of 2001 

Chevrolet Blazers also occurred at a 

number of plants outside of the United 

States. GM stated that in order to satisfy 

unique market conditions and local 

regulations, vehicles produced at these 

foreign plants differed from those 

produced domestically in a number of 

respects, including the interior trim, 

chassis, and powertrain components 

with which they were built. Owing to 

the design and part differences between 

the 2001 Chevrolet Blazers produced 

domestically, and those produced 

overseas for foreign markets, GM stated 

that there is no assurance that the 

vehicles produced overseas would 

comply with, or are capable of being 

readily altered to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS. GM noted that it 

does not typically perform tests or 

evaluations to determine the 

compliance of foreign market vehicles 

with the FMVSS because the vehicles 

were never intended for sale or use in 

the U.S. market. GM further observed 

that Blazers built overseas for foreign 

markets may contain locally sourced 

parts that are not subject to the same 

manufacturing, warranty, and approval 

process used within GM’s North 

American operations and that these 

foreign sourced parts may have an 

impact on the vehicles’ conformity with 

the FMVSS. 

In light of these considerations, GM 

expressed the opinion that only the U.S. 

manufactured versions of the subject 

vehicles (those with plant codes ‘‘K’’ or 

‘‘2’’ in the 11th position of their VINs) 

should be considered substantially 

similar to vehicles originally 

manufactured for sale in the U.S. and 

capable of being modified to comply 

with the FMVSS. GM contended that 

‘‘* * * subject vehicles manufactured at 

all other locations should not be 

considered substantially similar to 

vehicles originally manufactured for 

sale in the U.S. and, thus, not eligible 

for importation.’’

NHTSA accorded WETL an 

opportunity to respond to GM’s 

comments. WETL stated that the 2001 

Chevrolet Blazers that are the subject of 

its petition are U.S. manufactured 

vehicles with plant codes ‘‘K’’ or ‘‘2’’ in 

the 11th position of their VINs. WETL 

therefore did not challenge GM’s 

contention that vehicles with plant 

codes other than these should not be 

considered substantially similar to U.S.- 

certified models and therefore eligible 

for importation. In view of GM’s 

comments and WETL’s response, 

NHTSA decided to grant import 

eligibility only to 2001 Chevrolet 

Blazers with the plant code ‘‘K’’ or ‘‘2’’

in the eleventh character of their VINs. 

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. VSP–461 is the 

vehicle eligibility number assigned to 

vehicles admissible under this notice of 

final decision. 

Final Decision 

Accordingly, on the basis of the 

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decided that 

2001 Chevrolet Blazer MPVs that were 

not originally manufactured to comply 

with all applicable FMVSS, but that 

have been assigned vehicle 

identification numbers in which the 

letter ‘‘K’’ or the number ‘‘2’’ is the 

eleventh character, are substantially 

similar to 2001 Chevrolet Blazer MPVs 

originally manufactured for sale in the 

United States and certified under 49 

U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of being 

readily altered to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS. 

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. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 05–23099 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; DaimlerChrysler 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the petition of DaimlerChrysler 

Corporation (DaimlerChrysler) for an 

exemption of a high-theft line, the 

Dodge Charger, from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. This 

petition is granted because the agency 

has determined that the antitheft device 

to be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with model 

year (MY) 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated March 30, 2005, 

DaimlerChrysler requested an 

exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 

Dodge Charger vehicle line. The petition 

has been filed pursuant to 49 CFR part 

543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for an entire 

vehicle line. DaimlerChrysler’s 

submission is considered a complete 

petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in 

that it meets the general requirements 

contained in § 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of § 543.6. Under 

§ 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition 

NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line 

of its vehicle lines per year. 

DaimlerChrysler stated that all Dodge 

Charger vehicles would be equipped 

with a standard Sentry Key Immobilizer 

System (SKIS) antitheft device. In its 

petition, DaimlerChrysler provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the vehicle line. The SKIS antitheft