3802 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Notices 

1 In phone calls with the agency, the petitioner 

reported that he had received a call from his dealer 

letting him know the repair kits had arrived and 

offering to schedule an appointment for a repair. He 

also reported that he no longer owns a motorcycle 

involved in the remedy campaign addressed by this 

notice. 

Background 

On August 4, 2006, Polaris filed a 

defect information report (06V–298) 

with NHTSA, notifying it that some of 

its 2001 Victory V92 motorcycles and 

some of its 1999–2000 Victory V92 

motorcycles that received a 

transmission replacement last built in 

2001 contained a safety-related defect. 

According to Polaris, under certain 

conditions, these motorcycles could 

experience third gear failures that could 

result in a lock-up of the transmission. 

This, in turn, could cause a loss of 

control and a crash. Polaris reported 

that it was planning to install a rear 

sprocket damper assembly to correct for 

the possible third gear failures, but that 

the schedule for implementing the 

remedy campaign was still under 

development. Subsequently, on 

November 22, 2006, Polaris issued a 

letter to the affected owners notifying 

them of the defect and stating that 

limited numbers of kits needed to repair 

the motorcycles (referred to as ‘‘Rear 

Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits’’) were 

expected to be distributed the week of 

December 18, 2006. Owners were 

instructed to contact Victory dealers to 

schedule repair appointments. 

During the final stages of testing, 

however, Polaris found that the remedy 

kits were not sufficient to address the 

risk of third gear failures, and therefore 

additional work was needed to develop 

a better remedy. Polaris advised the 

agency of its finding and the resulting 

delay in delivery of remedy kits in 

January, 2007. 

On March 8, 2007, NHTSA received a 

package containing two petitions from 

Robin R. Harrill. The first petition, 

captioned a ‘‘Petition for Rulemaking, 

Defect, and Noncompliance Order,’’

requested that NHTSA order Polaris to 

assume all costs motorcycle owners may 

have incurred to replace the third gear 

assemblies on the affected motorcycles. 

The second petition, captioned a 

‘‘Petition for Hearing on Notification 

and Remedy of Defects,’’ requested a 

hearing to address Polaris’s alleged 

failure to meet its obligation to remedy 

those defective assemblies. 

The crux of both petitions is that 

Polaris has been unreasonably slow in 

making the Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive 

Kits available to owners and dealers. In 

support of his petitions, Mr. Harrill 

provided a timeline of events 

concerning the recall, an account of 

certain conversations he had with 

various Polaris personnel, and 

summaries of various communications 

Polaris had issued as to the status and 

availability of the kits. 

In the meantime, and at the agency’s 

request, Polaris prepared another 

notification letter for owners. On or 

about April 20, 2007, NHTSA received 

a draft of this letter together with an 

amended defect information report. 

Polaris stated in its report that this 

second owner notification mailing was 

to start April 30, 2007. Polaris further 

reported that it was going to 

simultaneously publish on its Web site 

a reminder notification to dealers about 

the recall, together with a parts 

availability date. Both of these actions 

took place. 

In mid-May, 2007, the remedy kits for 

the affected motorcycles were made 

available to dealers. 

Decision 

The filing and disposition 

requirements for petitions for 

rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance 

orders, are found in 49 CFR part 552. 

The stated scope of part 552 is to, 

among other things, allow interested 

persons to request the agency ‘‘make a 

decision that a motor vehicle * * * 

contains a defect which relates to motor 

vehicle safety.’’ 49 CFR 552.1. The 

stated scope of Part 552 does not 

include ordering manufacturers to 

reimburse owners for their costs in 

remedying defective motor vehicles, or 

taking any other action related to 

repairing or replacing defective motor 

vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. 

Here, Polaris has already admitted 

that its vehicles have a defect that 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

Therefore, the issue of whether the 

Polaris motorcycles in question have a 

safety-related defect has been resolved, 

and so any agency determination 

mirroring the manufacturer’s decision 

would be meaningless. 

The filing and disposition 

requirements for petitions for hearings 

on notification and remedy of defects, 

are found in 49 CFR part 557. One of the 

stated purposes of part 557 is to enable 

NHTSA to respond to petitions for 

hearings on whether a manufacturer has 

reasonably met its obligation to remedy 

a safety-related defect identified in its 

product. 49 CFR 557.2. Pursuant to 49 

CFR 557.8, a manufacturer can be 

ordered to take certain actions to ensure 

its compliance with the recall 

requirements. One such action could be 

requiring the manufacturer to reimburse 

owners’ costs for their independent 

repairing or replacing of equipment in 

order to fix a defect. 

In deciding whether to grant 

petitioner’s second petition, we have 

taken into consideration the nature of 

his complaint and the seriousness of the 

alleged breach of Polaris’s obligation to 

remedy. We have also considered that 

there have been approximately eight 

owner complaints to NHTSA (including 

one the petitioner filed) about the delays 

in repair due to the lack of availability 

of the Rear Sprocket Cushion Drive Kits 

at local dealerships. 

Based on our consideration of these 

factors, we have determined that any 

hearing related to the reasonableness of 

the remedy would be moot because the 

alleged problem—delays in repair kits 

needed to fix the transmission defect—

has been resolved. Polaris has delivered 

the kits to its dealers and all owners 

have been notified of the defect.1

For all of the reasons above, this 

petition is denied. This decision does 

not, of course, prevent the agency from 

taking future action if warranted. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120; delegations of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: January 15, 2008. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E8–951 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; 

Notice of Delays in Processing of 

Special Permits Applications 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of Applications Delayed 

more than 180 days. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), 

PHMSA is publishing the following list 

of special permit applications that have 

been in process for 180 days or more. 

The reason(s) for delay and the expected 

completion date for action on each 

application is provided in association 

with each identified application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Special Permits 

and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, East 

Building, PHH–30, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–

4535. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Notices 3803 

Key to ‘‘Reason for Delay’’

1. Awaiting additional information 

from applicant. 

2. Extensive public comment under 

review. 

3. Application is technically complex 

and is of significant impact or 

precedent-setting and requires extensive 

analysis. 

4. Staff review delayed by other 

priority issues or volume of special 

permit applications. 

Meaning of Application Number 

Suffixes 

N—New application. 

M—Modification request. 

PM—Party to application with 

modification request. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 16, 

2008. 

Delmer F. Billings 

Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, 

Special Permits and Approvals. 

MODIFICATION TO SPECIAL PERMITS

Application No. Applicant Reason for 

delay 

Estimated 

date of 

completion 

11579–M ................ Austin Powder Company, Cleveland, OH .............................................................................. 3, 4 02–29–2008. 

10964–M ................ Kidde Aerospace & Defense, Wilson, NC .............................................................................. 4 02–29–2008. 

NEW SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Application No. Applicant Reason for 

delay 

Estimated 

date of 

completion 

14385–N ................. Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Kansas City, MO ................................................. 4 02–29–2008. 

14546–N ................. BOC Gases, Murray Hill, NJ ................................................................................................... 4 02–29–2008. 

14402–N ................. Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE ............................................................................................ 1, 3 01–31–2008. 

14436–N ................. BNSF Railway Company, Topeka, KS ................................................................................... 4 02–29–2008. 

[FR Doc. 08–202 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 675] 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008—Solid Waste Rail Transfer 

Facilities 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of legislation. 

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public 

of new legislation affecting the Board, 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008, Public Law No. 110–161, 121 Stat. 

1844 (2007), and how the Board plans 

to proceed to ensure compliance with 

that legislation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 245–0395. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 26, 2007, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 

No. 110–161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007) 

(Act), was enacted into law, which 

among other things, provides the Board 

with funding for fiscal year 2008. As 

pertinent here, section 193 of the Act 

provides: 

(a) None of the funds appropriated or 

otherwise made available under this Act 

to the Surface Transportation Board of 

the Department of Transportation may 

be used to take any action to allow any 

activity described in subsection (b) in a 

case, matter, or declaratory order 

involving a railroad, or an entity 

claiming or seeking authority to operate 

as a railroad, unless the Board receives 

written assurance from the Governor, or 

the Governor’s designee, of the State in 

which such activity will occur that such 

railroad or entity has agreed to comply 

with State and local regulations that 

establish public health, safety, and 

environmental standards for the 

activities described in subsection (b), 

other than zoning laws or regulations. 

(b) Activities referred to in subsection 

(a) are activities that occur at a solid 

waste rail transfer facility involving—

(1) the collection, storage, or transfer 

of solid waste (as defined in section 

1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

(42 U.S.C. 6903)) outside of original 

shipping containers; or 

(2) the separation or processing of 

solid waste (including baling, crushing, 

compacting, and shredding). 

While the Board will continue to 

accept and process petitions, notices, 

and other filings in conformance with 

its regulations, the Board will ensure 

compliance with the Act by providing 

notice herein that no pertinent Board 

decision issued during the period 

covered by the Act will authorize any of 

the aforementioned activities prior to 

receipt of the written assurance 

referenced in the Act from the governor 

(or governor’s designee) of the state 

where such activities are proposed. The 

Board intends to include in all pertinent 

agency decisions issued during that 

period a statement substantially similar 

to the following: 

Pursuant to the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 

No. 110–161, § 193, 121 Stat. 1844 

(2007), nothing in this decision 

authorizes the following activities at any 

solid waste rail transfer facility: 

Collecting, storing or transferring solid 

waste outside of its original shipping 

container; or separating or processing 

solid waste (including baling, crushing, 

compacting and shredding). The term 

‘solid waste’ is defined in section 1004 

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 

U.S.C. 6903. 

Board filings, decisions, and notices 

are available on its Web site, http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner 

Buttrey. 

Anne K. Quinlan, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–1051 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES