24252 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices

Operating Certificate under 14 CFR part

139 to SWF Airport Acquisition, Inc.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 17,

2000.

David L. Bennett,

Director, Office of Airport Safety and

Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–10219 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement on the Buffalo Inner Harbor

Project, New York

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement.

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) is issuing this

notice to advise the public and

interested agencies that a Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

will be prepared by the FTA and the

Niagara Frontier Transportation

Authority (NFTA) on the Buffalo Inner

Harbor Project. This Supplemental EIS

is in response to a court order and is

limited in scope to the issue of historic

preservation. The SEIS will address

events and information that became

available subsequent to the final EIS

(FEIS), which was issued February 12,

1999.

The Preservation Coalition filed a

civil action on October 6, 1999, in the

United States District Court for the

Western District of New York under

civil action number 99–CV–745S against

FTA, NFTA, the New York State

Thruway Authority, Empire State

Development Corporation (ESDC), and

the New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation, and Historic Preservation.

ESDC is the project sponsor. The

Preservation Coalition challenged the

Buffalo Inner Harbor Project on

environmental and historic preservation

grounds. On March 31, 2000, District

Court Judge William M. Skretny ordered

that a SEIS be prepared to consider the

information learned during

archaeological investigations conducted

after the FEIS.

DATES: The court established a

compressed timetable for completion of

a draft and final SEIS. A draft SEIS will

be prepared by May 10, 2000. Public

comments will be solicited, and a public

hearing will be held, on the SEIS

between May 20, 2000, and May 31,

2000. A final SEIS will be prepared by

June 30, 2000. FTA will issue a

supplemental Record of Decision (ROD)

by July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Correspondence requesting

notification of the availability of the

draft SEIS and the public hearing date

and location, or commenting on the

draft SEIS should be addressed to Vito

Sportelli, NFTA, 181 Ellicott Street;

Buffalo, New York 14203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony G. Carr, FTA Region II, One

Bowling Green, Room 429; New York,

New York 10004. Telephone (212) 668–

2170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Buffalo Inner Harbor Project involves

reconfiguring a segment of the Buffalo

Inner Harbor shoreline into three areas

to accommodate a commercial harbor

basin with three piers, a working canal

slip and a naval vessel basin. The

Project also involves intermodal

transportation components, including

the construction of a public esplanade

to provide a continuous transportation

link and public access to the waterfront,

connection of existing pedestrian and

bicycle path systems and provision of

opportunities for private development.

The State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO) opined in June 1998 that

the Buffalo Inner Harbor Project would

have no adverse effect on cultural

resources in or eligible for inclusion on

the National Register of Historic Places.

SHPO also called for a Stage III

archaeological excavation of the

Commercial Slip. The Commercial Slip

is a former slip that connected the Erie

Canal with the Buffalo River. It was

filled in 1926 and is presently used as

a right-of-way for the Hamburg Drain.

During the Stage III excavation remains

of the Commercial Slip wall were

discovered, and as a result, the SHPO

determined in June 1999 that the

Commercial Slip wall met the criteria

for inclusion in the National Register,

and subsequently, the SHPO determined

that exposure and public display of the

Commercial Slip wall is not feasible and

that the wall should be covered over as

a means of preservation.

The court ordered that the SEIS must

address and discuss events that

occurred and information that became

available subsequent to the final EIS

which will affect environmental issues

in a significant manner or to a

significant extent not already

considered in the final EIS. Specifically,

the SEIS will discuss: (a) Applicability

of the ‘‘archaeology exception’’ to the

Commercial Slip wall, and to other

existing historic resources, if any, at the

Inner Harbor Project site; (b) Whether

the Commercial Slip wall must be

buried in order to protect it from the

elements; (c) Whether rehabilitation,

restoration or reconfiguration of the

Commercial Slip wall is a reasonable

and prudent alternative to burying the

wall; and (d) Whether any resources at

the Inner Harbor project site, other than

Commercial Slip, are eligible for

inclusion in the National Register, either

individually or collectively. The SEIS

will also address and discuss whether

proposals submitted by the Preservation

Coalition, and/or by other entities or

individuals for the rehabilitation,

restoration or reconfiguration, and/or

utilization of the Commercial Slip wall,

in the plan for the Inner Harbor Project,

are reasonable and prudent.

Issued on: April 20, 2000.

Letitia Thompson,

Regional Administrator, Federal Transit

Administration, Region II.

[FR Doc. 00–10297 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000–7125, Notice 1]

General Motors Corp.; Receipt of

Application for Determination of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 ‘‘Motor Vehicle

Safety’’ for a noncompliance with

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 209, ‘‘Seat Belt

Assemblies,’’ on the basis that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety. GM has filed a

report of a noncompliance pursuant to

49 CFR part 573 ‘‘Defects and

Noncompliance Reports.’’

This notice of receipt of the

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the application.

Description of Noncompliance

GM has determined that the driver

safety belt assembly in some GM S/T

pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles

does not meet the requirements of

S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS 209. The vehicles

involved are model year 1999 and 2000

versions of the Chevrolet S–10 and GMC

Sonoma pickups and the Chevrolet

Blazer/Trail Blazer, GMC Jimmy/Envoy,

and Oldsmobile Bravada utility

vehicles. Some of these trucks were

built with a driver safety belt emergency

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices 24253

locking retractor that will not meet the

0.7 g locking requirements of the

standard.

GM requested exemption from the

notice and remedy requirement of the

49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 49 U.S.C.

30120(h), because it believes this

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS No. 209 requires

that an emergency locking retractor of a

Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt assembly

‘‘shall lock before the webbing extends

25 mm when the retractor is subjected

to an acceleration of 7 m/s2 (0.7 g).’’

Some of the retractors in question

exhibit, to a varying degree, plastic flash

(burr) on the sensor lever near the pivot

where it mates to the sensor housing.

This flash can cause a nonconformance

with the 0.7 g locking requirement due

to potential increased drag of the sensor

lever in the housing.

Supporting Information as Submitted

by General Motors

GM reported the following analysis to

support the petition.

GM and its safety belt supplier located

retractors from the same build period (weeks

6–32 of 1999) as the subject retractors in

order to perform testing to investigate this

matter. A total of 1,392 retractors from this

build period were obtained and tested. Of

these, only 50 (3.5%) did not lock when

tested in each of four directions at 0.6 g (the

GM test specification level). Only 10 of those

(0.72% of the 1,392 total) did not lock when

tested 10 times in each of four directions at

0.7 g. Based on this testing, only a very small

portion of the subject retractors is expected

to not meet the 0.7 g requirement.

Additionally, GM compared the 0.7 g

retractor locking requirement to (1) the onset

of significant shoulder belt loading in S/T

truck crash tests and (2) the calculated sidepull coefficient often used to help assess

rollover propensity. These collision types

represent circumstances where the safety belt

certainly provides important safety benefits.

The crash test analysis indicates retractor

locking still occurs prior to any significant

safety belt loading or motion of the occupant

relative to the belt. The rollover analysis

indicates that safety belt retractor lock-up

will occur prior to rollover of these subject

vehicles.

Finally, as a result of tests performed on

the small quantity (10) of questionable

retractors that were available, GM also has

determined that the simulation of the

jouncing and jostling that vehicles are subject

to during transit to dealerships, either by rail

or truck (haulaway), generally reduces the

effect of the flash such that a large percentage

of the noncompliant vehicles become

compliant prior to transit completion. In the

case of rail transit, we estimate noncompliant

retractors to become compliant after four

hours of transit. Almost all vehicles shipped

by rail travel more than four hours. In the

case of simulated haulaway transit, six of

nine noncompliant retractors were compliant

after three hours of transit (approximately

150 miles), and seven of nine were compliant

after six hours of transit (approximately 300

miles). Approximately 90% of all S/T trucks

shipped by haulaway travel more than three

hours.

Accordingly, the already small number of

potentially noncompliant retractors will be

further reduced by the time they arrive at the

dealership. For the reasons outlined above,

GM believes that this noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly GM petitions that it be exempt

from the remedy and recall provision of the

Motor Vehicle Safety Act in this case.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments on the petition of GM,

described above. Comments should refer

to the Docket Number and be submitted

to: Docket Management, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room PL 401, 400 7th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. It is requested

that two copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent practicable.

When the application is granted or

denied, a Notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: May 25, 2000.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8)

Issued on: April 19, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–10246 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7164; Notice 1]

Suzuki Motor Corp.; Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Suzuki Motor Corporation of

Hamamatsu, Japan, has determined that

1,595 vehicles fail to comply with

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 225, ‘‘Child Restraint

Anchorage Systems,’’ and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ Suzuki has also applied to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’

on the basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the application.

FMVSS No. 225, S4.1, requires that:

Each tether anchorage and each child

restraint anchorage system installed, either

voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in

any new vehicle manufactured on or after

September 1, 1999, shall comply with the

configuration, location, marking and strength

requirements of this standard. The vehicle

shall be delivered with written information,

in English, on how to appropriately use those

anchorages and systems.

FMVSS No. 225, S12, requires that:

The vehicle must provide written

instructions, in English, for using the tether

anchorages and the child restraint anchorage

system in the vehicle. If the vehicle has an

owner’s manual, the instructions must be in

that manual. The instructions shall:

(a) Indicate which seating positions in the

vehicle are equipped with tether anchorages

and child restraint anchorage systems;

(b) In the case of vehicles required to be

marked as specified in paragraphs S4.1,

S9.5(a), or S15.4, explain the meaning of

markings provided to locate the lower

anchorages of child restraint anchorage

systems; and

(c) Include instructions that provide a stepby-step procedure, including diagrams, for

properly attaching a child restraint system’s

tether strap to the tether anchorages.

At the start of production for the 2000

model year, Suzuki began installing

user-ready tether anchorages as standard

equipment in Suzuki Swift vehicles.

Due to an oversight, however, Suzuki

neglected to update the Suzuki Swift

owner’s manual in conjunction with

this production change. As a result, the

owner’s manual for 1,595 Suzuki Swift

vehicles manufactured between August

1999 and February 2000, and shipped

prior to March 2000 do not comply with

the information requirements in FMVSS

No. 225.

Suzuki supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

The vehicle owner’s manual for the subject

Suzuki Swift vehicles contains the following

text relating to the use of child restraint

systems that require use of a top tether:

‘‘Some child restraint systems require the

use of a top strap. If you use such a restraint

system and your vehicle is not equipped with

the top tether strap anchor bracket, have your

dealer install the top strap anchor bracket, or

contact your dealer for instructions on how

to install the anchor bracket.’’

In addition to the text message, the owner’s

manual contains two illustrations (one for the

hatchback model and one for the sedan

model) showing a child restraint system