3004 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices

equipped with a seatbelt warning lamp

and buzzer that are identical to

components found on comparable U.S.-

certified models. The petitioner also

stated that the vehicles are equipped

with combination lap and shoulder

restraints that adjust by means of an

automatic retractor and release by

means of a single push button at all

front and rear designated seating

positions.

Standard No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages: The petitioner stated that

compliance with Standard 207 was

demonstrated in dynamic tests

conducted for the petitioner by MGA

Research Corporation to establish the

vehicles’ compliance with Standards

208 and 301. These tests were

conducted after structural modifications

at seat belt assembly anchorage points.

That are depicted in structural drawings

that were granted confidentiality by

NHTSA’s Office of Chief Counsel under

49 CFR part 512.

Standard No. 212 Windshield

Retention: application of adhesives to

the windshield’s edges.

Standard No. 214 Side Impact

Protection: The petitioner stated that

compliance with Standard 214 was

demonstrated in dynamic tests on both

sides of the vehicle conducted for the

petitioner by MGA Research

Corporation. These tests were

conducted after certain structural

modifications to the vehicle. The

petitioner observed that no doors

opened on impact in the course of these

tests.

Standard No. 301 Fuel System

Integrity: The petitioner stated that

compliance with Standard 301 was

demonstrated in dynamic tests

conducted for the petitioner by MGA

Research Corporation. These tests were

made after fuel system modifications

made in conjunction with those

necessary to meet Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) requirements.

The petitioner additionally stated that

a vehicle identification number (VIN)

plate must be attached to the left

windshield post and a reference and

certification label must be added in the

left front door post area to meet 49 CFR

part 565.

No comments were received in

response to the notice of petition. Based

on its review of the information

submitted by the petitioner, NHTSA has

decided to grant the petition.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject

Vehicles

The importer of a vehicle admissible

under any final determination must

indicate on the form HS–7

accompanying entry the appropriate

vehicle eligibility number indicating

that the vehicle is eligible for entry.

VCP–17 is the vehicle eligibility number

assigned to vehicles admissible under

this determination.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that

1990–1999 Nissan GTS and GTR

Passenger cars are eligible for

importation into the United States

because they have safety features that

comply with, or are capable of being

altered to comply with, all applicable

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: January 12, 2000.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 00–1125 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–6685; Notice 1]

General Motors Corporation, Receipt

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

determined that certain 1999 Chevrolet

vehicles are not in full compliance with

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 120, ‘‘Tire selection and

rims for motor vehicles other than

passenger cars,’’ and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ GM 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 and

defect (represented by the failures to

meet Part 567) are 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.

The purpose of FMVSS No. 120 is to

provide safe operation of vehicles by

ensuring that those vehicles are

equipped with tires of appropriate size

and load rating; and rims of appropriate

size and type designation. Paragraph

S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that

each rim or, at the option of the

manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, the wheel disc be marked

with specific information, including a

designation which indicates the source

of the rim’s published nominal

dimensions, and the rim size

designation, and in case of multipiece

rims, the rim designation. For example:

20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5.

Between March 1, 1999, and March

13, 1999, GM produced 11,522 Blazers

and S–10 trucks that may contain

wheels that are missing the width

designation in the rim marking on the

back side of the wheel. GM’s wheel

supplier, Reynolds-Rualca, Venezuela,

produced 3,721 wheels that had an error

in the rim size designation. Instead of

the correct rim size designation of

‘‘15x7,’’ these wheels have a rim size

designation of ‘‘15x7’’. The error

occurred when one the wheel casting

molds was refurbished. Of the 3,721

mis-marked wheels produced, a

maximum of mis-designated 1,658

wheels were installed on the Chevrolet

vehicles. The rim markings other than

the rim width designation were not

affected by the refurbishing error, and

the remainder of the rim marking

information, including rim diameter, is

correct on all of the 1,658 wheels.

GM supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance by

stating the following:

1. ‘‘The tire and rim of the affected

wheels are properly matched, and are

appropriate for the load-carrying

characteristics of these vehicles. The

lack of complete marking has no effect

on the performance of the tire/rim

combination of the subject vehicles.’’

2. ‘‘These vehicles have a placard on

the left front door that contains the

correct and complete tire and rim sizes

installed on these vehicles. The placard

on the subject vehicles shows rim size

completely and correctly as 15x7J.’’

3. ‘‘The owner’s manual provided

with these vehicles contains a section

‘Buying New Tires.’ The text of this

section advises the customer that they

should look at the Certification/Tire

Label to find out what kind and size of

tires they need. It goes on to tell them

that they should get new tires with the

same Tire Performance Criteria

Specification (TPC Spec) that the

vehicle came with, and that they can

find the TPC number on each tire’s

sidewall. Finally it advises them that if

they were to replace the tires with those

not having the TPC Spec number found

on the original equipment tires, they

should make sure that the tires they

choose are the same size, load range,

speed rating and construction type as

the original tires. Nowhere are

customers told to look at the wheel to

determine the appropriate tire.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices 3005

4. ‘‘General Motors believes that very

few of these wheels will ever have to be

replaced over the life of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the owner’s manual

provided with these vehicles contains a

section ‘Wheel Replacement.’ This

section states that each new wheel

should have the same load-carrying,

diameter, width, offset and be mounted

in the same way as the one it replaces.

It also advises customers that their

dealer will know the kind of wheel they

need. The wheels at issue here are not

marked with an incorrect width. Rather,

they have no width marking. Therefore

a dealer would not be mislead by a

width marking on the wheel, but would

look at the placard if they were not

aware of the exact width.’’

5. ‘‘If a customer needs to replace a

tire or a wheel, he/she is likely to go to

a tire/wheel store, or a vehicle dealer.

The skilled personnel at any of these

places know how to determine the

correct tire or wheel size that they are

replacing. For the tire replacement, it is

highly probable that they will first look

at the tire sidewall to determine the

replacement tire size. They also know

that the information exists on the

placard and may look at the placard. For

the wheel replacement, they may look at

the tire placard or at the wheel itself to

determine the replacement size. The

subject wheels do not give incorrect

information, however the information is

incomplete. Since the information on

the wheel is incomplete, the person

looking at it will look elsewhere to find

the missing information prior to

selecting replacement wheel or tire size.

For the correct tire selection, rim

diameter is of primary importance, and

the tire diameter must be the same as

the rim diameter. The information on

the subject wheels does contain the

correct rim diameter, i.e., 15.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application described

above. Comments should refer to the

docket number and be submitted to:

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh 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 possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: February 18,

2000.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: January 13, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–1227 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33824]

Great Salt Lake and Southern Railroad,

L.L.C.—Construction and Operation—

In Tooele County, UT

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of filing of application

and request for public comments.

SUMMARY: Great Salt Lake and Southern

Railroad Company, L.L.C., has filed an

application under 49 U.S.C. 10901(a) for

authority to construct and operate one

of the two following rail projects: (1) A

rail line approximately 32 miles in

length between Low, UT, and a facility

to be constructed in the Skull Valley,

UT, for the interim storage of spent

nuclear fuel; or (2) A run-around track

and sidings at a point approximately 1.8

miles west of Timpie, UT, where

applicant would locate an intermodal

transfer point for the transfer of spent

nuclear fuel shipping casks from railcars

onto trucks for highway movement to

the storage facility. The Board will

entertain comments and replies on

whether this application meets the

criteria of 49 U.S.C. 10901.

DATES: Comments are due on February

9, 2000. Replies are due February 14,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments (an

original and 10 copies) referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 33824 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, send one copy of

comments to applicant’s representative:

George W. Mayo, Jr., Hogan & Hartson

L.L.P., 555 Thirteenth Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20004–1109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: 1–800–

877–8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 5, 2000, Great Salt Lake and

Southern Railroad Company, L.L.C.

(GSLS), a noncarrier, filed an

application under 49 U.S.C. 10901(a) for

authority to construct and operate one

of the two following rail projects: (1) A

rail line approximately 32 miles in

length (and associated sidings) between

Low, UT, and a facility which

applicant’s parent, Private Fuel Storage

L.L.C. (PFS), proposes to construct in

the south-central portion of Skull

Valley, UT, for the interim storage of

spent nuclear fuel (SNF); or (2) A runaround track and sidings at a point

approximately 1.8 miles west of Timpie,

UT, where applicant would locate an

intermodal transfer point for the transfer

of SNF shipping casks from arriving

railcars onto heavy haul trucks for

highway movement to the storage

facility. Although GSLS has not finally

determined which of the two rail

projects it will ultimately pursue, it

prefers the direct rail option because it

will permit efficiencies associated with

rail-only movements.

Environmental review of the

application under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and

related environmental laws is currently

ongoing by the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA). The

Board is engaged in this environmental

review in the capacity of a cooperating

agency, where the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is the lead agency

for environmental review. According to

applicant, NRC undertook this lead

responsibility in connection with the

June 1997 license application filed by

PFS seeking NRC authority to construct

and operate the SNF storage facility.

The Bureau of Land Management and

the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the

United States Department of the Interior

are also participating in the

environmental review as cooperating

agencies. Because a third-party

consultant has been retained to prepare

the necessary environmental

documentation under the Board’s

direction and supervision, the Board’s

environmental reporting requirements

are not applicable to this application.

See 49 CFR 1105.10(d).

GSLS indicates that substantially all

of the traffic to be transported to the

storage facility will be SNF originating

at various commercial nuclear power

electric generating plants throughout the

United States. The total design capacity

of the PFS facility will be 4,000

canisters of SNF. GSLS states that,

although the United States Department

of Energy (DOE) has the statutory

responsibility to develop a geologic

repository program for SNF by January

31, 1998, DOE is not likely to

implement such a program for another

decade. Applicant states that,

accordingly, the nuclear power industry