41518 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–260,

College Park, GA 30337–2747.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Bradley S.

Whited, Airport Director, of the City of

Fayetteville a the following address: Mr.

Bradley S. Whited, Airport Director,

Fayetteville Regional Airport, P.O. Box

64218, Fayetteville, NC 28306.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the City of

Fayetteville under § 158.23 of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee

Kyker, Manager of Airport Programs,

Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701

Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–260, College

Park, GA 20227–2747, (404) 305–7161.

The application may be reviewed in

person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at

Fayetteville Regional Airport under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title

IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On May 12, 2000, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by the City of Fayetteville

was substantially complete within the

requirements of § 158.25 of part 158.

The FAA will approve or disapprove the

application, in whole or in part, no later

than September 8, 2000.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

PFC Application No.: 00–01–C–00–

FAY.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date:

September 1, 2000.

Proposed charge expiration date:

October 1, 2002.

Total estimated net PFC revenue:

$942,620.

Brief description of proposed

project(s) that were omitted from May

25, 2000 Federal Register Notice:

• Construct general aviation area

(design only).

• Acquire handicap lift device.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: None.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Federal

Aviation Administration.

Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on June 27,

2000.

Scott L. Seritt,

Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office.

[FR Doc. 00–16920 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Draft Environmental Impact Statement;

Douglas County, CO

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, the FHWA, in cooperation with

the Colorado Department of

Transportation (CDOT), have jointly

prepared a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for proposed

transportation improvements in the

South I–25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor

of the Denver, Colorado metropolitan

area. The project is within Douglas

County. The Draft EIS identifies various

alternatives and the associated

environmental impacts of the proposed

alternatives. Interested citizens are

invited to review the Draft EIS and

submit comments. Copies of the Draft

EIS may be obtained by telephoning or

writing the contact person listed below

under ADDRESSES. Public reading copies

of the Draft EIS are available at the

locations listed under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

DATES: A 45-day public review period

will begin on July 5, 2000 and conclude

on August 21, 2000. Written comments

on the alternatives and impacts to be

considered must be received by CDOT

by August 21, 2000. Three public

hearings to receive oral comments on

the Draft EIS will be held in Castle

Rock, Lone Tree, and Sedalia.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

Draft EIS should be addressed to Wes

Goff, Project Manager, Colorado

Department of Transportation, South I–

25 and US 85 Corridor, 18500 East

Colfax Avenue, Aurora, CO 80011.

Requests for a copy of the Draft EIS may

be addressed to Mr. Wes Goff at the

address above. Please see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for

a listing of the available documents and

formats in which they may be obtained.

Copies of the Draft EIS are also available

for public inspection and review. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for

locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To

request copies of the Draft EIS or for

additional information, contact: Mr.

Scott Sands, FHWA, Colorado Division,

555 Zang Street, Room 250, Lakewood,

CO, 80228, Telephone: (303) 969–6730

extension 362; or Mr. Wes Goff,

Colorado Department of Transportation,

Region 1, 18500 East Colfax Avenue,

Aurora, CO 80011, Telephone: (303)

757–9647.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Hearing Dates and Locations:

Tuesday, July 25, 2000: Louviers Village

Club House (5 p.m.–7 p.m.)

Wednesday, July 26, 2000: Lone Tree

Civic Center (5 p.m.–7 p.m.)

Thursday, July 27, 2000: Douglas

County Building (5 p.m.–7 p.m.)

Copies of the Draft EIS are available

in hard copy format for public

inspection at:

• CDOT Arapahoe Residency, 359

Inverness Drive South, Suite K,

Englewood, CO 80112, 303–790–1020

• CDOT Office of Environmental

Services, 1325 South Colorado

Boulevard, Suite B400, Denver, CO

80222, 303–757–9259

• CDOT Region 1, 18500 E Colfax

Avenue, Aurora, CO 80010, 303–757–

9371

• Douglas County Planning Department,

100 Third Street, Castle Rock, CO

80104, 303–660–7490

• Federal Highway Administration, 555

Zang Street, Room 250, Lakewood, CO

80228, 303–969–6730

• Highlands Ranch Library, 48 West

Springer Drive, Littleton, CO 80129–

2314, 303–791–7703

• Lone Tree Library, 8827 Lone Tree

Parkway, Lone Tree, CO 80124–8961,

303–799–4446

• Louviers Library, 7885 Louviers

Boulevard, Louviers, CO 80131–9900,

303–791–7323

• Parker Library, 10851 South

Crossroads Drive, Parker, CO 80134–

9081, 303–841–3503

• PBS&J, 5500 Greenwood Plaza Blvd.,

Suite 150, Englewood, CO 80111,

303–221–7275

• Philip S. Miller Library, 961 S. Plum

Creek Road, Castle Rock, CO 80104,

303–688–5157

• The document is also available on the

project Website: www.southi25.com

Background

This Draft EIS provides a detailed

evaluation of the South I–25 Corridor

and US 85 Corridor improvement

project. The project corridors both lie

within Douglas County, Colorado. The

I–25 Corridor extends from C–470 at

approximate milepost 195 to the

southern limit of Castle Rock at

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41519

approximate milepost 178 and the US

85 Corridor extends from C–470 at

approximate milepost 200 to Castle

Rock at approximate milepost 184. This

Draft EIS includes an examination of the

purpose and need, alternatives under

consideration, travel demand, affected

environment, environmental

consequences, and mitigation measures

as a result of the improvements under

consideration. Three alternatives,

including the No-Action Alternative,

and several other I–25 improvement

options are considered for

improvements to the I–25 Corridor. Two

alternatives, including the No-Action

Alternative, and one other US 85

improvement option are considered for

improvements to the US 85 Corridor.

CDOT was the lead agency for the

preparation of the Draft EIS.

The FHWA, the CDOT, and other

local agencies invite interested

individuals, organizations, and Federal,

State, and local agencies to comment on

the evaluated alternatives and

associated social, economic, or

environmental impacts related to the

alternatives.

Issued on: June 23, 2000.

James Daves,

Division Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration, Lakewood, Colorado.

[FR Doc. 00–16853 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–6685; Notice 2]

General Motors Corporation, Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

determined that certain 1999 Chevrolet

vehicles are not in compliance with

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 120, ‘‘Tire selection and

rims for motor vehicles other than

passenger cars’’ and 49 CFR Part 567,

‘‘Certification’’ 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 is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published, with a 30-day comment

period, on January 19, 2000, in the

Federal Register (65 FR 3004). NHTSA

received no comments.

The purpose of FMVSS No. 120

according to S2 is ‘‘to provide safe

operational performance of vehicles by

ensuring that vehicles to which it

applies are equipped with tires of

adequate size and load rating, and rims

of appropriate size and type

designation.’’ Paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS

No. 120 requires that each rim be

marked with specific information,

including the rim size designation

which indicates the source of the rim’s

published nominal dimensions, and the

rim size designation. For example: ‘‘20

x 5.50,′′ or ‘‘20 x 5.5.’’

Between March 1, 1999, and March

13, 1999, GM produced 5,079 Chevrolet

Blazers and Chevrolet S–10 pickup

trucks, some of which may be equipped

with one or more than one of the 1,658

wheels that are missing the width

designation in the rim marking on the

back side of the wheel. In the original

petition, GM stated that this missing

data affected 11,522 vehicles; however,

on March 6, 2000, the agency received

a follow-up letter from GM stating that

only 5,079 vehicles may be affected.

GM’s wheel supplier, Reynolds-Rualca,

Venezuala, produced 3,721 wheels that

had an error in the rim size designation.

Instead of the correct rim size

designation of ‘‘15 x 7,’’ these wheels

have a rim size designation of ‘‘15 x .’’

The error occurred when one of the

wheel casting molds was refurbished. Of

the 3,721 mis-marked wheels produced,

2,063 were located and correctly

stamped with the missing rim width.

The remaining 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.’’

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 misled 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.’’

The purpose for the rim marking

requirements in FMVSS No. 120 is to

provide the owner with permanent rim

size and type designation information

necessary to ensure proper selection and

matching of rims and tires. Without