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

41520 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

1The State of Texas will not provide rail freight

service on the line. WTLR will retain ownership of

the rail, ties and other track materials and will

retain the permanent, irrevocable, exclusive rail

freight easement to provide service over the line.

2The transaction could be consummated no

sooner than the June 23, 2000 effective date of the

exemption.

3According to the State of Texas, a motion to

dismiss will be filed in the near future in this

proceeding on the grounds that the Board does not

have jurisdiction over this transaction.

proper labeling, an individual vehicle

user cannot readily determine the

proper size tire for the rim and the

vehicle. Without this required

information displayed on the rim, a tire

too large or small for the rim could be

mounted, resulting in a failure. If the

load carrying capabilities of the wheel

cannot be readily determined, then the

possibility of overloading exists.

In this case, the rims have an

incomplete marking, so the individual

will have to rely on another source for

the correct rim size. The most likely

sources for the rim size information are

the tire placard on the vehicle, the

vehicle owner’s manual, or a dealer. The

placard in these vehicles shows the rim

size correctly at 15 x7J. The owner’s

manual for these vehicles states that a

new wheel should have the same loadcarrying, 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. It is extremely unlikely that

dealers would attempt to rely on rim

markings to determine the appropriate

tire or rim sizes.

According to GM, the processes have

been extensively reviewed, the causes of

these noncompliances have been

isolated, and changes in the processes

have been instituted to prevent any

future occurrences. In addition, the

noncompliance is limited to the

vehicles addressed in this notice, and

GM stated that its future products will

comply with the requirements of

FMVSS No. 120.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has decided that the applicant

has met its burden of persuasion that

the noncompliance it describes is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, GM’s application is

granted, and it is exempted from the

duty of providing notification of, and a

remedy for, the noncompliance.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

Issued on: June 28, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–16890 Filed 7–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33889]

State of Texas (Acting by and Through

the Texas Department of

Transportation)—Acquisition

Exemption—West Texas & Lubbock

Railroad Company, Inc.

The State of Texas (acting by and

through the Texas Department of

Transportation), a noncarrier, has filed a

verified notice of exemption under 49

CFR 1150.31 to acquire the right-of-way

underlying a rail line (the line) from

West Texas & Lubbock Railroad

Company, Inc. (WTLR). The line is

located between milepost 7.2 and

milepost 1.1, in Lubbock, TX, a distance

of approximately 6.1 miles.1

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or shortly after June

27, 2000.2

If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio.3 Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

revoke will not automatically stay the

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33889, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Charles W.

Heald, Executive Director, Texas

Department of Transportation, 125 E.

11th Street, Austin, TX 78701–2483.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: June 27, 2000.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–16856 Filed 7–03–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Joint Comment Request

AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System (Board); and Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review;

Joint Comment Request.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, and the

FDIC (collectively, the ‘‘agencies’’)

hereby give notice that they plan to

submit to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) requests for review of the

information collections described

below. The agencies may not conduct or

sponsor, and the respondent is not

required to respond to, an information

collection unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number.

On April 18, 2000, the agencies,

under the auspices of the Federal

Financial Institutions Examination

Council (FFIEC), requested public

comment for 60 days on the extension,

without revision, of the currently

approved information collections: the

Foreign Branch Report of Condition

(FFIEC 030). The agencies, however, are

making a minor clarification to the

FFIEC 030 general instructions, effective

September 30, 2000.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are

invited to submit written comments to

any or all of the agencies. All comments,

which should refer to the OMB control

number(s), will be shared among the

agencies.

OCC: Written comments on the FFIEC

030 should be submitted to the

Communications Division, Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E

Street, S.W., Third Floor, Attention:

1557–0099, Washington, DC 20219. In

addition, comments may be sent by

facsimile transmission to (202)874–

5274, or by electronic mail to

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.

Comments will be available for

inspection and photocopying at the

OCC’s Public Reference Room, 250 E