Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Notices 23889 

E. Seniority of the Federal Interest 

FTA requested comments on whether, 

and to what degree, FTA’s 

subordination of priority of repayment 

of Federal loans would be useful in 

structuring a PPP. FTA also requested 

comments on the extent to which loans, 

loan guarantees, and other credit 

enhancing devices available under the 

Transportation Infrastructure Financing 

and Innovation Act (‘‘TIFIA’’) might be 

used to facilitate the financing of an 

eligible project. Four commenters 

supported subordination of the Federal 

Interest. Three commenters generally 

supported the use of the loan guarantees 

available under TIFIA for financing 

PPPs. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that 

subordination of priority of repayment 

of Federal loans could be useful in 

structuring a PPP. FTA also agrees that 

project sponsors should utilize a wide 

range of financing tools to support PPPs, 

including loan guarantees and other 

mechanisms available under the TIFIA 

program to finance eligible PPPs. 

F. Tax Exempt Financing 

FTA requested comments on the 

extent to which private activity bonds 

(‘‘PABs’’) or PABs not subject to State 

population-based bond issuance limits 

(‘‘new PABs’’) might assist in financing 

an eligible project. Seven commenters 

generally supported the use of PABs to 

assist in financing eligible projects. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that project 

sponsors should utilize a wide range of 

financing tools, including PABs and 

new PABs, to support PPPs, if the 

project is eligible to use such financing 

tools. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

April 2007. 

James S. Simpson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–8227 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007–27073; Notice 2] 

Nissan North America, Inc.; Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) 

has determined that certain rims on 

certain vehicles that it produced in 2000 

through 2005 do not comply with 

paragraphs S5.2(a) and S5.2(c) of 49 

CFR 571.120, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire 

Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles 

Other Than Passenger Cars. Pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Nissan 

has petitioned for a determination that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety and has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports.’’ Notice of 

receipt of a petition was published, with 

a 30-day public comment period, on 

February 16, 2007, in the Federal 

Register (72 FR 7709). The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) received no comments. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents and comments submitted, go 

to: http://dms.dot.gov/search/ 

searchFormSimple.cfm and enter 

Docket No. NHTSA–2007–27073. 

Affected are a total of approximately 

5,000 optional dealer accessory wheels 

that have been sold and have been 

installed on approximately 1,250 model 

year 2000 through 2005 Nissan Xterra 

multipurpose passenger vehicles and 

Frontier pickup trucks. Specifically, 

paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120, rim 

marking, requires that each rim be 

marked with certain information on the 

weather side, including: 

S5.2(a) requiring a one-letter designation 

which indicates the source of the rim’s 

published nominal dimensions, and S5.2(c) 

requiring the symbol DOT. 

The rims installed on the affected 

vehicles do not contain the markings 

required by paragraphs S5.2(a) or 

S5.2(c). Nissan has corrected the 

problem that caused these errors so that 

they will not be repeated in future 

production. 

Nissan believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Nissan 

states that the affected rims are 16≥ x 7≥ 

aluminum alloy, which are commonly 

available and utilized in the United 

States. They are a correct specification 

for mounting 16≥ original equipment 

tires specified for Xterra and Frontier 

models, and are capable of carrying the 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

the vehicle. Nissan first became aware 

of the noncompliance of these vehicles 

during a regulatory compliance review 

that Nissan conducted during March 

2006. 

Nissan states that no accidents or 

injuries have occurred, and no customer 

complaints have been received related 

to the lack of the markings or any 

problem that may have resulted from 

the lack of the markings. Nissan further 

states that the missing markings do not 

affect the performance of the wheels or 

the tire and wheel assemblies. 

The rims are marked in compliance 

with paragraphs S5.2(b), rim size 

designation; S5.2(d), manufacturer 

identification; and S5.2(e) month, day 

and year or month and year of 

manufacture. The rims are also marked 

with a 4030S RSD20–10/20 part 

number. 

The tire size is marked on the tire 

sidewalls, and the owner’s manual and 

tire inflation pressure placard contain 

the appropriate tire size to be installed 

on the original equipment rims. 

Therefore, Nissan does not believe there 

is a possibility of a tire and rim 

mismatch as a result of the missing rim 

markings. All other requirements under 

FMVSS No. 120 are met. 

NHTSA agrees that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. The rims are 

marked in compliance with paragraphs 

S5.2(b) rim size designation; S5.2(d) 

manufacturer identification; and S5.2(e) 

month, day and year or month and year 

of manufacture. The rims are also 

marked with a part number. The tire 

size is marked on the tire sidewalls, and 

the owner’s manual and tire inflation 

pressure placard contain the appropriate 

tire size to be installed on the original 

equipment rims. Therefore, there is little 

likelihood of a tire and rim mismatch as 

a result of the missing rim markings. 

With regard to the omission of the DOT 

symbol, the agency regards the 

noncompliance with paragraph S5.2(c) 

as a failure to comply with the 

certification requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

30115, and not a compliance failure 

requiring notification and remedy. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Nissan’s petition is 

granted and the petitioner is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

noncompliance. 

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

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: April 24, 2007. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–8202 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS