23886 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Notices 

Monitoring, Oversight and Enforcement 

FMCSA will monitor the operational 

safety of all Mexico-domiciled motor 

carriers participating in the 

demonstration project. To accomplish 

this, FMCSA will work closely with 

State commercial vehicle safety 

agencies, the IACP, CVSA, DHS, and 

others. 

Field monitoring will include 

inspections of vehicles, verification of 

compliance with the terms of the 

provisional operating authority, driver 

license checks, crash reporting, and 

initiation of enforcement actions when 

appropriate. Additionally, a Mexicodomiciled motor carrier committing any 

violations specified in 49 CFR 

385.105(a) and identified through 

roadside inspections or by other means, 

may be subject to a compliance review 

and enforcement action. 

Monitoring will also include 

electronic data collection and analysis. 

Data collected as a result of field 

monitoring and other activities will be 

entered into FMCSA databases. The data 

will be tracked and analyzed to identify 

potential safety issues. Appropriate 

action will be taken to resolve any 

identified safety issues. This could 

include suspension or revocation of the 

provisional operating authority or the 

initiation of other enforcement action 

against the carrier or driver. 

The DOT and the Mexican Secretarı ́a 

de Comunicaciones y Transportes 

(Secretariat of Communication and 

Transport, or SCT) have established a 

bi-national monitoring group. The group 

includes officials from FMCSA, DOT, 

and the U.S. Trade Representative. 

Mexican participants include 

representatives from the Federal Motor 

Carrier General Directorate, 

Communications and Transport 

Secretariat (SCT); the Services 

Negotiations General Directorate, 

Economy Secretariat; and the SCT 

Centers from the Mexican Border States. 

The monitoring group’s objective is to 

supervise the implementation of the 

demonstration project and to find 

solutions to issues affecting the 

operational performance of the project. 

The group will generally convene 

weekly via video conference. 

Enforcement is a key component of 

the monitoring and oversight effort. 

FMCSA has trained and provided 

guidance to Federal and State auditors, 

inspectors and investigators to ensure 

their knowledge and understanding of 

the demonstration project and the 

procedures for taking enforcement 

actions against carriers or drivers 

participating in the project. 

To ensure carrier compliance with 

operating authority limitations, 

including the prohibition of domestic 

point-to-point transportation of cargo in 

the U.S., FMCSA and the IACP have 

developed and implemented a training 

program that provides State and local 

officials detailed information on 

cabotage regulations and enforcement 

procedures. 

FMCSA is also working with the DHS 

to develop guidance concerning the 

enforcement of DHS cabotage 

regulations. This material will be 

incorporated into the CVSA North 

American Standard Inspection Course 

and provided to roadside enforcement 

officers. 

FMCSA will be issuing policy 

memoranda and guidance to the Federal 

field staff, State agencies and others 

concerning monitoring and enforcement 

issues, including English language 

proficiency, inspection of each 

participating Mexico-domiciled vehicle 

every time it enters the U.S., 

enforcement of the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards, and 

enforcement of the CVSA decal 

requirement. 

To ensure uniformity and effective 

enforcement, the CVSA has revised the 

North American Standard Out-ofService Criteria to include as out-of 

service criteria, violations of 49 CFR 

391.11(b)(2) relating to the driver’s 

ability to communicate in English while 

operating in the U.S. and violations of 

49 CFR 385.103(c) relating to the 

display of a valid CVSA decal on 

vehicles operated by project 

participants. 

Evaluation and Reporting 

The DOT will evaluate the success of 

the demonstration project by examining 

the safety performance of Mexicodomiciled motor carriers operating in 

the U.S. Specifically, FMCSA 

anticipates examining the crash rate of 

Mexican carriers, convictions of 

Mexican drivers for violations of U.S. 

traffic safety laws, the rate at which 

Mexican drivers and vehicles are placed 

out of service when inspected in the 

U.S., violations discovered during preauthority safety audits, and compliance 

of Mexican trucking companies with 

U.S. drug and alcohol testing 

regulations. These data will be collected 

through police reporting of crashes and 

moving violations, uploads of roadside 

inspection results performed by FMCSA 

or our State partners, and uploads of 

safety audits and compliance reviews of 

Mexican motor carriers performed by 

FMCSA staff. 

The DOT also intends to provide for 

an independent evaluation of the 

demonstration project. The Secretary 

has asked former DOT Inspector General 

Kenneth Mead, former DOT Deputy 

Secretary Mortimer Downey and former 

House Appropriations Sub-Committee 

Chairman Jim Kolbe to serve on an 

evaluation panel. The panel will be 

responsible for evaluating the safety 

impacts of allowing Mexico-domiciled 

motor carriers to operate on U.S. roads 

beyond the border commercial zone. 

They will operate independently from 

other monitoring efforts and provide 

their own assessment of the project. 

Their conclusions will be considered 

carefully before a decision is made on 

a permanent full implementation of the 

NAFTA trucking provisions. 

Request for Comments 

The FMCSA has decided to request 

public comment from all interested 

persons on the demonstration project 

outlined above. The FMCSA has 

fulfilled all of the statutory 

requirements necessary for the lifting of 

the moratorium against certain Mexicodomiciled motor carriers. The Agency 

intends the demonstration project to be 

the means of validating its safety 

oversight regime. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated at the beginning 

of this notice will be considered and 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the location listed under the 

address section of this notice. 

Comments received after the comment 

closing date will be filed in the public 

docket and will be considered to the 

extent practicable. In addition to late 

comments, the FMCSA will also 

continue to file, in the public docket, 

relevant information that becomes 

available after the comment closing 

date. Interested persons should continue 

to examine the public docket for new 

material. 

Issued on: April 27, 2007. 

John H. Hill, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–2152 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket No: FTA–2006–23697] 

Public-Private Partnership Pilot 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of agency response to 

comments. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Notices 23887 

SUMMARY: Section 3011(c) of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’) authorizes the 

U.S. Secretary of Transportation (the 

‘‘Secretary’’) to establish and implement 

a pilot program to demonstrate the 

advantages and disadvantages of publicprivate partnerships (‘‘PPPs’’) for certain 

new fixed guideway capital projects (the 

‘‘Pilot Program’’). This notice 

summarizes and responds to comments 

solicited by FTA by notice published in 

the Federal Register on March 22, 2006 

(71 FR 14568). 

Availability of the Notice: Copies of 

this notice, and any documents 

indicated in the supplementary 

information as being available in the 

docket, are part of docket FTA–2006– 

23697. To read materials relating to this 

notice, please visit the DOT docket 

(http://dms.dot.gov) at any time or go to 

the Docket Management System facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Room PL–401, on the plaza level of the 

Nassif Building; 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shauna J. Coleman, Esq., Federal Transit 

Administration, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 

366–4011, shauna.coleman@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3011(c) of the SAFETEA–LU authorizes 

the Secretary to establish and 

implement the Pilot Program to 

demonstrate the advantages and 

disadvantages of public-private 

partnerships for certain new fixed 

guideway capital projects. On March 22, 

2006, FTA issued a notice and 

solicitation for comments with respect 

to the Secretary’s establishment and 

implementation of the Pilot Program (71 

FR 14568). FTA received comments 

from 19 parties in response to the 

notice. FTA responds to these 

comments by topic and in the following 

order: (A) Statutory background; (B) 

objective of the Pilot Program; (C) 

operation of the Pilot Program; (D) 

common grant rule; (E) seniority of the 

Federal Interest; and (F) tax-exempt 

financing. 

A. Statutory Background 

FTA requested comments on the 

following questions: (i) What, if any, 

operative criteria beyond those set forth 

in the statute should the Secretary adopt 

to implement the Pilot Program; (ii) 

what, if any, benefits should the 

Secretary confer on selected projects; 

(iii) whether it is significant that section 

3011(c) provides no special funding for 

the Pilot Program; and (iv) what, if any, 

changes in law or new financial 

incentives are appropriate or necessary 

to promote the participation of private 

enterprise in the delivery and operation 

of transit systems? 

(i) What, if any, operative criteria 

beyond those set forth in the statute 

should the Secretary adopt to 

implement the Pilot Program? 

Six commenters responded to this 

question. Some of these commenters 

thought that additional operating 

criteria should not limit the 

opportunities for creativity and that 

FTA should allow private, state, and 

local parties maximum latitude to 

determine the parameters and merits of 

potential projects. In addition, several of 

these commenters recommended that 

selected projects should incorporate 

innovative contracting mechanisms. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that 

operating criteria should not limit the 

opportunities for creativity. FTA further 

agrees that innovative procurement 

contracting mechanisms and financing 

should be considerations used in the 

selection of an eligible project. 

(ii) What, if any, benefits should the 

Secretary confer on selected projects? 

Five commenters responded to this 

question. Two commenters submitted 

general comments on the benefits the 

Secretary should confer on selected 

projects. For instance, one commenter 

generally recommended that FTA tailor 

the benefits it confers to the particular 

requirements of a project. Another 

commenter generally recommended that 

FTA award PPPs the highest priority 

available from programs for which such 

projects apply and qualify. Two 

commenters recommended that FTA 

waive strict compliance with one or 

more New Starts and/or NEPA 

evaluation requirements. One 

commenter recommended that FTA 

support Congressional earmarks for 

selected projects. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that it 

should identify alternative bases for 

compliance with one or more New 

Starts evaluation requirements 

applicable to projects that participate in 

the Pilot Program, insofar as consistent 

with law. The Pilot Program offers Pilot 

Projects that are candidates for funding 

under FTA’s New Starts certain program 

incentives—in the form of improved 

ratings, accelerated review process, and 

other benefits—to enter into PPPs for 

project delivery. FTA’s role is not to 

advocate for Congressional earmarking 

on behalf of projects, but FTA does 

recommend projects for funding in the 

annual New Starts Report and in the 

President’s budget request. 

(iii) Whether it is significant that 

section 3011(c) provides no special 

funding for the Pilot Program. 

FTA received the following three 

comments on this question: one 

commenter thought that it was 

unremarkable that Congress authorized 

no special funding for this program; one 

commenter noted that by not 

designating any specific source of 

funding, Congress provided FTA with 

the flexibility to identify funds and 

develop program requirements; and one 

commenter thought Congress intended 

to limit the use of private investment in 

PPPs for selected fixed guideway 

projects. 

FTA response: Based on FTA’s review 

of section 3011(c) and pertinent sections 

of the Conference Report that 

accompanied SAFETEA–LU, FTA is not 

limited to funding the Pilot Program 

from the New Starts program. FTA 

reminds commenters that while the 

statute states that the Secretary may 

establish the Pilot Program to 

demonstrate the advantages of PPPs for 

‘‘certain new fixed guideway projects,’’ 

it does not expressly limit financial 

support of such projects to New Starts 

funding. FTA notes that new fixed 

guideway capital projects may be 

funded not only through the New Starts 

program but with certain formula funds, 

as well. 

(iv) What, if any, changes in law or 

new financial incentives are appropriate 

or necessary to promote the 

participation of private enterprise in the 

delivery and operation of transit 

systems? 

Three commenters responded to this 

question. One commenter suggested that 

FTA reclassify the retirement of a 

capital debt from an operating expense 

to a capital expense. Two commenters 

suggested that providing Federal grant 

or loan money for developmental or preconstruction work could induce private 

investment. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that 

reclassifying the retirement of a capital 

debt from an operating expense to a 

capital expense and providing Federal 

grant or loan money for developmental 

or pre-construction work would 

promote the participation of private 

enterprise in the delivery and operation 

of transit systems. Within the context of 

the Pilot Program, FTA would be 

prepared to evaluate proposals to do so 

on a case-by-case basis, if permitted by 

law and supported by sound policy that 

is consistent with the Pilot Program’s 

objectives. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
23888 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Notices 

B. Objective of the Pilot Program 

FTA requested comments on whether, 

and on what terms, the Pilot Program 

should streamline the New Starts 

application process, specifically with 

regard to its due diligence and NEPA 

components, to promote PPPs that 

would realize significant savings in the 

procurement of eligible projects. 

(i) Due Diligence 

FTA requested comments regarding 

how its New Starts application process 

may be altered to accelerate project 

delivery without impairing FTA’s duties 

as a steward of Federal funds. Six 

commenters responded to this question. 

Two commenters supported the use of 

contract terms to allocate risk and 

ensure due diligence. Three commenters 

recommended that FTA utilize 

concurrent rather than linear procedures 

in its New Starts process, and provided 

specific recommendations on how FTA 

could alter its New Starts application 

process. One commenter requested that 

FTA clarify how the requirement for 

public accountability and due diligence 

can be met under the PPP approach. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that it 

should streamline certain New Starts 

due diligence requirements and directs 

interested parties to section 3(i) of FTA 

Federal Register notice issued on 

January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2587) for a 

detailed discussion on how FTA might 

alter certain due diligence requirements 

for selected Pilot Projects. In response to 

the commenter requesting clarity, FTA 

directs this commenter to section 3(c) of 

FTA Federal Register notice issued on 

January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2587), which 

details how commercial arrangements 

negotiated between the project sponsor 

and private partner may adequately 

safeguard the Federal Interest. 

(ii) National Environmental Policy Act 

(‘‘NEPA’’) 

FTA requested comments on whether, 

and on what terms, the Pilot Program 

should streamline its NEPA components 

to accelerate project delivery without 

impairing FTA’s duties as a steward of 

the environment. 

(a) Whether the Pilot Program should 

permit acquisition of engineering and 

design services prior to the issuance of 

a Record of Decision (‘‘ROD’’). 

Several commenters responded to this 

question. All but one of these 

commenters supported the acquisition 

of engineering and design services prior 

to the issuance of a ROD. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that it 

should permit acquisition of 

engineering and design services prior to 

the issuance of a ROD, as provided in 

section 3(l) of FTA’s Federal Register 

notice published at 72 FR 2587 (January 

19, 2007). FTA notes that on several 

prior occasions it has allowed project 

sponsors to negotiate and award designbuild contracts when (1) the contract 

did not commit the project sponsor or 

FTA to final design or construction 

prior to the completion of compliance 

with NEPA, and (2) the entities 

performing the NEPA studies had no 

financial interest in the outcome of the 

project under the study. FTA directs 

interested parties to section 3(l) of 

FTA’s Federal Register notice published 

at 72 FR 2587 (January 19, 2007) for a 

full discussion on the extent to which 

FTA may permit acquisition of 

engineering and design services prior to 

the completion of compliance with 

NEPA. 

(b) Whether the Pilot Program should 

adopt procedures with the same or 

similar effects as those described in 23 

U.S.C. 112(b)(3), as amended by section 

1503 of SAFETEA–LU, concerning 

design-build contracts. 

Three commenters responded to this 

question and all of these commenters 

supported FTA’s adoption of procedures 

similar to those in section 1503 of 

SAFETEA–LU, concerning design-build 

contracts. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that the 

Pilot Program should adopt procedures 

with the same or similar effects as those 

set forth in 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(3), as 

amended. FTA directs commenters to 

section 3(l) of FTA’s Federal Register 

notice published at 72 FR 2587 (January 

19, 2007), which outlines the 

environmental procedures that FTA 

adopted with respect to the design-build 

elements of a Pilot Project’s 

procurement. 

(c) How should the Pilot Program 

construe the Categorical Exclusion 

(‘‘CE’’) to realize savings for project 

sponsors in connection with the 

acquisition of rights-of-way and parcels 

of land? 

One commenter responded to this 

question. This commenter urged FTA to 

consider increasing real estate prices as 

one factor used to establish the 

imminence of increasing development 

pressures so that increasing prices in 

highly developed or rapidly developing 

areas would permit an agency to rely 

upon the CE. 

FTA response: FTA notes that with a 

few limited exceptions, joint FTA/ 

FHWA regulations implementing NEPA 

specifically prohibit real estate 

acquisition activities prior to the 

completion of the NEPA process. Those 

exceptions, specified at 23 CFR 771.117, 

allow for pre-ROD real estate acquisition 

in some limited circumstances, but not 

on the basis of rising property values. 

Moreover, when it authorized 

SAFETEA–LU, Congress amended 49 

U.S.C. 5324(c) to allow for the pre-ROD 

acquisition of contiguous railroad rightof-way in certain cases. 

(d) How should the Pilot Program 

address NEPA to anticipate changes in 

project scope? 

Five commenters responded to this 

question and all of these commenters 

recommended that FTA should not 

reopen the NEPA process and/or 

existing ROD for review of a new impact 

that is not determined to be substantial. 

FTA response: In general, FTA policy 

is to perform a supplemental 

Environmental Assessment (‘‘EA’’) for 

review of a new impact if that impact is 

potentially significant, and a 

supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (‘‘EIS’’) in cases where FTA is 

certain that the new impact is 

significant. In some cases, a 

reevaluation may be required to assist 

FTA in deciding whether supplemental 

NEPA work is needed. 

C. Operation of the Pilot Program 

FTA requested comments on whether, 

and on what terms, the Pilot Program 

should provide grants for eligible 

projects contemplated by long-term 

operation or concession agreements 

with private enterprise. Six commenters 

supported FTA providing grants for 

eligible projects contemplated by longterm operation or concession 

agreements with private enterprise. 

Three commenters offered suggestions 

as to how the Pilot Program might 

encourage transit systems to enter into 

PPPs. One commenter suggested that 

FTA allow the Pilot Program to privatize 

all or part of the capital asset. Another 

commenter suggested FTA provide 

financial capacity for pre-construction 

work. One commenter recommended 

that FTA tie the Pilot Program directly 

to New Starts funding. 

FTA response: FTA agrees that 

projects involving long-term private 

operations or concession contracts 

should be eligible for funding under the 

Pilot Program. 

D. Common Grant Rule 

FTA requested comments on whether, 

and to what extent, the Pilot Program 

should authorize the use of program 

income to support a PPP that sponsors 

an eligible project. Five commenters 

supported the flexible use of program 

income. 

FTA response: FTA agrees and 

supports flexible uses of program 

income, as permitted pursuant to 49 

CFR 18.25(g). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
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