32870 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices

leaders; public meetings and hearings;

distribution of study newsletter(s); and

use of other outreach mechanisms.

Every effort will be made to ensure that

the widest possible range of public

participants has the opportunity to

attend general public meetings (e.g.,

scoping meetings and public hearing(s))

held by NJ TRANSIT to solicit input on

the West Shore Corridor MIS/DEIS.

Attendance will be sought through

mailings, notices, advertisements, and

press releases.

II. Description of Study Area and

Transportation Needs

The study area includes the West

Shore corridor, through East Rutherford,

Carlstadt, Ridgefield, Ridgefield Park,

Bogota, Teaneck, Bergenfield, Dumont,

Haworth, Closter, Harrington Park,

Norwood, and Northvale in New Jersey

and Orangetown and Clarkstown in

New York. The purpose of the West

Shore corridor MIS/DEIS is to examine

solutions for addressing mobility issues

in Bergen County, New Jersey and

Rockland County, New York, and to

identify a preferred alternative that will

improve mobility within that region.

The MIS/DEIS will be conducted in

coordination with other major network

expansion proposals under study or

construction within the region. The

MIS/DEIS will examine and document

the social, economic, and environmental

impacts of implementing identified

study alternatives.

Provision of new transportation

service in the West Shore corridor

would address:

• Commuting to New York City

(trans-Hudson), from Bergen and

Rockland Counties;

• Inter- and intra-corridor

commuting, both to employment centers

within the study corridors, and from the

study corridors to employment locations

in other areas of New Jersey; and,

• Non-work trips including business,

shopping, recreational, and education to

New York City, within the corridor, and

to destinations outside the corridor in

New Jersey.

III. Alternatives

The alternatives proposed for

evaluation include: (1) the Baseline

Alternative, which includes no-build

conditions, plus any cost-effective

transit improvements that can be

implemented, short of the proposed new

start alternative. The no-build

conditions involve the current

infrastructure of highways, trains, and

bus services, in addition to all ongoing,

committed and funded roadway and

transit projects outlined in the State

Transportation Improvement Program

(STIP) including projects under

construction such as the Secaucus

Transfer Station and the Hudson-Bergen

Light Rail Transit (HBLRT). Transit

improvements lower in cost than the

proposed new start alternative were also

identified for inclusion in the Baseline

Alternative, including a bus component

from Bergen and Rockland Counties to

the East Midtown Manhattan; enhanced

rail service including new hourly offpeak service on the Pascack Valley Line;

and additional ferry service from

Congers in Rockland County to

Midtown Manhattan. (2) the Build

Alternative, West Shore commuter rail

service via the Meadowlands Sports

Complex. The Build Alternative will

involve construction of new

transportation infrastructure, including

tracks, stations and yards. Additional

reasonable Build alternatives suggested

during the scoping process, including

those involving other modes, may be

considered.

IV. Probable Effects

The FTA and NJ TRANSIT will

evaluate all potential changes to the

social, economic, and physical

environment, including air quality,

noise and vibration, traffic, parking,

transit, pedestrians and freight rail,

energy and potential for conservation,

electric and magnetic fields, safety and

security, water quality, wetlands,

flooding, navigable waterways and

coastal zones, ecologically sensitive

areas, endangered species, hazardous

waste, land acquisition and

displacements, land use, zoning and

economic development, consistency

with local plans, historic properties and

resources, parkland, archaeology,

aesthetics, community disruption,

environmental justice, construction

impacts, and cumulative impacts. Key

areas of environmental concern would

be in the areas of potential new

construction (e.g. new stations, new

track, etc.). The impacts will be

evaluated both for the construction

period and for the long-term period of

operation of each alternative. Measures

to mitigate any significant adverse

impacts will be identified.

V. FTA Procedures

The DEIS will be prepared in

conjunction with a major investment

study and will document the results of

that study, including an evaluation of

the potential social, economic, and

environmental impacts of the

alternatives. Upon completion, the MIS/

DEIS will be available for public and

agency review and comment. Public

hearing(s) will be held within the study

area. On the basis of the MIS/DEIS and

the public and agency comments

received, a locally preferred alternative

will be selected, to be further detailed

in the final EIS.

Issued on: June 13, 2001.

Letitia Thompson,

Regional Administrator, TRO–II, Federal

Transit Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–15330 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–9882]

Decision That Certain Nonconforming

Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA

that certain nonconforming motor

vehicles are eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This document announces

decisions by NHTSA that certain motor

vehicles not originally manufactured to

comply with all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards are

eligible for importation into the United

States because they are substantially

similar to vehicles originally

manufactured for importation into and/

or sale in the United States and certified

by their manufacturers as complying

with the safety standards, and they are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to the standards.

DATES: These decisions are effective as

of the date of their publication in the

Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a

motor vehicle that was not originally

manufactured to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards shall be refused admission

into the United States unless NHTSA

has decided that the motor vehicle is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of

the same model year as the model of the

motor vehicle to be compared, and is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices 32871

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

NHTSA received petitions from

registered importers to decide whether

the vehicles listed in Annex A to this

notice are eligible for importation into

the United States. To afford an

opportunity for public comment,

NHTSA published notice of these

petitions as specified in Annex A. The

reader is referred to those notices for a

thorough description of the petitions.

No comments were received in response

to these notices. Based on its review of

the information submitted by the

petitioners, NHTSA has decided to grant

the petitions.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject

Vehicles

The importer of a vehicle admissible

under any final decision must indicate

on the form HS–7 accompanying entry

the appropriate vehicle eligibility

number indicating that the vehicle is

eligible for entry. Vehicle eligibility

numbers assigned to vehicles admissible

under this decision are specified in

Annex A.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that

each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to

this notice, which was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle manufactured for

importation into and/or sale in the

United States, and certified under 49

U.S.C. 30115, as specified in Annex A,

and is capable of being readily altered

to conform to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

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

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

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: June 13, 2001.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

ANNEX A—Nonconforming Motor

Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for

Importation

1. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7964

Nonconforming Vehicle: 2000 BMW 3

Series passenger cars

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicle: 2000 BMW 3 Series

passenger cars

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

63911 (October 25, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–356

2. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7963

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1998

Mercedes-Benz CLK320 passenger

cars

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1998 Mercedes-Benz

CLK320 passenger cars

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

63910 (October 25, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–357

3. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7966

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1996

Plymouth Voyager multi-purpose

passenger vehicles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1996 Plymouth Voyager

multi-purpose passenger vehicles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

63909 (October 25, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–353

4. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8242

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1994–2000

Honda VFR 400 and RVF 400

motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1994–2000 Honda CBR

600 motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

77690 (December 12, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–358

5. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8241

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991–1995

BMW 8 Series passenger cars

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1991–1995 BMW 8 Series

passenger cars

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

69989 (November 21, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–361

6. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8294

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1998–2001

BMW R1200C motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicle: 1998–2001 BMW R1200C

motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

77691 (December 12, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–359

7. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8281

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2000

Yamaha R1 motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 2000 Yamaha R1

motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

77692 (December 12, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–360

8. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8699

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2001 Harley

Davidson FX, FL and XL

motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 2001 Harley Davidson FX,

FL and XL motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 66 FR

7841 (January 25, 2001)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–362

[FR Doc. 01–15327 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7312; Notice 2]

General Motors Corporation; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

determined that some of its vehicles do

not comply with requirements

contained in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,

‘‘Lamps, Reflective Devices, and

Associated Equipment,’’ 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 in the Federal Register

(65 FR 31207) on May 16, 2000.

Opportunity was afforded for public

comment until June 15, 2000.

FMVSS No. 108 establishes the

requirements for signaling to enable safe

operation in darkness and other

conditions of reduced visibility. Under

S5.5.4 of FMVSS No. 108, the center

high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) on

each vehicle shall be activated only

upon application of the service brakes.

During Model Year 1995–1999, GM

produced 3,375,393 vehicles with a

CHMSL that could briefly illuminate if

the hazard warning lamp switch is

depressed to its limit of travel. The

vehicles that may have this condition

are 1995–1999 model year GMC and

Chevrolet trucks and some 1997–1999

Pontiac Grand Prix cars.

GM supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following statements: