Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 49973

corrective action is warranted. Nissan 

provides several bases for this assertion. 

First, Nissan states that the vehicles 

do comply with the alternative 

requirements S15 of FMVSS No. 225, 

which were available as a compliance 

option until September 1, 2004. 

Second, Nissan states that the extent 

of the noncompliance is not significant. 

Specifically, it says:

The left and right lower anchorages in the 

MY 2005 FX vehicle were located 76 mm and 

83 mm behind Point Z, respectively, when 

tested by MGA under the procedures of 

S9.2.2. During its subsequent investigation 

using the MGA CRF, Nissan measured the 

lower anchorage location in the left and right 

rear seats in five other FX vehicles. The 

average distance from Point Z was 78 mm, 

and the greatest distance was 81 mm. The 

average distance for the four 5-seat Nissan 

Maxima vehicles tested was 76 mm, and the 

greatest distance was 81 mm. The average 

distance for the three 4-seat Maxima vehicles 

tested was 92 mm, and the greatest distance 

was 94 mm. At most, this reflects a distance 

of less than an inch beyond the distance 

specified in the standard, and the difference 

is less than one-half of an inch for the FX and 

the 5-seat Maxima models.

Third, Nissan conducted a survey 

program to assess the ease of installing 

CRSs in these vehicles, and set out the 

results as an attachment to its petition. 

Nissan points out that there were few 

unsuccessful attempts and says that the 

results ‘‘clearly demonstrate that the 

noncompliance * * * does not 

adversely affect the ease of installation 

of the CRSs * * *’’ Nissan also 

indicates that the latchings were 

accomplished in an average time of 

between 22 seconds and 39 seconds. 

Fourth, Nissan states that ‘‘other 

vehicle characteristics in these models 

compensate for the lower anchorage 

location to allow for ease of 

installation,’’ including seat foam that 

compresses easily and suppleness of 

leather seats. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments on the petition described 

above. Comments must refer to the 

docket and notice number cited at the 

beginning of this notice and be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods. Mail: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Nassif Building, Room 

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand 

Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It 

is requested, but not required, that two 

copies of the comments be provided. 

The Docket Section is open on 

weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 

Federal Holidays. Comments may be 

submitted electronically by logging onto 

the Docket Management System Web 

site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing 

the document electronically. Comments 

may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or 

may be submitted to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The petition, supporting materials, 

and all comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated below will be filed and will be 

considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the extent possible. 

When the petition is granted or denied, 

notice of the decision will be published 

in the Federal Register pursuant to the 

authority indicated below. 

Comment closing date: September 26, 

2005.

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

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8.

Issued on: August 19, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety.

[FR Doc. 05–16861 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21675; Notice 2] 

General Motors Corporation, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

General Motors Corporation (General 

Motors) has determined that certain 

model year 2005 vehicles that it 

produced do not comply with S6 of 49 

CFR 571.205, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, 

‘‘Glazing materials.’’ Pursuant to 49 

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

Motors 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 Reports.’’ 

Notice of receipt of a petition was 

published, with a 30-day comment 

period, on June 30, 2005, in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 37893). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

Affected are a total of approximately 

7,326 model year 2005 Chevrolet 

Corvette coupes equipped with 

removable transparent Targa roofs. S6, 

certification and marking, of FMVSS 

No. 205 and the referenced Section 7 of 

ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996 specify that the 

required identification and certification 

markings must be located on the 

glazing. On the subject vehicles, the 

required markings are present, but they 

are located on the frame of the Targa 

roof assembly, rather than on the glazing 

portion of the roof assembly. 

General Motors believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. The 

petitioner states:

—The subject glazing meets all applicable 

performance requirements of FMVSS No. 

205. There is no safety performance 

implication associated with this technical 

noncompliance. 

—The certifications markings required by 

FMVSS No. 205 are provided on the frame 

of the subject Corvette Targa roof 

assemblies. This noncompliance relates 

only to the location of the required 

markings, not to their presence. 

—Once assembled, the Targa roof frame and 

glazing are indivisible. For in-service 

repair, the roof assembly (glazing mounted 

in frame) is serviced as a unit. There is no 

service provision to replace only the frame 

or only the glazing. As a practical matter, 

therefore, marking the frame is functionally 

equivalent to marking the glazing. 

—Given the small volume of service parts 

that will be needed and the high 

investment cost required to manufacture 

the subject Corvette roof assemblies, it is 

probable that all service parts will be 

manufactured by the same supplier as the 

original equipment parts. Accordingly, 

there is virtually no chance of uncertainty 

about the manufacturer of the subject parts, 

should a need to identify the manufacturer 

arise in the future. 

—GM is not aware of any crashes, injuries, 

customer complaints or field reports 

associated with this condition.

General Motors also states that 

NHTSA has previously granted 

inconsequential noncompliance 

petitions involving the omission of 

FMVSS No. 205 markings and provides 

the following examples: Western Star 

Trucks (63 FR 66232, 12/1/1998), Ford 

Motor Company (64 FR 70116, 12/15/

1999), Toyota Motor Corporation (68 FR 

10307, 3/4/2003), and Freightliner LLC 

(68 FR 65991, 11/24/2003). 

NHTSA agrees with General Motors 

that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

The glazing meets all applicable 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 205. The certifications markings 

required by FMVSS No. 205 are 

provided on the frame of the subject 

Corvette Targa roof assemblies. The roof 

frame and glazing are indivisible, and 

for in-service repair, the roof assembly 

(glazing mounted in frame) is serviced 

49974 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

1The Board will grant a stay if an informed 

decision on environmental issues (whether raised 

by a party or by the Board’s Section of 

Environmental Analysis (SEA) in its independent 

investigation) cannot be made before the 

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any 

request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible 

so that the Board may take appropriate action before 

the exemption’s effective date.

2Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing 

fee, which currently is set at $1,200. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(25).

as a unit. Therefore, there should not be 

any problem obtaining the appropriate 

replacement glazing. 

General Motors is correct that the four 

petitions it cited, from Western Star 

Trucks, Ford Motor Company, Toyota 

Motor Corporation, and Freightliner 

LLC, were granted by NHTSA based on 

this rationale. General Motors has 

corrected the problem. 

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, General Motors’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 CFR 1.50 and 

501.8)

Issued on: August 19, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety.

[FR Doc. 05–16862 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–55 (Sub–No. 659X)] 

CSX Transportation, Inc.—

Abandonment Exemption—in Allegany 

County, MD 

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), has 

filed a notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments to abandon an 8.54-mile 

line of railroad on its Southern Region, 

Huntington Division East, Georges Creek 

Subdivision, between milepost BAI 27.0 

near Morrison and milepost BAI 18.46 

at the end of the track near Carlos, in 

Allegany County, MD. The line traverses 

United States Postal Service Zip Codes 

21532, 21539, and 21521. 

CSXT has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on 

the line can be rerouted over other lines; 

(3) no formal complaint filed by a user 

of rail service on the line (or by a state 

or local government entity acting on 

behalf of such user) regarding cessation 

of service over the line either is pending 

with the Surface Transportation Board 

or with any U.S. District Court or has 

been decided in favor of complainant 

within the 2-year period; and (4) the 

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 

(environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 

(historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

abandonment shall be protected under 

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed. 

Provided no formal expression of 

intent to file an offer of financial 

assistance (OFA) has been received, this 

exemption will be effective on 

September 24, 2005, unless stayed 

pending reconsideration. Petitions to 

stay that do not involve environmental 

issues,1 formal expressions of intent to 

file an OFA under 49 CFR 

1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking 

requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be 

filed by September 2, 2005. Petitions to 

reopen or requests for public use 

conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must 

be filed by September 14, 2005, with the 

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001.

A copy of any petition filed with the 

Board should be sent to CSXT’s 

representative: Louis E. Gitomer, Esq., 

Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., 

Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio.

CSXT has filed environmental and 

historic reports which address the 

effects, if any, of the abandonment on 

the environment and historic resources. 

SEA will issue an environmental 

assessment (EA) by August 30, 2005. 

Interested persons may obtain a copy of 

the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, 

Surface Transportation Board, 

Washington, DC 20423–0001) or by 

calling SEA, at (202) 565–1539. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339.] Comments on 

environmental and historic preservation 

matters must be filed within 15 days 

after the EA becomes available to the 

public. 

Environmental, historic preservation, 

public use, or trail use/rail banking 

conditions will be imposed, where 

appropriate, in a subsequent decision. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 

1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of 

consummation with the Board to signify 

that it has exercised the authority 

granted and fully abandoned the line. If 

consummation has not been effected by 

CSXT’s filing of a notice of 

consummation by August 25, 2006, and 

there are no legal or regulatory barriers 

to consummation, the authority to 

abandon will automatically expire. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http://

www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: August 18, 2005.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05–16835 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service 

Third-Party Disclosure in IRS 

Regulations; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request for Regulation 

Project

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is 

soliciting comments concerning existing 

regulations, Third-Party Disclosure 

Requirements in IRS Regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before October 24, 2005 

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue 

Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the regulations should be 

directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622–