69726 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2007 / Notices 

foreign nationals begin participation in 

this program each year. 

In February 2004, the Department 

announced a pilot program whereby 

Department designated au pair sponsors 

could request the extension of program 

participation beyond the original 12- 

month maximum period afforded au 

pair participants. In June of 2006, 

following a review of the two-year pilot 

program, the Department amended 

program regulations to permit 

designated sponsors to submit requests 

to the Department for consideration of 

program extensions for six, nine or 12 

month durations for first-year au pair 

participants beyond the maximum 

duration of participation allowed under 

the existing regulations. 

As the au pair program enters its 

twentieth year of operation, the 

Department has been asked to consider 

amending the age eligibility requirement 

for au pair participants by increasing the 

age limitation from 26 to 30. Further, 

the Department has been asked to 

consider permitting foreign nationals 

who previously participated in the au 

pair program to repeat program 

participation. 

The Department hereby solicits 

comments from the general public and 

other interested parties regarding these 

two issues. This certification will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Dated: November 26, 2007. 

Stanley S. Colvin, 

Director, Office of Exchange Coordination 

and Designation, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E7–23883 Filed 12–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as 

Amended by Pubic Law 104–13; 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. 

ACTION: Proposed Collection; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: The proposed information 

collection described below will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as 

amended). The Tennessee Valley 

Authority is soliciting public comments 

on this proposed collection as provided 

by 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for 

information, including copies of the 

information collection proposed and 

supporting documentation should be 

directed to the Agency Clearance 

Officer: Alice D. Witt, Tennessee Valley 

Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB–5B), 

Chattanooga, TN 37402–2801; (423) 

751–6832. (SC: 0003D1Z) Comments 

should be sent to the Agency Clearance 

Officer no later than February 8, 2008. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Type of Request: Regular submission; 

proposal for a reinstatement of a 

previously approved collection (OMB 

control number 3316–0009). 

Title of Information Collection: Salary 

Surveys for Engineering Association 

(EA) and Law Enforcement Employee 

Association (LEEA) Bargaining Unit 

Employees. 

Frequency of Use: Annually. 

Type of Affected Public: State or local 

governments, Federal agencies, nonprofit institutions, businesses, or other 

for-profit. 

Small Businesses or Organizations 

Affected: EA: 45; LEEA: 30. 

Federal Budget Functional Category 

Code: 999. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: EA: 30; LEEA: 20. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: EA: 120; LEEA: 60. 

Estimated Average Burden Hours Per 

Response: EA: 4; LEEA: 3. 

Need For and Use of Information: 

TVA conducts an annual salary 

survey for employee compensation and 

benefits as a basis for labor negotiations 

in determining prevailing rates of pay 

and benefits for represented salary 

policy employees. TVA surveys firms, 

and Federal, State, and local 

governments whose employees perform 

work similar to that of TVA’s salary 

policy employees. 

Steven A. Anderson, 

Senior Manager, IT Planning & Governance, 

Information Services. 

[FR Doc. E7–23828 Filed 12–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Hawai‘i County, HI 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA)—Central 

Federal Lands Highway Division 

(CFLHD), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: FHWA–CFLHD is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for a 

proposed highway project in Hawai‘i 

County, Hawai‘i. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ricardo Suarez, Division CFLHD 

Engineer, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, 

Lakewood, CO 80228 and/or Ronald F. 

Tsuzuki, State Department of 

Transportation, Highways Division, 

Planning Branch, 869 Punchbowl Street, 

Honolulu, HI 96813. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in consultation with the Hawaii 

Department of Transportation (HDOT), 

will prepare a supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) 

for an ongoing project to improve and 

realign the Saddle Road (State Highway 

200), an existing highway in Hawai‘i 

County, Hawai‘i. The purpose of the 

project is to provide a safe and efficient 

route for access to land uses along 

Saddle Road and for cross-island traffic 

between East and West Hawai‘i. The 

ongoing and planned improvements to 

Saddle Road would also address five 

general types of needs: Roadway 

deficiencies, conflicts and hazards with 

military operations, capacity, safety, and 

social demand and economic 

development. The final environmental 

impact statement (EIS) for the project 

was completed August 9, 1999, and the 

Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on 

October 30, 1999. The project began 

construction in 2004 and approximately 

30% of the project has been completed 

or is now under construction. In 2006, 

the Department of the Army (Army) 

purchased a Parker Ranch property 

known as the Ke‘a ̄muku parcel. This 

property included the area planned for 

the selected alternative (W–3) for 

western section of the Saddle Road. On 

September 6, 2006, the U.S. Army 

Garrison, Hawai‘i, requested that HDOT 

and FHWA consider relocating the 

highway about a mile southwest 

towards the southern boundary of 

Ke‘a ̄muku. This would allow the Army 

to maximize its training opportunities 

and minimize conflict with the traveling 

public. This request meets one of the 

original purposes of the Saddle Road 

EIS, which was to minimize conflict 

between civilian and military uses in 

the area, and FHWA and HDOT thus 

have determined that it is prudent to reexamine the alternatives for the western 

section of the EIS. Alternatives under 

consideration at this time include (1) 

taking no action; (2) using the 

alternative for the western section of the 

project that was recommended in the 

Final EIS and selected in the ROD; and 

(3) relocating this segment of the 

highway nearer the southern boundary 

of the Ke‘a ̄muku parcel. The SEIS will 

also reconfirm the reasons that 

alternatives for the western section were 

dropped from consideration in the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2007 / Notices 69727 

original EIS, and reconsider them, if 

appropriate. 

Because public scoping meetings for 

the Saddle Road Improvements project 

were held in Hilo, Kona and Waimea 

during the development of the original 

EIS, no additional scoping is required 

for an ongoing project, where an SEIS is 

prepared that does not involve a 

reassessment of the entire action. 

However, letters describing the 

proposed action and soliciting 

comments will be sent to appropriate 

Federal, State and local agencies, and to 

private organizations and citizens who 

have previously expressed or are known 

to have interest in this proposal. Public 

hearings will be held in both West and 

East Hawai‘i. Public notice will be given 

of the time and place of the hearings. 

The draft SEIS will be available for 

public and agency review and comment 

prior to the public hearing. To ensure 

that the full range of issues related to 

this proposed action are addressed and 

that all significant issues are identified, 

comments and suggestions are invited 

from all interested parties. Comments or 

questions concerning this proposed 

action and the SEIS should be directed 

to the FHWA–CFLHD or the HDOT at 

the addresses provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal Programs and activities apply to this 

program) 

Issued on: November 27, 2007. 

Ricardo Suarez, P.E., 

Division Engineer, CFLHD. 

[FR Doc. 07–5988 Filed 12–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

reasons for the denial of a petition 

submitted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162 

by Mr. Richard H. McSwain of McSwain 

Engineering Inc. to NHTSA’s Office of 

Defects Investigation (ODI), received 

June 29, 2007, requesting that the 

agency commence a proceeding to 

determine the existence of a defect 

related to motor vehicle safety with 

respect to the manual seatback recliner 

mechanism in model year 1989–1992 

Ford Probe vehicles (subject vehicles). 

After a review of the petition and other 

information, NHTSA has concluded that 

further expenditure of the agency’s 

investigative resources on the issues 

raised by the petition does not appear to 

be warranted. The agency accordingly 

has denied the petition. The petition is 

hereinafter identified as DP07–001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Steve Chan, Safety Defects Engineer, 

Defects Assessment Division, Office of 

Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–8537. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

29, 2007, NHTSA received a petition 

from Mr. Richard H. McSwain of 

McSwain Engineering Inc., requesting 

that the agency investigate the failure of 

the seatback recliner mechanisms in the 

subject vehicles. The petition is based 

on an examination of a passenger side 

front seat recliner mechanism from a 

subject vehicle involved in a multivehicle collision, of an exemplar seat, as 

well as mechanical testing of a seat from 

a subject vehicle. The petitioner 

identified a failure mode involving 

bypass of the seatback stop pin (inside 

the recliner mechanism) during forward 

movement of the seatback, such as when 

entering and exiting the rear seat. The 

petition stated that stop pin bypass 

allows the recliner mechanism sector 

gear to over-travel with respect to the 

pawl. Return of the seatback to the 

upright position may then bend the first 

tooth of the pawl, resulting in a false or 

partial engagement of the sector and 

pawl teeth. This false engagement 

condition is transmitted to the opposing 

recliner mechanism via a mechanical 

communication cable. According to the 

petition, the ultimate result is the 

inability of the recliner mechanism to 

support the seatback during a collision 

event. The petitioner concluded that the 

stop pin bypass that initiated the failure 

mode is a result of inadequate height of 

the pin and the resulting inadequate 

contact between the pin and seatback 

stop. 

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 207 ‘‘Seating 

Systems,’’ specifies that seats in 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet 

certain static force test requirements. 

However, for seats that hinge on folding 

seatbacks, the restraining device, once 

engaged, shall not release when a force 

equal to twenty times the weight of the 

seatback is applied through the center of 

gravity for the seat in the direction the 

seat is facing. It is not uncommon to see 

the seatbacks of new vehicles moved 

from their initial positions after a 

FMVSS simulated vehicular collision. 

The identified failure mode may be 

the result of progressive wear and tear 

of the seatback stop pin, the seatback 

stop, and other seat components in 

vehicles that are, on average, 17 years 

old. Available data do not suggest that 

this has occurred with a notable 

frequency. ODI reviewed its consumer 

complaint data received over the last 

nineteen years and found no complaints 

of seatback collapse (with or without a 

vehicle collision) in the subject 

vehicles. 

In view of the foregoing, and 

considering the advanced age of the 

subject vehicles, it is unlikely that 

NHTSA would issue an order for the 

notification and remedy of the alleged 

defect as defined by the petitioner at the 

conclusion of the investigation 

requested in the petition. The statutory 

requirement that the manufacturer 

provide a free remedy does not apply if 

the vehicle was bought by the first 

purchaser more than 10 calendar years 

before an order is issued. Therefore, in 

view of the need to allocate and 

prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to 

best accomplish the agency’s safety 

mission, the petition is denied. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations 

of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: December 4, 2007. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–23853 Filed 12–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0042; Notice 1] 

General Motors Corporation, Receipt 

of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

General Motors Corporation (GM) has 

determined that certain model year 

2005, 2006 & 2007 Cadillac STS 

passenger cars equipped with sunroofs 

do not fully comply with paragraph 

S4(e) of 49 CFR 571.118, Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, 

and Roof Panel Systems. GM has filed 

an appropriate report pursuant to 49 

CFR Part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h), GM has petitioned for an 

exemption from the notification and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES