10948 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Notices

[FR Doc. 01–4109 Filed 2–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8842; Notice 1]

General Motors Corporation; Receipt

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) of

Warren, Michigan, has determined that

it has manufactured approximately

33,916 vehicles that fail to comply with

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 225, ‘‘Child Restraint

Anchorage Systems,’’ and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

Part 573, ‘‘Defects 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.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgement concerning the

merits of the petition.

FMVSS No. 225 establishes

requirements for child restraint

anchorage systems to ensure their

proper location and strength for the

effective securing of child restraints, to

reduce the likelihood of the anchorage

systems’ failure, and to increase the

likelihood that child restraints are

properly secured and thus more fully

achieve their potential effectiveness in

motor vehicles. S15.1.2 of the standard

prescribes the dimensions and location

of the anchorages. Specifically,

S15.1.2.1(a) requires that the lower

anchorages be 6 mm ± 0.1 mm in

diameter.

GM has determined that certain

vehicles it has manufactured have lower

anchorages that do not meet the

requirements of S15.1.2.1(a). The

vehicles containing the noncompliance

are certain 2001 Model Year Chevrolet

Venture, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Pontiac

Montana and Aztek model vehicles.

Approximately 17,377 Pontiac Aztecs

and 5,215 Pontiac Montanas, 8,370

Chevrolet Ventures, and 2,954

Oldsmobile Silhouette (U–vans) were

built with lower anchorage bars whose

diameter are either above or below the

required 6.0 ± 0.1 mm.

GM supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with the

following:

In the case of the Aztek, this condition was

caused by the inadvertent release of

component drawings that allowed the lower

anchorage bar material to be supplied out of

compliance. For the U vans and Azteks, it

was not originally known that the coating

process for the lower anchorage bar was not

capable of holding the required tolerance. As

a result, some of the lower anchorages of the

subject vehicles do not meet the diameter

specification.

These lower anchorages do, however, meet

all of the location, strength and marking

requirements of FMVSS 225. In the static

strength test, the lower anchor bars are the

first structural parts to deform. The static

strength performance requirements of the

standard are met even though anchor bars

that meet the diameter specification fully

deform in the static strength test. Based on

analysis, the smallest diameter bars will not

deform any more than those that meet the

diameter requirement and, therefore, the

static strength performance requirements for

the lower anchorages will still be met. The

ultimate load potential of the seat/vehicle

system is not affected by the smaller diameter

anchor bars because the bars are not the load

limiting component.

The purpose of the diameter specification

is to ensure compatibility with child

restraints that contain the new LATCH

attachment mechanisms. Child restraint

manufacturers currently offer to U.S.

customers two child seats with LATCH

attachment mechanisms: the Fisher Price

Safe Embrace and the Cosco Triad. Both of

these child seats use a hook mechanism to

attach to the lower anchorage bars. This hook

mechanism has the same configuration and

geometry as the top tether hook specified in

Figure 11 of FMVSS 213. Based on our

examination of these hooks, the integrity and

performance of the attachment will not be

materially affected by the small deviations

from the specification for the diameter of the

lower anchor. Consistent with our

observations about the compatibility of the

lower anchors with the available child seats,

GM has received no warranty claims or

customer complaints about these anchors.

GM personnel have seen other proposed

child seats using the LATCH attachment

mechanism that may be offered in the United

States. GM is not aware of any proposed U.S.

child seat latch mechanism that would not be

compatible with the anchors on the subject

vehicles. Furthermore, all child seats, in

addition to the requirements for a latch

mechanism, must also be designed to work

with the vehicle seat belt system. Therefore,

each child seat, whether LATCH compatible

or not, will be able to be safely secured to

each of these vehicles. We cannot rule out

the possibility of an incompatible attachment

mechanism in the future. While we do not

think it is likely, it is possible that a slotted

attachment could be designed and that the

slot might be too small to accept some of

these anchors that exceed 6.1 mm. To

address this situation, GM plans to send a

letter to owners to advise them on how to

handle such a situation. We do not forsee any

problem with future designs and the anchors

that are below 5.9 mm.

GM believes that all LATCH equipped

child restraints today and those expected in

the near future will successfully attach to the

lower anchorage bars on these vehicles. The

letter will address future issues, if they

should occur. As a result, GM believes that

this noncompliance with S15.1.2.1 of FMVSS

225 is inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety, and therefore, requests the affected

vehicles be exempted from the notification,

recall and remedy provisions of Section

30120 of the Safety Act.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of GM

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested, but not required,

that two copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: March 22,

2001.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: February 13, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–4097 Filed 2–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 166X)]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in Adams

and Hall Counties, NE (Hansen

Industrial Lead Between Hastings and

Hansen, NE)

On January 31, 2001, Union Pacific

Railroad Company (UP) filed with the

Surface Transportation Board (Board) a

petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for

exemption from the provisions of 49

U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a line of

railroad known as the Hansen Industrial

Lead, extending from milepost 1.0 near

Hastings to the end of the line at

milepost 7.50 at Hansen, in Adams and

Hall Counties, NE, a distance of 6.50

miles. The line traverses U.S. Postal

Service Zip Code 68901. There are no

stations on the line.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Notices 10949

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 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 offer of financial assistance must be

accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is

set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

The line does not contain federally

granted rights-of-way. Any

documentation in UP’s possession will

be made available promptly to those

requesting it.

The interest of railroad employees

will be protected by the conditions set

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979).

By issuance of this notice, the Board

is instituting an exemption proceeding

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final

decision will be issued by May 21, 2001.

Any offer of financial assistance

(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will

be due no later than 10 days after

service of a decision granting the

petition for exemption. Each OFA must

be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee.

See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

All interested persons should be

aware that, following abandonment of

rail service and salvage of the line, the

line may be suitable for other public

use, including interim trail use. Any

request for a public use condition under

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be

due no later than March 12, 2001. Each

trail use request must be accompanied

by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR

1002.2(f)(27).

All filings in response to this notice

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–33

(Sub-No. 166X) and must be sent to: (1)

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001; and (2) James P. Gatlin, General

Attorney, 1416 Dodge Street, Room 830,

Omaha, NE 68179–0830. Replies to the

UP petition are due on or before March

12, 2001.

Persons seeking further information

concerning abandonment procedures

may contact the Board’s Office of Public

Services at (202) 565–1592 or refer to

the full abandonment or discontinuance

regulations at 49 CFR part 1152.

Questions concerning environmental

issues may be directed to the Board’s

Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA) at (202) 565–1545. [TDD for the

hearing impaired is available at 1–800–

877–8339.]

An environmental assessment (EA) (or

environmental impact statement (EIS), if

necessary) prepared by SEA will be

served upon all parties of record and

upon any agencies or other persons who

commented during its preparation.

Other interested persons may contact

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS).

EAs in these abandonment proceedings

normally will be made available within

60 days of the filing of the petition. The

deadline for submission of comments on

the EA will generally be within 30 days

of its service.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: February 7, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3759 Filed 2–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 165X)]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in Caddo

Parish, LA

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)

has filed a notice of exemption under 49

CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt

Abandonments and Discontinuances of

Service and Trackage Rights to abandon

a 0.47-mile line of railroad over the

Good Roads Lead from milepost 8.21 to

milepost 8.68 in Shreveport, Caddo

Parish, LA. The line traverses United

States Postal Service Zip Codes 71101

and 71103.

UP has certified that: (1) No local

traffic has moved over the line for at

least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead

traffic moving over the line; (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 (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 and discontinuance 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 March 22, 2001, 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 March 2, 2001.

Petitions to reopen or requests for

public use conditions under 49 CFR

1152.28 must be filed by March 12,

2001, with: Surface Transportation

Board, Office of the Secretary, Case

Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423.