Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2004 / Notices 70501

(i) Relevant government procurement 

issues that should be addressed in the 

negotiations. 

(j) Relevant environmental and labor 

issues that should be addressed in the 

negotiations. 

Comments identifying as present or 

potential trade barriers laws or 

regulations that are not primarily traderelated should address the economic, 

political, and social objectives of such 

regulations and the degree to which 

they discriminate against producers of 

the other country. At a later date, the 

USTR, through the TPSC, will publish 

notice of reviews regarding (a) the 

possible environmental effects of the 

proposed agreement and the scope of 

the U.S. environmental review of the 

proposed agreement, and (b) the impact 

of the proposed agreement on U.S. 

employment and labor markets. 

A hearing will be held on January 12, 

2005, in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street, 

NW., Washington, DC. Persons wishing 

to testify at the hearing must provide 

written notification of their intent to 

testify by January 5, 2005. The 

notification should include: (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the person presenting the testimony; 

and (2) a short (one or two paragraphs) 

summary of the presentation, including 

the subject matter and, as applicable, 

the product(s) (with HTSUS numbers), 

service sector(s), or other subjects (such 

as investment, intellectual property, 

and/or government procurement) to be 

discussed. A copy of the testimony must 

accompany the notification. Remarks at 

the hearing should be limited to no 

more than five minutes to allow for 

possible questions from the TPSC. 

Persons with mobility impairments who 

will need special assistance in gaining 

access to the hearing should contact the 

TPSC Executive Secretary. 

Interested persons, including persons 

who participate in the hearing, may 

submit written comments by noon, 

January 25, 2005. Written comments 

may include rebuttal points 

demonstrating errors of fact or analysis 

not pointed out in the hearing. All 

written comments must state clearly the 

position taken, describe with 

particularity the supporting rationale, 

and be in English. The first page of 

written comments must specify the 

subject matter, including, as applicable, 

the product(s) (with HTSUS numbers), 

service sector(s), or other subjects (such 

as investment, intellectual property 

and/or government procurement). 

3. Requirements for Submissions 

In order to facilitate prompt 

processing of submissions, the Office of 

the United States Trade Representative 

strongly urges and prefers electronic (email) submissions in response to this 

notice. In the event that an e-mail 

submission is impossible, submissions 

should be made by facsimile. 

Persons making submissions by email should use the following subject 

line: ‘‘United States-United Arab 

Emirates Free Trade Agreement,’’

followed by (as appropriate) ‘‘Notice of 

Intent to Testify,’’ ‘‘Testimony,’’ or 

‘‘Written Comments.’’ Documents 

should be submitted as either 

WordPerfect, MSWord, or text (.TXT) 

files. Spreadsheets submitted as 

supporting documentation are 

acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel. If 

any document submitted electronically 

contains business confidential 

information, the file name of the 

business confidential version should 

begin with the characters ‘‘BC—,’’ and 

the file name of the public version 

should begin with the characters ‘‘P—.’’

The ‘‘P—’’ or ‘‘BC—’’ should be 

followed by the name of the submitter. 

Persons who make submissions by email should not provide separate cover 

letters; information that might appear in 

a cover letter should be included in the 

submission itself. To the extent 

possible, any attachments to the 

submission should be included in the 

same file as the submission itself, and 

not as separate files. 

Written comments, notice of 

testimony, and testimony will be placed 

in a file open to public inspection 

pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except 

business confidential information 

exempt from public inspection in 

accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. 

Business confidential information 

submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 

2003.6 must be clearly marked 

‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ at the top 

of each page, including any cover letter 

or cover page, and must be accompanied 

by a non-confidential summary of the 

confidential information. All public 

documents and non-confidential 

summaries shall be available for public 

inspection in the USTR Reading Room. 

The USTR Reading Room is open to the 

public, by appointment only, from 10 

a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. An 

appointment to review the file must be 

scheduled at least 48 hours in advance 

and may be made by calling (202) 395–

6186. 

General information concerning the 

Office of the United States Trade 

Representative may be obtained by 

accessing its Internet Web site (http://

www.ustr.gov).

Carmen Suro-Bredie, 

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.

[FR Doc. 04–26677 Filed 12–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W5–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration 

United We Ride State Coordination 

Grants Announcement

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice identifies state 

agencies selected for United We Ride 

State Coordination Grants and provides 

instructions for applying for the grant 

funds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: State agencies selected 

for State Coordination Grants may begin 

application procedures upon receipt of 

letters from FTA Administrator Jennifer 

L. Dorn informing them of their 

selection. Applicants should submit 

their electronic grant applications to 

FTA by February 28, 2005. Grant 

activities should be complete, with all 

funds drawn down from the grant, by 

February 28, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Applicants may contact the appropriate 

FTA Regional Administrator (see 

Appendix A) for grant-specific issues; or 

Elizabeth Solomon, 202–366–0242, for 

general information about the United 

We Ride State Coordination Grants.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Those 

states selected for funding were found to 

meet the objective of the United We 

Ride initiative which is to implement 

the President’s Executive Order on 

Human Service Transportation 

Coordination by breaking down barriers 

among Federal programs to enhance 

coordination of human service 

transportation programs for individuals 

with disabilities, older adults, and lower 

income populations who depend on 

transportation services to access 

employment, health, and other 

community services. The purpose of the 

State Coordination Grants is to increase 

the overall capacity of states to deliver 

comprehensive and coordinated human 

services transportation that meets the 

needs of transportation-disadvantaged 

individuals and to increase cross-agency 

collaboration to facilitate coordination, 

enhance services, and address 

redundancies of programs and services. 

These grants may be used to assist states 

in conducting a comprehensive state 

70502 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2004 / Notices 

assessment using the United We Ride 

Framework for Action; developing a 

comprehensive state action plan for 

coordinating human services 

transportation; or, for those states that 

already have a comprehensive state 

action plan, to implement one or more 

of the elements identified in the 

Framework for Action. 

Grant Selections. The solicitation 

announcement for the United We Ride 

state coordination grants called for 

applications to be submitted by August 

23, 2004. FTA received 45 proposals, all 

of which were evaluated and approved 

by an interagency team of reviewers. 

Grants will be made for between 

$19,000 and $35,000. No local match is 

required for these grants. Of the 

applicants, 38 are state DOTs and the 

remaining seven are various other state 

agencies. We encourage these other state 

applicants to partner with the state 

DOTs for submittal of grant 

applications.

State Lead agency Amount 

Alabama ............................. Alabama Department of Senior Services ........................................................................................... $35,000 

Alaska ................................. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ............................................................... 35,000 

Arizona ............................... Arizona Department of Transportation ............................................................................................... 35,000 

Arkansas ............................. Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department ................................................................. 19,000 

California ............................ California Department of Transportation ............................................................................................ 34,027 

Colorado ............................. Colorado Department of Transportation ............................................................................................. 35,000 

Connecticut ......................... Connecticut Department of Transportation ........................................................................................ 35,000 

Delaware ............................ Delaware Transit Corporation ............................................................................................................. 35,000 

District of Columbia ............ Washington DC Department of Transportation .................................................................................. 35,000 

Florida ................................. Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged ............................................................... 35,000 

Georgia ............................... Georgia Department of Transportation ............................................................................................... 34,750 

Idaho ................................... Idaho Department of Transportation .................................................................................................. 35,000 

Illinois .................................. Illinois Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 35,000 

Iowa .................................... Iowa Department of Transportation .................................................................................................... 30,000 

Kansas ................................ Kansas Department of Transportation ............................................................................................... 35,000 

Kentucky ............................. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet ....................................................................................................... 35,000 

Louisiana ............................ Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development .............................................................. 34,984 

Maine .................................. Maine Department of Transportation .................................................................................................. 35,000 

Maryland ............................. Maryland Transit Administration ......................................................................................................... 35,000 

Massachusetts .................... Massachusetts Human Service Transportation Office ....................................................................... 35,000 

Michigan ............................. Michigan Department of Transportation ............................................................................................. 35,000 

Minnesota ........................... Minnesota Department of Transportation ........................................................................................... 35,000 

Mississippi .......................... Mississippi Division of Medicaid ......................................................................................................... 35,000 

Missouri .............................. Missouri Department of Transportation .............................................................................................. 35,000 

Montana .............................. Office of the Governor ........................................................................................................................ 25,450 

Nebraska ............................ Nebraska Department of Roads ......................................................................................................... 35,000 

Nevada ............................... Nevada Department of Transportation ............................................................................................... 30,000 

New Hampshire .................. New Hampshire Department of Transportation .................................................................................. 35,000 

New Jersey ......................... New Jersey Transit Corporation ......................................................................................................... 35,000 

New Mexico ........................ New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department ............................................................ 35,000 

New York ............................ New York Department of Transportation ............................................................................................ 35,000 

North Carolina .................... North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services .............................................................. 35,000 

Ohio .................................... Ohio Department of Transportation .................................................................................................... 28,700 

Oklahoma ........................... Oklahoma Department of Transportation ........................................................................................... 35,000 

Oregon ................................ Oregon Department of Transportation ............................................................................................... 35,000 

Pennsylvania ...................... Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ...................................................................................... 35,000 

South Carolina .................... South Carolina Department of Transportation ................................................................................... 35,000 

Tennessee .......................... Tennessee Department of Transportation .......................................................................................... 35,000 

Texas .................................. Texas Department of Transportation .................................................................................................. 35,000 

Utah .................................... Utah Department of Transportation .................................................................................................... 35,000 

Vermont .............................. Vermont Agency of Transportation ..................................................................................................... 35,000 

Virgin Islands ...................... Virgin Islands Department of Public Works ........................................................................................ 35,000 

Virginia ................................ Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation ...................................................................... 35,000 

West Virginia ...................... West Virginia Division of Public Transit ............................................................................................. 35,000 

Wisconsin ........................... Wisconsin Bureau of Aging and Long Term Care ............................................................................. 29,816 

Eligible Costs. Funds may be used to 

support personnel for planning, 

training, coordination, and other 

administrative activities required to 

enhance coordination among and across 

agencies within the state. Supplies, 

small equipment (computers, etc.), and 

travel are also eligible expenses. 

Ineligible Costs. Funds may not be 

used for provision of transportation 

services, such as for capital costs for 

large equipment, e.g. vehicles, or 

operating costs.

Planning Requirements. Because the 

State Coordination grants are financed 

with planning and research funds, they 

are exempt from inclusion in the 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Programs (TIPs) and the 

State Transportation Improvement 

Programs (STIPs). However, FTA 

encourages States to share information 

on their proposed work activities with 

affected local officials. In urbanized 

areas, States are encouraged to 

coordinate with Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs), including 

possible reference of their work 

activities in the Unified Planning Work 

Program. In non-urbanized areas, States 

are encouraged to share information on 

proposed State Coordination Grant 

activities with local officials through 

each State’s required consultation 

process with non-metropolitan local 

officials regarding participation in 

statewide transportation planning and 

programming. FTA regards the 

involvement of local officials as critical 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2004 / Notices 70503

to achieving effective coordination of 

human services transportation. 

Pre-Award Authority. Costs may be 

incurred for activities in the approved 

proposal prior to FTA approval. 

However, in exercising pre-award 

authority, applicants must comply with 

all Federal requirements. Failure to do 

so will render costs ineligible for FTA 

financial assistance. Applicants must 

consult the appropriate FTA regional 

office regarding the eligibility of the 

project for future FTA funds or the 

applicability of the conditions and 

Federal requirements. Pre-award 

spending authority is provided effective 

as of November 9, 2004, the date on 

which letters of project selection were 

sent to applicants. 

Certification and Assurances. In 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5323(n), 

certifications and assurances have been 

compiled for the various FTA programs. 

Before FTA may award a Federal grant, 

each successful applicant must provide 

to FTA all certifications and assurances 

required by Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to itself and its 

project. A state providing certifications 

and assurances on behalf of its 

prospective subrecipients should obtain 

sufficient documentation from those 

subrecipients needed to provide 

informed certifications and assurances. 

All of the Federal requirements that 

apply to State Coordination grant 

applicants are included in those 

applicable to all grantees, so Category 1, 

Required of Each Applicant, is the 

category that State Coordination Grant 

applicants will select. If FTA already 

has the State applicant’s signed 

certifications and assurances for the 

current fiscal year and it has provided 

adequate certifications and assurances 

to qualify for a State Coordination 

Grant, the State applicant need not 

submit separate certifications and 

assurances for assistance. FTA’s (FY) 

2005 Certifications and Assurances 

Notice was published in the Federal 

Register on October 26, 2004. A copy of 

that Federal Register notice can be 

found on the FTA Web site at http://

www.fta.dot.gov/legal/federal_register/

2004/12174_16165_ENG_HTML.htm. 

The document is also available on the 

Main Menu of the Transportation 

Electronic Award and Management 

(TEAM) Web site. Applicants that need 

further assistance should contact the 

appropriate FTA regional office (see 

Appendix A) for further information. 

Applying for Funds. Applicants for 

State Coordination funds will submit 

their applications electronically through 

TEAM, the Web-based FTA electronic 

system that FTA uses for grant award 

and management. The content of these 

grant applications must reflect the 

approved proposal. This application 

does not require Department of Labor 

Certification. Regional Office (Appendix 

A) staff can advise how specific laws, 

regulations, Federal Register notices, 

and Executive Orders may be obtained. 

Payment Procedures. All FTA 

payments to grantees are made through 

the Electronic Clearing House Operation 

(ECHO) system. New grantees can work 

with regional staff to obtain an ECHO 

account number and a password for 

ECHO access. Grantees may transmit an 

ECHO drawdown request message to 

FTA in order to receive funds necessary 

to meet immediate cash disbursement 

needs. The ECHO system processes the 

grantee’s message and if no problems 

are noted by FTA, the amount requested 

is transmitted to Treasury. Treasury 

electronically transfers the payment to 

the grantee’s financial institution within 

24 hours. 

Reporting Requirements. By October 

31 each year, the state should submit to 

FTA a milestone progress report and a 

financial status report in TEAM for each 

active grant covering the 12-month 

period ending September 30 or the 

period from when the grant was 

awarded through September 30, and, 

upon completion of the grant project, 

submit a final report. These reports are 

intended to meet at least the minimal 

program information needs at the 

regional and national levels. Copies of 

planning documents or products 

developed from grant activities, if any, 

can be submitted as attachments in the 

TEAM system. Grantees must also 

submit the Overall State SelfAssessment of the Framework for 

Action. Grantees can: access this 

document at http://www.fta.dot.gov/

ccam/framework_states.doc; copy the 

Overall State Self-Assessment page near 

the end of the document; and provide, 

in text, ratings for each of the six 

sections. The document can then be 

saved as a text document and submitted 

as an attachment in TEAM with an 

annual or final report. 

Data Collection. United We Ride is 

targeted to simplify access to 

transportation services, reduce 

duplication and increase cost 

efficiencies. Too often, information to 

measure our progress in coordinating 

human service transportation and 

achieving cost and service results is 

lacking. FTA will be providing guidance 

to assist grantees with collecting data 

regarding expenditures, costs and 

benefits of coordinated transportation 

services.

Issued on November 30, 2004. 

Jennifer L. Dorn, 

Administrator.

Appendix A—FTA Regional Offices 

Region I 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

Richard Doyle, FTA Regional Administrator, 

Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center, Kendall Square, 55 Broadway, Suite 

920, Cambridge, MA 02142–1093, (617) 494–

2055. 

Region II 

New Jersey, New York, and Virgin Islands. 

Letitia Thompson, FTA Regional 

Administrator, One Bowling Green, Room 

429, New York, NY 10004–1415, (212) 668–

2170. 

Region III 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

Susan Borinsky, FTA Regional 

Administrator, 1760 Market Street, Suite 500, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–4124, (215) 656–

7100. 

Region IV 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee. Hiram 

Walker, FTA Regional Administrator, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 17T50, Atlanta, GA 

30303, (404) 562–3500. 

Region V 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin. Joel Ettinger, FTA 

Regional Administrator, 200 West Adams 

Street, Suite 2410, Chicago, IL 60606–5232, 

(312) 353–2789. 

Region VI 

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. Robert Patrick, FTA 

Regional Administrator, 819 Taylor Street, 

Room 8A36, Ft. Worth, TX 76102, (817) 978–

0550. 

Region VII 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 

Mokhtee Ahmad, FTA Regional 

Administrator, 901 Locust Street, Suite 404, 

Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329–3920. 

Region VIII 

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Lee Waddleton, 

FTA Regional Administrator, 12300 West 

Dakota, Suite 310, Lakewood, CO 80228–

2583, (720) 963–3300. 

Region IX 

American Samoa, Arizona, California, 

Guam, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands. Leslie Rogers, FTA Regional 

Administrator, 201 Mission Street, Suite 

2210, San Francisco, CA 94105–1839, (415) 

744–3133. 

Region X 

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. 

Richard F. Krochalis, FTA Regional 

Administrator, Jackson Federal Building, 915 

70504 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2004 / Notices 

Second Avenue, Suite 3142, Seattle, WA 

98174–1002, (206) 220–7954.

[FR Doc. 04–26751 Filed 12–3–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19737] 

Notice of Receipt of Petition for 

Decision That Nonconforming 2004 

Mercedes Benz Type 463 Short Wheel 

Base (SWB) Gelaendewagen 

Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles 

(MPVs) Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

decision that nonconforming 2004 

Mercedes Benz type 463 SWB 

Gelaendewagen MPVs are eligible for 

importation. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

receipt by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a 

petition for a decision that 2004 

Mercedes Benz type 463 SWB 

Gelaendewagen MPVs that were not 

originally manufactured to comply with 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards are eligible for 

importation into the United States 

because (1) they are substantially 

similar to vehicles that were originally 

manufactured for importation into and 

sale in the United States and that were 

certified by their manufacturer as 

complying with the safety standards, 

and (2) they are capable of being readily 

altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is January 5, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket number and notice number, 

and be submitted to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 

20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 

5 pm]. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151).

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. 

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

motor vehicle that was not originally 

manufactured to conform to all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards may also be granted 

admission into the United States, even 

if there is no substantially similar motor 

vehicle of the same model year 

originally manufactured for importation 

into and sale in United States, if the 

safety features of the vehicle comply 

with or are capable of being altered to 

comply with those standards based on 

destructive test information or other 

evidence that NHTSA decides is 

adequate. 

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. 

J.K. Motors of Baltimore, Maryland 

(‘‘J.K.’’) (Registered Importer 90–006) 

has petitioned NHTSA to decide 

whether 2004 Type 463 SWB 

Gelaendewagen MPVs are eligible for 

importation into the United States. J.K. 

has identified its petition as pertaining 

to both the Cabriolet and the Three Door 

versions of these vehicles. J.K. believes 

that these vehicles can be made to 

conform to all applicable Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

In its petition, J.K. noted that NHTSA 

has granted import eligibility to 2001–

2003 Mercedes Benz type 463 SWB 

Gelaendewagen MPVs (VCP–25) that 

they claim are identical to the 2004 

Mercedes Benz type 463 SWB 

Gelaendewagen MPVs that are the 

subject of this petition. In their petition 

for the 2001–2003 vehicles the 

petitioner stated that over a period of 

ten years, NHTSA has granted import 

eligibility to a number of Mercedes Benz 

Gelaendewagen type 463 vehicles. 

These include the 1990–1996 SWB 

version of the vehicle (assigned vehicle 

eligibility number VCP–14) and the 

1996 through 2001 long wheel base 

(LWB) version of the vehicle (assigned 

vehicle eligibility numbers VCP–11, 15, 

16, 18, and 21). These eligibility 

decisions were based on petitions 

submitted by J.K. and another register 

importer, Europa International, Inc., 

claiming that the vehicles were capable 

of being altered to comply with all 

applicable FMVSS. Because those 

vehicles were not manufactured for 

importation into and sale in the United 

States, and were not certified by their 

original manufacturer (Daimler Benz), as 

conforming to all applicable FMVSS, 

they cannot be categorized as 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to the 2004 SWB 

versions for purposes of establishing 

import eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 

30141(a)(1)(A). In addition, while there 

are some similarities between the SWB 

and LWB versions, NHTSA has decided 

that the 2002 through 2005 LWB 

versions of the vehicle that Mercedes 

Benz has manufactured for importation 

into and sale in the United States cannot 

be categorized as substantially similar to 

the SWB versions for the purpose of 

establishing import eligibility under 

section 30141(a)(1)(A). Therefore, we 

will construe J.K.’s petition as a petition 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B). 

J.K. submitted information with its 

petition intended to demonstrate that 

2004 Type 463 SWB Gelaendewagen 

MPVs, as originally manufactured, 

comply with many applicable FMVSS 

and are capable of being modified to 

comply with all other applicable 

standards to which they were not 

originally manufactured to conform. 

Specifically, the petitioner claims that 

2004 Type 463 SWB Gelaendewagen 

MPVs has safety features that comply 

with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission 

Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, 

and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and 

Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 

Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle 

Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires 

for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, 

124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 

Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201 

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 

202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering 

Control Rearward Displacement, 205 

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and